INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID LESSTRANG, DARREN BENJAMIN, JASON GRAY, 

ERICA RHOAD, and COLIN VICKERY, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 6 

Page 

Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior ..... 1 

Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection 

Agency ............................................................................................................... 149 

Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Budget Oversight 

Hearing ............................................................................................................. 247 

Department of the Interior FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing .......... 547 

National Park Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing .................... 707 

Bureau of Land Management FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing ...... 763 

Office of Surface Mining FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing ............... 855 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
MMCEPA 

MMCDOI 

PART 6 

OSM 

BLM 

NPS 

DOI 

EPA 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID LESSTRANG, DARREN BENJAMIN, JASON GRAY, 

ERICA RHOAD, and COLIN VICKERY, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 6 

Page 

Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior ..... 1 

Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection 

Agency ............................................................................................................... 149 

Environmental Protection Agency FY 2012 Budget Oversight 

Hearing ............................................................................................................. 247 

Department of the Interior FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing .......... 547 

National Park Service FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing .................... 707 

Bureau of Land Management FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing ...... 763 

Office of Surface Mining FY 2012 Budget Oversight Hearing ............... 855 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

66–892 WASHINGTON : 2011 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011. 

MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AT THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

WITNESSES 

ANU MITTAL, DIRECTOR, THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION, GAO 

FRANK RUSCO, DIRECTOR, THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT DIVISION, GAO 

MARY KENDALL, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SIMPSON. The committee will come to order. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

I want to welcome the members of the subcommittee that are 

here as well as our panel of witnesses this morning from the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Interior’s Office of Inspector General. We have about three new members of the 

committee that we will introduce when they come, Mrs. Lummis, 

Mr. Flake and Mr. Serrano, who are new to the Interior Subcommittee, and we will introduce them when they come and welcome them to the committee. 

Our first witness today is Ms. Anu Mittal, Director of the Natural Resources and Environment Division at the GAO. She will be 

joined by Dr. Frank Rusco, also Director of the Natural Resources 

and Environmental Division at the GAO. They will be followed by 

Mrs. Mary Kendall, the Acting Inspector General at the Department of Interior. We appreciate each of you appearing before the 

subcommittee this morning. 

This morning’s session marks the first of two dozen hearings that 

the Interior Subcommittee will hold between now and mid-April. 

Our primary focus throughout these hearings will be on oversight 

of the programs and budgets under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

Oversight is especially important this year as we ask agencies to 

prioritize their funding needs to separate the ‘‘must haves’’ from 

the ‘‘nice to haves’’ at this time of rising deficits and shrinking subcommittee allocations. 

Assisting us in this effort will be the highly respected, nonpartisan GAO and several independent agency IGs. In hearings 

today, tomorrow and next week, we will examine in detail proVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
2 

grammatic concerns and management issues within the Department of Interior, the Forest Service and the EPA. We have asked 

our witnesses to identify and summarize specific concerns about 

programs and policies within each agency. Together, the GAO and 

the agencies’ IGs will testify about the major management challenges facing these agencies so our subcommittee will be better informed to address these challenges and better prepared to write 

the subcommittee’s fiscal year 2012 budget. 

The issues highlighted by this morning’s testimony point to some 

of the fundamental weaknesses within the Department of Interior 

deserving of attention by the Appropriations Committee and this 

Congress. The same is true for the testimony we will receive tomorrow relating to the EPA and next week relating to the Forest Service. Taken together, this testimony will help members formulate 

questions when we hear from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at 

this Thursday’s budget hearing and from Interior Secretary Ken 

Salazar and the Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell at next week’s 

budget hearings. 

Because of the importance of today’s testimony, the subcommittee is allocating 15 minutes each for the GAO and the IG 

for opening statements so that they can adequately present their 

concerns for members. We will first hear from the GAO and then 

from the Inspector General followed by members’ questions. 

I will turn the time over to Ms. McCollum if you have an opening 

statement. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MS. MCCOLLUM

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. 

It is extremely important for Congress and especially the members of this subcommittee to base decisions on facts, and we need 

to gain the insights of the GAO and understand the work of you 

folks here to ensure that the departments are well run, efficient, 

and we are being wise with the public’s money and we earn the 

public’s trust. 

We all know that Interior is directly responsible for carrying over 

500 million acres. That is about 20 percent of America’s lands. We 

know that this Department generates more revenue, largely from 

oil, gas and coal, than it spends. And it also holds a sacred responsibility to fulfill the government’s trust and obligations to America’s 

first people. 

You cannot balance the federal budget on the back of this Department, and I agree, we do need to see that each and every federal dollar is wisely spent but we also need to invest properly in 

the management of our priceless resources. The fragile nature of 

our current economic recovery and, quite frankly, of our environment, means that the decisions we make in this room have a real 

impact on America, especially in the West and the South where climate change is altering landscapes, forests and fresh sources of 

water. 

It would appear, based on today’s testimony, that existing law 

and policy does not pay America’s taxpayers a fair market price for 

the extensive fossil fuel, hard-rock minerals, grazing rights that industry extracts from public lands. It indicates to me that we need 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
3 

to invest in this part of America and we need to invest wisely to 

manage the resources, not just cut budgets. 

I want to thank the GAO for their views on this and the inspectors because we need to have better management of oil and gas, 

both onshore and offshore. If we did not learn anything, we should 

have learned from close scrutiny of the BP Transocean oil disaster, 

that we need to be more mindful, more diligent and we need to 

have more oversight on these issues. 

Mr. Chair, I am glad you are having this hearing today and I 

hope we can learn how to invest in America wisely and safeguard 

the resources we have for future generations. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Mittal, it is your turn. 

TESTIMONY OF ANU K. MITTAL AND FRANK RUSCO

Ms. MITTAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

we are pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on 

the major management challenges of the Department of the Interior. Our testimony today is an update of our March 2009 testimony before this subcommittee. Specifically, we will discuss management challenges in seven key areas. I will cover six of the areas 

that relate to the overall management of Interior’s programs and 

then my colleague, Frank Rusco, will cover the seventh area related to Interior’s oil and gas program, which, as you know, GAO 

just added to its high-risk list. 

The first area of management challenges that I would like to 

cover relates to Interior’s resource protection functions. In fulfilling 

these functions, Interior has faced a number of challenges in the 

past and we believe will continue to face additional ones in the future. Based on our recent work, I would like to highlight three specific resource protection challenges. 

First is the continuing challenge of protecting lives, property and 

resources from wildland fires. While Interior partnering with the 

Forest Service has taken some actions to better respond to the 

wildland fire problem, a significant amount of work remains to be 

done and many of the recommendations that we have made in the 

past have not yet been fully implemented. 

The second resource protection challenge is that of protecting federal land and water resources from the effects of climate change. 

While Interior has begun to consider measures that would 

strengthen the resilience of natural resources in the face of climate 

change, we believe that in a fiscally constrained environment, the 

Department will be challenged in setting priorities and making resource allocation decisions to address these impacts. 

The third resource protection challenge relates to protecting and 

securing federal lands from illegal activities. Our recent work has 

found that although Interior agencies consider information on the 

occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the 

agencies do not systematically assess the risk posed by such activities when determining their needs for resources and making resource allocation decisions. 

The second area of major management challenges relates to 

weaknesses in Interior’s management of Indian and insular area 

programs. For several years we have identified a variety of issues 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
4 

that Interior faces with these programs. For example, Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to face challenges in processing 

land and trust applications, and Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs 

continues to face challenges in providing assistance to insular 

areas. Our recent work has again highlighted the longstanding nature of the financial program management and economic challenges 

that the insular areas face as well as concerns with Interior’s oversight of the programs for these areas and the potential that this 

creates for mismanagement. 

The third major management challenge for Interior has been in 

the area of land sales, acquisitions and exchanges. Our recent work 

has identified additional weaknesses in this area. Specifically, we 

have concluded that Interior faces a number of challenges in completing future land sales and acquisitions under the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act, known as FLTFA, and we have identified a number of weaknesses in how Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management manages land exchanges. We have made recommendations to both Congress and Interior to address these concerns. While some steps have been taken to better manage the land 

exchange program, several of our other recommendations have not 

yet been implemented. 

The fourth major management challenge relates to Interior’s 

ability to adequately maintain its facilities and infrastructure. For 

fiscal year 2010, the Department estimated that its deferred maintenance backlog was between $13.5 billion and $19.9 billion. Again, 

in a fiscally constrained environment, we believe that managing 

such a significant deferred maintenance backlog will continue to be 

a challenge for the Department. 

The fifth major management challenge area for Interior is the 

need to enhance its financial assurance and bonding programs for 

mining and oil and gas operations. For example, our recent work 

has shown that while Interior requires oil and gas operators to reclaim the land they disturb and post a bond to help ensure they 

do so, not all operators performed the required reclamation and the 

minimum bond amounts have not been increased in almost 50 

years. We issued a report last Friday that recommends that Interior take a number of steps to improve its bonding program for oil 

and gas operators including increasing the minimum bond 

amounts. Similarly, hard-rock mining operators are required to 

provide financial assurances before they begin exploration or mining on federal lands. However, we have found that the amount of 

financial assurances posted by these operators has been inadequate 

and does not cover the full cost of reclamation. 

Finally, I would like to cover a new major management challenge 

that we have recently identified relating to Interior’s information 

security. With an information technology budget of nearly $1 billion, Interior relies on its computerized systems to carry out both 

its financial and mission-related operators. However, our work has 

found that Interior has been challenged to effectively protect its 

computer systems and networks and has not consistently implemented effective controls to prevent, limit and detect unauthorized 

access to its systems. In addition, Interior has not managed the 

configuration of network devices to prevent unauthorized access 

and ensure system integrity. We have made a number of recVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
5 

ommendations that the Department has agreed and plans to implement. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would 

like to now turn it over to Frank, who will complete our testimony 

by presenting the management challenges with the oil and gas program. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Rusco. 

Mr. RUSCO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to speak about the Department of the Interior’s management of oil and gas produced on 

public lands and waters. The Department of the Interior manages 

the leasing of federal lands and waters for oil and gas exploration, 

development and production. These activities provide an important 

domestic source of energy for the United States, create jobs in the 

oil and gas industry and raise revenues that are shared between 

federal, state and tribal entities. 

Revenue generated from oil and gas produced from leased federal 

lands and waters is one of the largest non-tax sources of federal 

government revenue, accounting for about $9 billion in royalties 

alone in 2009. The deadly explosion onboard the Deepwater Horizon and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 emphasized 

the importance of federal management of permitting and inspection 

processes to ensure operational and environmental safety. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and offshore drilling reported in January 2011 that this disaster was the 

product of several individual missteps and oversights by BP, Halliburton and Transocean which government regulators lacked the 

authority, the necessary resources and the technical expertise to 

prevent. 

In recent years, GAO has undertaken numerous evaluations of 

many aspects of Interior’s management of federal oil and gas and 

have found many material weaknesses that have hampered the 

agency’s ability to strike the right balance between encouraging domestic oil and gas production on one hand and on the other maintaining operational and environmental safety and providing reasonable assurance that the public is getting the revenues to which it 

is entitled. In particular, three areas of concern caused the GAO 

to place Interior’s management of federal oil and gas on the highrisk list in 2011. 

First, Interior has been unable to complete production inspections, maintain reliable royalty and production data and provide 

reasonable assurance that the public is receiving its fair share of 

oil and gas revenues. For example, in 2010, we reported that Interior had not consistently met its statutory or agency goals for 

verifying that oil and gas producers accurately report the volumes 

of oil and gas produced on federal leases, either onshore or offshore. Also, in 2009 we reported that Interior lacked consistent and 

reliable data on the production and sale of oil and gas from federal 

lands and therefore cannot provide reasonable assurance that it 

was appropriately assessing and collecting royalties. In 2008, we 

reported that Interior collected lower levels of revenues for oil and 

gas production than all but 11 of 104 oil and gas resource owners 

including many countries and some states whose revenue collection 

systems were evaluated in a comprehensive industry study. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
6 

Secondly, Interior has had longstanding challenges in hiring, 

training and retaining staff in key skilled positions. For example, 

in 2010 we reported that BLM and MMS experienced high turnover 

rates in key oil and gas inspection and engineering positions. In addition to hampering production verification efforts, these human 

capital challenges have resulted in delays in issuing leases and 

caused Interior to be unable to meet its statutory and agency goals 

for performing safety and environmental inspections of oil and gas 

on federal leases. 

Finally, in May 2010, the Secretary of the Interior announced 

plans to reorganize the offshore oil and gas management and revenue collections function of the Department into three bureaus. 

Under this reorganization, offshore leasing, planning and permitting will be done in the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, offshore inspections and enforcement by the Bureau 

of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and revenue collection 

both onshore and offshore by the newly created Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue. While Interior’s reorganization may eventually 

lead to more effective and efficient operations, our past work has 

shown that organizational transformations are not simple endeavors and they require the concerted and sustained efforts of management and staff alike. Interior’s reorganization will be made more 

challenging because it being undertaken at a time when the agency 

is working to implement dozens of recommendations made by GAO, 

Interior’s Inspector General and other entities. 

In addition, this reorganization will require increased levels of 

resources, and this will be very difficult to achieve in this time of 

tight budgets. Further, Interior’s reorganization of offshore oil and 

gas management and revenue collection do not address significant 

challenges we have identified with its management of onshore oil 

and gas resources. 

It is essential that Interior gets this organization right as well 

as respond to all the material weaknesses GAO and others have 

identified. The agency must be able to provide Congress and the 

public with reasonable assurance that billions of dollars of revenue 

owed the public are being properly assessed and collected and that 

oversight of oil and gas exploration and production on federal lands 

and waters maintains an appropriate balance between efficiency 

and timeliness on one hand and protection of the environment and 

operational safety on the other. 

This ends my oral statement. I will be happy to respond to any 

questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Anu K. Mittal and Frank Rusco follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
7 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 66892A.001
8 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 66892A.002
9 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 66892A.003
10 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 66892A.004
11 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 66892A.005
12 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 66892A.006
13 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 66892A.007
14 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 66892A.008
15 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 66892A.009
16 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 66892A.010
17 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 66892A.011
18 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 66892A.012
19 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 66892A.013
20 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 66892A.014
21 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 66892A.015
22 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 66892A.016
23 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 66892A.017
24 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 66892A.018
25 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 66892A.019
26 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 66892A.020
27 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 66892A.021
28 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 66892A.022
29 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 66892A.023
30 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 66892A.024
31 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 66892A.025
32 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 66892A.026
33 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 66892A.027
34 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 66892A.028
35 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 66892A.029
36 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 66892A.030
37 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 66892A.031
38 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 66892A.032
39 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 66892A.033
40 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 66892A.034
41 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 66892A.035
42 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 66892A.036
43 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 66892A.037
44 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 66892A.038
45 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Kendall. 

TESTIMONY OF MARY KENDALL

Ms. KENDALL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. Let me summarize the most serious challenges we believe are facing the Department of the Interior today. 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OVERSIGHT

Outer Continental Shelf energy oversight. As the offshore oil and 

gas industry has reached farther offshore and deeper undersea, the 

Department’s oversight of the industry has become more complex 

and challenging. The Department is making significant efforts to 

address this challenge but it is now challenged to comply with the 

recent judicial mandate to resume issuing deepwater drilling permits. 

REVENUE COLLECTIONS

Revenue collections. The Department collects billions of dollars in 

royalties annually. Our work, like that of GAO, has revealed many 

weaknesses in the oversight, collection and management of royalties. The OIG has listed revenue collections as a top management 

challenge for over 10 years. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Financial management. The Department manages tens of billions 

of dollars in appropriations, revenues and funds held in trust. The 

Financial and Business Management System was to be the answer 

to DOI managing its funds effectively. Unfortunately, implementation of FBMS continues to be a significant challenge for the Department. Successful implementation of FBMS is extremely important to the Department because the system impacts virtually all 

aspects of DOI operations. FBMS is replacing obsolete legacy financial systems and will also interface or replace a number of other 

systems. The Department has already spent over $300 million deploying FBMS. Although FBMS has been deployed at four bureaus, 

the most difficult deployments are still ahead. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Information technology. The Department’s budget for IT is nearly 

$1 billion annually. Historically, the Department had a decentralized IT program which led to serious governance problems. The Department is now addressing this challenge by bringing all its IT 

functions under a single Department CIO, and we hope to see some 

significant changes. 

HEALTH, SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE

Health, safety and maintenance. Like GAO, we identified this as 

a significant challenge to the Department. The department is responsible for serving millions of visitors and maintaining and protecting thousands of facilities and millions of acres of property. Our 

work has documented decades of deferred maintenance, health and 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
46 

safety issues that place the Department’s employees and the public 

at risk. 

INDIANS AND INSULAR AREAS

Responsibility to Indians and insular areas. Responsibility to 

American Indians has consistently been a top management challenge for the Department. The myriad problems we have uncovered 

for years portrayed programs that are sorely understaffed and 

poorly managed. The Department manages its responsibilities to 

the insular areas through the Office of Insular Affairs. Our reviews 

have consistently pointed to problems that might have been mitigated had the Office of Insular Affairs provided better oversight or 

taken a more active role in assisting insular area governments. 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Financial assistance awards. The Department awards billions of 

dollars in financial assistance annually yet it does not have a consistent method for recording and reporting these transactions. The 

Department simply does not provide the level of oversight of financial assistance awards that it should. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Resource protection and restoration. The Department’s resource 

managers face the perennial challenge of balancing competing interests for the use and protection of the Nation’s natural resources. 

ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

Acquisition management. The Department faced and for the most 

part overcame a significant challenge to properly award and oversee the expenditure of nearly $3 billion in Recovery Act funds as 

well as other appropriated funds. The acquisition workforce is still 

challenged to effectively monitor all awarded funds and to take aggressive action against those who fail to manage awarded funds responsibly such as termination of contracts or suspension and debarment. The Department has made significant progress in building a 

strong suspension and debarment program to protect against recipients with a demonstrated lack of responsibility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share this information with you today. I respectfully request that my written 

statement be entered into the record, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The statement of Mary L. Kendall follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
47 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 66892A.039
48 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 66892A.040
49 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 66892A.041
50 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 66892A.042
51 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 66892A.043
52 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 66892A.044
53 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 66892A.045
54 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 66892A.046
55 

PAST GAO RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and all of your full written statements 

will be entered into the record. 

Let me ask first, since everything I am sure that is said in this 

room will pretty much stay in this room—yes, just between us— 

many of the recommendations that you make or the problem areas 

that you point out have been found in reports before. As you said, 

this was an update of your 2009 testimony, whether it is wildland 

fires, which has been an issue for quite some time, or the backlog 

deferred maintenance, those types of things, they continue to repeat in report after report after report. How do you feel the Department takes your recommendations and implements those recommendations when they agree or works with you to try to find solutions when they might disagree with what your recommendations 

are? Do you need cooperation within the Department? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, I guess I can start by saying some positive 

things about the Department. In recent years, we have seen kind 

of a sea change in how our reports on oil and gas have been received and in the ability and willingness of the agency to undertake 

our recommendations, and we have issued dozens of them in the 

last three years alone but we went from a period about five years 

ago where the agency sort of automatically disagreed with everything we said and whether or not they were going to do anything 

about it. The communication lines were not very good between us. 

Now I feel like I can call people there and ask what is going on 

with this recommendation and I get a good answer, and we are 

rapidly closing a number of recommendations that we have made 

over the last few years. We feel they are making great progress. 

That said, we have concerns that are ongoing, and a lot of those 

concerns are just that they have such a large job to do and they 

have to manage their day-to-day activities and they are undergoing 

this reorganization which is going to take a lot more of their resources. 

Ms. MITTAL. I would just like to add, we actually have a very active recommendation follow-up process and for three or four years 

after we make a recommendation, we continue to follow up with 

the agency because our experience has been that an agency will implement recommendations usually within the three- or four-year 

period. After you get beyond three or four years, there is less likelihood that they are going to actually implement the recommendations. Our overall success rate with agencies across government is 

between 75 and 80 percent of recommendations implemented. We 

do not think Interior is very different from our experience with 

other agencies. However, we are sitting here today because there 

are a lot of recommendations that either they have not implemented or they have not fully implemented as we recommended. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you find that there is more active willingness 

on the part of the agency to look at some of these recommendations 

and implement them if the committee is looking at them also and 

asking you to come and testify? 

Ms. MITTAL. I would say absolutely. The wildland fire issue is a 

perfect example. For 10 years, over a decade, we kept insisting that 

the Interior and the Forest Service needed to come up with a coheVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
56 

sive strategy and they would not make a move in that direction, 

and until Congress passed the FLAME Act of 2009 and required 

them to actually implement our recommendations, they did not 

start moving in that direction, so yes, absolutely. 

OIL AND GAS REVENUES

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask one other thing. You all mentioned the 

oil and gas program and the problems that have existed in the 

past, and I find it almost stunning that we cannot determine 

whether we are getting accurate amounts of revenue due to the 

federal government from the amount of oil and gas produced on 

public lands. Just out of curiosity, the bonding requirement, you 

talked about the hard-rock mining and oil and gas, are those statutory requirements? In other words, do they have to change legislatively or is that something that can be adjusted by the Department? 

Ms. MITTAL. The bonding requirements can be adjusted by the 

Department. That is why we recommended that they change the 

minimum bond amounts. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, you said they had not been updated in like 50 

years or something like that. 

Ms. MITTAL. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But that can be done without legislative approval? 

Okay. Do you feel that the reorganization of the MMS—I keep calling it that because I know what it is—do you feel that is going to 

adequately address these issues that have come up with the oil and 

gas program? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, we hope so but here are some specific concerns. 

The first is that the reorganization does not address the onshore 

management of oil and gas, and we have found many, many issues 

there. Secondly, among the largest issues that this program faces 

are human capital challenges. They have trouble keeping people in 

these positions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you know why that is? 

Mr. RUSCO. One of the key reasons is that they are competing 

with industry for skilled positions, so when the industry is in a 

slump, which has not happened for quite a while now but they 

were able to hire a lot of people in the 1990s that had the kind of 

skills they need, petroleum engineers and technicians. And then 

when the oil industry picks up and those skills are highly valued, 

they lose a lot of them to industry. So they have trouble. They will 

hire someone who has got a low level of training in the industry. 

They will train them and then they will get hired away by industry. That is kind of a systemic problem and it is a hard one to deal 

with, and you could throw a lot of money at it but I do not know 

that we can compete with industry there. And so I think that is 

a problem that may persist. 

There is another issue, though, that they can deal with, and that 

is better coordinating and better using the resources that they do 

have, and we have found that there is almost no communication, 

no systematic communication between, say, the BLM and the 

former MMS in terms of utilizing the expertise they have in petroleum engineering and keeping up with industry in terms of technology, updating their orders for what kinds of technology can and 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
57 

should be used in oil and gas wells, and they can make more efficient use of the resources they do have. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One last question before I turn it over to Ms. 

McCollum. You mentioned climate change as one of the challenges 

facing the Department, and it has been kind of pet peeve of mine, 

not really a pet peeve but an issue of concern, I should say, in that 

we seem to be spending an awful lot of money on climate change 

and I am not sure any of it is coordinated. It is like in every agency 

in the federal government, the new key words if you want to get 

funding for something is climate change, and in fact, a lot of the 

science that was previously done by different agencies has been 

now labeled climate change money because it is obviously a concern 

to more people and easier to get funding for it. Have you done any 

looking at the coordination of all the money that is spent government-wide and just within the Department on climate change and 

what the goal is, whether it is just a means of—you know, I always 

used the example after 9/11 that everybody came in my office 

added the words ‘‘homeland security’’ to everything they requested. 

Now ‘‘climate change’’ is the key word that is attached to everything. And my concern is not that we are spending money on climate change, it is just that I do not know that there is any coordination in there or what we are trying to find out with the money 

we are spending. 

Ms. MITTAL. We actually have an engagement ongoing right now. 

The report is expected at the end of April, early May, and the report is focusing on four or five key objectives. The first thing is to 

identify all of the federal funding that is currently being used to 

fund climate change activities. It is also going to identify what 

types of activities that climate change funding is being used for. 

The report will focus on what strategic priorities, are being set for 

climate change at the federal level. It will look at whether the 

funding that is being spent is aligned with those strategic priorities 

and then if there are any other options to set strategic priorities 

for climate change across the federal government. So that report 

will hopefully answer a number of the questions that you just 

raised. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And I have talked with a variety of people within 

the Department of Interior about whether it would be smart to 

take a line item for the bill—because, I mean, we put climate 

change money into the Forest Service, BLM, the Smithsonian, the 

Park Service, USGS, you name it, they all have climate change 

money in there—if it would be smart to have a climate change line 

item that was overseen by someone or a group that could then 

weigh the value of different proposals from different agencies as to 

what they were trying to do and essentially award grants, I guess 

for lack of a better term, to different agencies. If the Smithsonian 

has something that is important and the committee felt it was 

worthwhile to pursue that, they could award them a grant, or the 

USGS or Forest Service or anybody else. It just seems to me we 

have got to do a better job of how we coordinate the funding. Otherwise we are going to waste an awful lot of money. Thank you. 

Ms. McCollum. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
58 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are really tracking 

here on the same things so I am just going to do a little bit of a 

follow-up on the two areas that the Chair was referring to. 

In the 10 years I have been here, I have listened to a lot of frustration about how the agency was not doing what it needed to do, 

but then when I started digging deeper and got on the Appropriations, it was like well, you can only take so much out of a hide so 

a lot of it was not having all the tools in the toolbox, whether it 

be reorganization, whether it be looking at ways in which they 

could share information or work together within the agency or 

sometimes it was just lack of funds. I am going to do two questions. 

One of them is to follow up a little more. Some of it is going to 

be the will, and I think you mentioned that, and some of it is going 

to be the means, either organizing the means to be used more effectively or actually having the dollars needed to do it. Could you talk 

a little more about what needs to happen with information systems, computer systems or just recovery systems to find out what 

is going on? I am not an engineer. My brother is the engineer at 

home in Minnesota, not me. But what do we need to either track 

fiduciarily or to track information, retention and recruitment of 

personnel? I think maybe you have touched on that but if there 

anything more you want to add. 

I want to ask about climate change but I want to discuss it a little more specifically. I agree with the Chair that we need to—acknowledge, dollars are tight, dollars are precious and we need to 

get the biggest bang for our buck so maybe we should look at a reconstitution of how we account for climate change. But I am concerned about some of the debate that we had on the Floor and that 

is why I want to know about the wills and the means. There was 

$58 million in cuts to programs that the Interior had going to climate change research, and I am excited about seeing this report in 

April. But I just want to use forestry, for example. We are seeing 

an increase in pests. Part of it is just the mobility that the pests 

have, as we have become a denser and denser population with 

trades and goods. Part of it is climate change, and then the concern 

with not having the right amount of funds available to do prescriptive burns when appropriate, the contribution it makes to pests, 

and other wildfires getting out of control and the rest. 

Could you maybe talk about forestry, which is important for 

recreation, important for industry, livelihoods and jobs, and climate 

change and any gleans of information you might have from the 

April report on that. And then the will and the means. 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, with regard to information systems, some of 

that we will have to answer for the record. Our IT group does most 

of the work that—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If you could get that to the chairman, that 

would be fine. 

Mr. RUSCO. But with respect to oil and gas information management, what we found is that across the Bureau of Land Management, the former MMS, both in terms of revenue collection and in 

managing permitting and planning of leasing, we found a wide assortment of legacy information systems that do not communicate 

well. We found—— 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
59 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Excuse me. Is legacy a nice way of saying old, 

antiquated and they do not do the job? 

Mr. RUSCO. I am not going to disagree with that. We found that 

sometimes when we were going to ask questions about how do you 

provide reasonable assurance you are collecting the right amount 

of royalties and where can we find the data to check this, we found 

that people are using spreadsheets, individual spreadsheets to do 

individual tasks that these things are not recorded in a systematic 

way. Now, they have been working to fix this but it still remains 

that there are information systems that do not talk across groups 

and there are still people working on paper and Excel spreadsheets 

when they should be working on integrated systems. 

One more thing is that industry long ago switched to essentially 

real-time monitoring of oil and gas production so they have secondby-second data that is recorded on computer databases remotely 

from wells, and they monitor this in order to efficiently manage the 

well so if anything is going wrong, they see it and a red flag goes 

up and they send the technician out there and they fix it, and that 

is great. It is efficient. It cuts down on waste and issues like that. 

Mr. MORAN. If the gentlelady would yield, do they share that information with us? 

Mr. RUSCO. There is a pilot program in the natural gas area to 

do so. 

Mr. MORAN. The answer is no? 

Mr. RUSCO. It is not uniformly done, no, but these data systems 

are essentially available off the shelf. There is even a free version 

that has much more functionality. It talks to all of the different 

systems that are in the industry, could collect these data, could set 

up immediate flags if there are problems at the well so that inspectors could more efficiently decide where to spend their resources. 

Instead, they are not using the information that industry has. That 

would be a great innovation and it would not cost a lot of money. 

Ms. MITTAL. I can add to the data issue for the rest of Interior. 

It is a perpetual problem and it is a systemic problem. No matter 

what program we are looking at, no matter what agency we are 

looking at, lack of data, inaccurate, not comprehensive data, not reliable data is a standard problem in just about every GAO audit, 

whether we are looking at the Office of Insular Affairs, whether we 

are looking at BLM, whether we are looking at any agency within 

the Department. Poor data is a systemic problem throughout the 

Department. 

In terms of your question with regard to climate change, in 2007 

we specifically had noted that climate change was not a high priority for the bureaus within the Department. However, in 2009 the 

Secretary issued an order that basically said that all of the bureaus 

and offices are to consider the impacts of climate change as they 

develop their strategic plans, as they determine how they are going 

to spend money on R&D programs, when they develop their multiyear resource management plans and when they determine how 

they are going to allocate resources. We have not actually gone 

back into the Department to see how they implemented that secretarial order so I cannot tell you how they are actually going about 

making that a priority but that was something that they were supposed to do starting in 2009. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
60 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Ms. KENDALL. If I could just add on the IT systems, the sharing 

of information and then on the retention and hiring, the Department has undertaken a new initiative to bring all IT systems under 

a single chief information officer. Historically, one of the issues 

that we always found was that allowing the bureaus to operate 

their own systems has been a real problem for anyone to really 

manage the IT systems at the Department. This is a huge step. It 

is being met with a fair amount of resistance but the IG office has 

actually offered itself up to be one of the early adopters, which 

might set an example for some of the bureaus who are putting up 

a great deal of resistance. 

INFORMATION SHARING

To Congressman Moran’s question about information sharing, 

the work that we did following the Deepwater Horizon disaster last 

summer suggested that there are enormous opportunities for sharing information that industry already has that would allow the new 

ONRR, the royalty group, to much better monitor what is really 

happening in terms of production. Historically, the Department 

has—I do not know how far back this goes but in recent years, I 

would say, maybe the past 10 years or so, the Department has 

treated the oil and gas industry sort of with kid gloves, not wanting to put too much burden, which I find a word like ‘‘burden’’ to 

industry that brings in the kind of revenue as the oil and gas industry does to be a little ironic, but we have found several areas 

where the Department did not want to burden the industry, and 

I think that there are many opportunities to shift the burden back 

to industry, and it would be essentially a no cost to the federal government solution. Our work last summer suggested that there really is this opportunity to make that shift. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

In terms of recruitment and retention, one of the other things 

that we looked at last summer was this very issue that Mr. Rusco 

identified. We recommended some fairly simple solutions that 

might help. It will not solve it completely but one thing that we 

found was that then-MMS had determined that engineers and petroleum specialists were not eligible for student loan repayment 

benefits through the federal government. We have asked them to 

relook at that. I know that the BOEM is now doing some active recruiting at some of the universities and colleges that focus on petroleum engineering. I think that is a great first step. 

The other opportunity, now, both are not budget neutral but petroleum engineers often operate in an environment that would otherwise warrant hazard pay. It is another thing that the former 

MMS had determined they were not eligible for and we suggested 

that they reconsider that. There would be some financial incentives 

that the government could provide that it has not been doing that 

might balance some of the disparity between industry and the government. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
61 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A very intriguing discussion, and as has been suggested, all of us seem to be kind 

of in a different way asking the same questions. 

COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATION

At one time I had a chance to spend a lot of time with the Department of Defense when I chaired their Subcommittee of Appropriations, and one of the challenges was the fact that we found that 

the Navy and the Marine Corps had great difficulty communicating 

with one another. It seems they could not get their software to 

interplay and the stovepipes were more than stovepipes. We spent 

lots of money, lots of time and eventually began to break that process down. Clearly, the climate change challenges in the Joshua 

Tree National Park and in our national forests in California in my 

district, those overlap a lot and there is a great deal of similarity. 

I have been worried maybe we are wasting a lot of money by not 

having effective coordination, etc. Taking us back to Ms. McCollum’s point is that we do have a need to implement processes 

whereby these communications by individual agencies are shared 

by other agencies. Ms. Kendall, you mentioned a new thought or 

idea that would suggest that we can coordinate this in a single 

spot. I gather the agency might be considering a clearinghouse 

whereby they will have a gathering of information, provide access, 

provide some of the security you mentioned, Ms. Mittal, but is that 

actually going forward? Is it likely to be something that the Department will do? 

Ms. KENDALL. The Department is challenged to work across its 

bureau lines, but it is something that because we have tried to become financially neutral in our recommendations that we recommend often that bureaus combine resources and communicate 

better with one another and identify where they are overlapping 

their efforts. I think there is a huge opportunity in many realms 

including climate change but others as well where the bureau could 

streamline, coordinate and focus its resources much better. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, much of that which we have discussed so far 

is talking about the fact that there was not enough money for X 

or Y, to implement X or Y program or effort, and my colleague next 

to me said gee, you know when you get an apartment house, collecting rent is not a big problem. Only in government would we 

have difficulty figuring out and measuring what kind of money 

flows there actually are. And if you do have such a coordinated effort, information gathering, et cetera, let’s do not kid ourselves. 

That does not mean that automatically the individual agencies are 

going to be willing to share, work with one another and indeed 

save the taxpayers and some of our funding challenges. 

In connection with that, I remember a session with the people 

from the Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and from 

Forest Service in a discussion of the designation of the East Mojave, literally hundreds of thousands of acres, if not millions of 

acres, being put in a preserve. The three heads of the agencies in 

that region in a serious extended discussion with me essentially 

said look, we have got five or six pristine areas out in this territory 

that deserve and need Park Service protection. Their conclusion 

was that with such a vast area there is no way we would have the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
62 

resources or the people to provide the management. So what was 

the answer? Throw all of that open desert territory into one big 

package and then maybe we can manage it better, and it does not 

seem to me that it is much better managed. 

CROSS-DEPARTMENT COORDINATION

Now, my question is, when we do not have these resources and 

we have a shortage of personnel, should we be looking at taking 

a new territory to be a part of the agency’s responsibility for management or should we be selling off some of these assets in order 

to provide funding flows that will allow the individual agencies to 

be ahead of time, ahead of our curve, to be able to implement processes whereby effective public policy goes forward? We do not want 

to sell off any property, that is for sure. I know that. 

Ms. KENDALL. I do not know that I have an answer to your question, Congressman Lewis. I think it certainly bears consideration. 

But you identify cross departments in this case, and I am not familiar with the particular instance you are discussing. But in this 

case, it would be a cross-department challenge to get the agencies 

to coordinate, something that we already suffer internally in just 

the Department of the Interior, so the challenge is even bigger. 

Mr. LEWIS. Much of the rare earths deposits in the country are 

in the territory I am talking about, in the Mojave Desert, and there 

is a worldwide challenge here in connection with preserving these. 

But over the years my miners have talked often about the fact that 

OSHA and MSHA almost stumble all over each in order to get 

down in the mine first to see what somebody is doing wrong. I 

mean, that is sort of lack of effective coordination between agencies 

that cuts off our ability to do a better job. It is pretty fundamental. 

And Ms. Mittal, that is kind of why we wanted you to be here. 

Ms. MITTAL. Thank you, sir. I think what we keep finding, and 

you know, whether you sell off lands or not, that is a policy decision. That is a decision that only Congress can make. 

Mr. LEWIS. Really? You mentioned that we gave you the authority to raise the bond level over a 50-year period, it has not been 

raised. 

Ms. MITTAL. Well, that is true. But I think there are three fundamental issues that we see repeatedly when we look at Interior’s 

and management programs. One is the lack of strategic planning, 

and you need to know what your strategies are, you need to know 

what your goals are before you can achieve what it is that your 

mission is supposed to be doing. The second is, you have got to 

have the data. As I mentioned earlier, they do not have good data. 

They are not making decisions based on good data, whether it is 

resource allocation decisions or it is program activity and management decisions. And finally, you have got to have good performance 

measures. One of the things that we see repeatedly when we look 

at Interior’s programs is a lack of good performance measures. So 

if you are not accountable for your results, if you are not looking 

at your performance and measuring it against your goals, measuring it against the milestones that you have established, you can 

never know exactly what point you should take corrective action, 

when you should change your mode of operation and change it to 

something different. So those are the three fundamental problems 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
63 

that we see, and I think it feeds right into your comment about coordination and cooperation. You need to have some of these three 

elements in place before you can effectively coordinate and cooperate with other people because you first have to know what you are 

doing as an agency. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

OIL AND GAS REVENUES

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you. 

It is obvious to everyone that lives on this planet, the United 

States is desperate to find any way of doing a better job of balancing its budget. So let me ask you some questions with regard 

to potential revenue raising. 

In your testimony, you indicate that the Interior Department collected lower levels of revenue for oil and gas production than all 

but 11 of 104 oil and gas resource owners including many of our 

states—Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc.—and any number of 

other countries. Can you give us a sense for what kind of revenue 

loss we are talking about here, if the royalty level was consistent 

with, say, the Gulf states, and what other countries charge in 

terms of royalties for taking the natural resources that belong to 

the taxpayers? 

Mr. RUSCO. Giving a precise answer to that is beyond any of the 

work we have done. I can say a few things that give a flavor of 

that. One of the problems with our revenue collection system is 

that it does not respond to changes in industry conditions, changes 

in economic conditions, changes to oil and gas prices. So back in 

the 1990s when oil and gas prices were very low, companies were 

in dire straits and they came to Congress and asked for royalty relief, and that was granted. And due to the way that that was implemented and some subsequent court cases that essentially ruled 

that royalty relief was effectively permanent for the wells that 

were offered that in the deep water, that is going to cost the federal 

government somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion, depending on future oil and gas prices and how much is produced. 

The system of collecting revenues can reflect changes in the environment and sort of make those kinds of adjustments unnecessary, 

and so when profits go way up, you could take a greater share of 

profits or you could take a smaller share. That is one of the things 

we asked Interior to look at. They are looking at that at this point 

and they expect to finish sometime in 2011 with that study, doing 

a comprehensive evaluation of what others are charging. And we 

expect that they will have an estimate of what, if anything, they 

feel that they can do to increase revenue. 

Mr. MORAN. So the answer is no, you do not have any specifics, 

but the Interior Department is working on it and if we look just 

at the Gulf Coast lost royalty revenue, it would be $20 to $50 billion but we do not know. And is the Interior Department determining what we could be bringing in if what we charged was more 

consistent with what other countries charge and the rate that other 

states charge? 

Mr. RUSCO. That is—my understanding of the study they are 

doing is to look at just that. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mr. MORAN. They are looking at that? Now, you also say in your 

report that the Bureau of Land Management has not met its statutory, its legal obligations for oil and gas verification inspections. I 

gather that it is quite likely as a result of both the federal government and the states, because they get half the royalties, maybe 

substantially shortchanging their revenue as a result of BLM not 

meeting its statutory verification responsibilities. Is that accurate? 

Mr. RUSCO. It is certainly possible. Again, we do not know what 

we do not know, and if they are not making their inspections, we 

do not know what they would find if they were. 

Mr. MORAN. The fact that Interior largely relies upon the oil and 

gas industry to give its own estimates of how much is being withdrawn and depleted, and you found that those estimates are invariably short of what they actually are drilling, that if there was better monitoring, it would be apparent that there is more being taken 

and thus more revenue would be coming into the federal government. One way to address that, I gather, is in your response to Ms. 

McCollum, that if we had more people and the right people, but 

most importantly the kind of information technology and data that 

the oil and gas companies already have on a real-time basis, that 

would tell us what they are generating. So I gather the numbers 

they are giving us are not even consistent with their own data in 

terms of what they are taking out of both offshore and onshore reserves. Is that accurate? 

Mr. RUSCO. I will say we have not found any systematic underreporting. We have found instances of errors and instances of missing data and instances of reports that should be there that are not, 

but you are absolutely correct that the industry, they collect these 

data. They can account for up to very small amounts of oil and gas 

that they are producing and they collect these data. Then they put 

this oil and gas into pipelines or sell it to a seller who is also measuring it and they have disagreements and they are both talking 

about sets of data and they can get together and very quickly resolve those disagreements about how much came from each producer and went into a pipeline, but when they are both talking 

about data that comes from a meter and is beamed to a computer, 

they have something to talk about. Those things sometimes malfunction and you get different answers but the meters—— 

Mr. MORAN. I understand that, but are you telling us that that 

data is not then given to the owner of the property, the resource, 

the federal government? They are not sharing that data in terms 

of how much they are withdrawing, that we sit back and wait for 

when they want to give us the numbers that they choose to give 

us? 

Mr. RUSCO. That is correct. We do not have third-party 

verification or direct verification of production. 

Mr. MORAN. And a reasonable assumption would be then that it 

is being somewhat underreported, that there may be more revenue 

collection available to us if we simply were getting more accurate 

and fuller data? Is that a reasonable conclusion? 

Mr. RUSCO. I cannot go that far. Again, we have not seen systematic underreporting where we have looked but, again, we do not 

know what we do not know. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. MORAN. You also noted that Interior is—that concludes this 

line of questioning—but you underestimated the amount of natural 

gas produced on federal leases that is released directly to the atmosphere. So we have got a lost resource here, we have got no collection of royalties and we have got this intensive greenhouse gas 

that is polluting the atmosphere. Can you give us any sense of how 

much in the way of loss we are talking about in that regard? 

Mr. RUSCO. In this case, it could be as much as 2 percent of total 

production on federal lands for the wells that have not put in modern low-bleed pneumatic valves and better equipment for monitoring vented natural gas, but it could be a very significant 

amount. What we do not know and what Interior cannot tell us is 

what kind of equipment is being used in each case, but when we 

did look at specific instances, we found that there is a lot of old 

equipment out there that bleeds a lot of natural gas in the air and 

those valves can be economically replaced with newer, low-bleed 

valves that would cut sometimes very significantly the amount of 

natural gas, and it could be as much as 2 percent. 

Mr. MORAN. Could BLM require that kind of newer equipment 

so as to reduce the greenhouse gas which we then have to pay to 

clean up? 

Mr. RUSCO. We have recommended that they evaluate the equipment that is being used in every instance and identify cases where 

it can be economically exchanged for more modern equipment that 

leaks less. 

REVENUE SOURCES: ADDITIONAL

Mr. MORAN. Well, these are good, measured responses. I appreciate your caution in answering them. I trust the Inspector General 

is ensuring that the Interior management is aware of this additional source of revenue and pursuing it? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have talked with the Department about a 

number of other sources. Going away from oil and gas for just a 

moment, one of the areas that we have an active evaluation in is 

rights-of-way. There is a huge amount of land out there that the 

Department we are finding basically almost gives away rights-ofway. They are utilizing a process by which the rights-of-way are— 

in one instance, and I cannot say this across the board but we 

found one instance where an Indian tribe negotiated a right-of-way 

fee 100 times what BLM is charging for the same type of right-ofway. So we are looking at some other options in terms of determining what the appropriate right-of-way fees ought to be but 

there is a considerable opportunity to raise much greater revenues 

there. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, good for the Indian tribe but not so good for 

the federal government. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And just to follow up on that, I have 

heard the same thing, that what the BLM charges to put wind turbines on BLM ground is significantly lower than what it would cost 

on private land, and consequently the federal government is losing 

a ton of revenue that they could be collecting for renewable energy 

sorts of things. 

Mr. Calvert. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
66 

Mr. CALVERT. Maybe we should contract out with Native Americans to collect revenue. 

Mr. SIMPSON. There you go. 

Mr. CALVERT. You know, this is going to be kind of a bipartisan 

moment here, I think. 

I come out of the business community. When you mentioned $20 to $50 billion worth of revenue left on the table, that gets my attention. And if I was going to enter into a private lease agreement 

with a resource company to extract minerals from property, I would 

have a lease that would state that I would have access to all 

records and have a transparent process so I would be able to collect 

revenue that is due. Is it in your lease agreement that production 

records are shared with the lessor and any records must be provided to the lessor? Is that not required in a lease agreement? 

Mr. RUSCO. It is required. These data are collected from the operators, which are not always the lease owners, but there is an operator that operates a number of wells. 

Mr. CALVERT. But in the final analysis, that information is required to be provided to the lessor in order for them to come up 

with a proper lease amount. Is that correct? 

Mr. RUSCO. That is correct, and the issues we have are not that 

those data are not required to be provided but that when we have 

looked at those data, we have found missing data, erroneous data 

and other problems because it is self-reported and it is not checked 

with a third party. 

Mr. CALVERT. This is not rocket science. I mean, if we need some 

rocket scientists, there are a lot being laid off in Houston right 

now, I am sure we could pick up a couple. The percentages on 

these various leases, I guess they change or fluctuate from one 

lease to the next or do they pretty much stay the same? 

Mr. RUSCO. Onshore, most of it is 121⁄2. Mr. CALVERT. At what point in the process is that collected? Is 

it collected at the point of sale? Is that 121⁄2 percent based upon 

market price that day and so fluctuating through the lease process 

so you have to mark the royalty that is due per that day? Is that 

not correct? 

Mr. RUSCO. Typically it is done on a month-by-month basis. 

Mr. CALVERT. So they have an average, a 30-day average of the 

mineral value or the oil or gas or whatever you are extracting, a 

30-day running average, and then that royalty then is charged. At 

what point is it due to the federal government? What point does 

the lessor receive its rent? 

Mr. RUSCO. It is due, I believe, within 30 days. 

Mr. CALVERT. So the government then in effect bills the lessee 

and the lessee comes up with the money within 30 days from the 

point of billing. Is that correct? 

Mr. RUSCO. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. CALVERT. And they cannot do that? 

Mr. RUSCO. Not accurately. 

Mr. CALVERT. Have the agencies looked into contracting that out 

for a small fee to a contractor that would have the competence to 

collect rents or collect royalties? It would seem to me if you are 

leaving $20 to $50 billion on the table there ought to be a better 

way. I know there was royalty relief in the 1990s when the oil 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
67 

prices went down but that should have been credited on the books 

and then collected later on once that resource recovered. The intent 

was not to forgive that amount of royalty. Is that not the case? 

Mr. RUSCO. Now I have to be very measured. I am sorry. In the 

end, this went through litigation and the courts determined that 

the legislation required that royalty relief. 

Mr. CALVERT. Was that legislation or was that administrative relief? That was done in the 1990s. Was that not done by administrative relief at that point? 

Mr. RUSCO. There was the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 

that implemented the royalty relief but then Interior implemented 

the legislation. 

Mr. CALVERT. They implemented it incorrectly. At the time the 

Deep Water Royalty Relief Act went into effect in 1995, was it not 

true that the cost, the capital cost of installing the drilling equipment in the Gulf was substantial? Congress was trying to find a 

way to create an incentive for people to go into the Gulf and to drill 

in deep water because at that time they were not getting the bid 

prices up for the tracts within the Gulf? Is that not correct? And 

so they created this incentive where the capital cost would be 

booked for whatever royalty amount that was until that capital 

cost was received and then the royalty would be received thereafter. The lease agreement, as I understand it, was written where 

they just gave them permanent relief. Is that not correct? 

Mr. RUSCO. For two of the five years that there was royalty relief, for reasons that we do not understand fully, there was no price 

trigger put on that so that when prices went up, they would collect. 

LEASE PRICE THRESHOLDS

Mr. CALVERT. Why did somebody not go back and find out who 

the idiot was that wrote those leases? Again, this is not rocket 

science. I mean, if any one of us at this table had a resource that 

we were going to lease out and we understood the basis of that 

lease agreement, we understood that the capital cost was going to 

be credited and at that point forward a royalty was going to be 

paid, why in God’s name was the lease written that gave them permanent relief? I mean, I just do not understand it. 

Ms. KENDALL. We did conduct an investigation into the failure to 

put a trigger into the 1998 and 1999 leases, and we could not find, 

as you put it, the idiot, but we found a real bureaucratic bungling 

is what I think Mr. Deveney defined it where one group of MMS 

thought another group was responsible. 

Mr. CALVERT. You know, we are talking about real money here. 

Ms. KENDALL. Oh, I know. 

Mr. CALVERT. When we get into $20, $50 billion here, you know, 

we have been fighting and we are going to continue to fight all year 

to save a similar amount, $50 billion, and we left $50 billion out 

there in the ether. I find this amazing. What is even more amazing 

is it continues to go on, based upon your testimony, because of the 

inability of certain folks to collect revenue from royalties that we 

should be collecting. 

So it is distressing to me, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of outof-work engineers out there at NASA. Maybe we ought to send 

them on over and maybe they can straighten this out, or we could 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
68 

get some good accountants. I will even volunteer. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I should 

point out that we have had an amendment that would make the 

corrections that we just talked about as being necessary, and I 

hope that it can be dealt with positively. In any case, Mr. Chairman, thanks very much, and thank you very much. Thanks for 

what you have said and everything that you are doing. 

I want to follow up with something that Mr. Moran was talking 

about. As we know, for years now the GAO has been examining the 

Department of Interior’s royalty collection program. We are dealing 

with a situation here where two weeks ago this House passed a 

Continuing Resolution with draconian cuts to some of our country’s 

most vital investments and services, cuts that would according to 

the most economic analysis by Mark Zandy of Moody’s lead to the 

loss of nearly 700,000 jobs. So we paid almost no attention to the 

opportunities that are present in undercollected royalties of our existing oil and gas operations on public lands. You pointed out in 

your testimony that the Interior Department collected lower levels 

of revenues for oil and gas production and that lower level was connected from 93 out of 104 oil and gas resource owners that you examined. You examined 104. Ninety-three were producing less. Only 

11 were not. You also made specific recommendations on what the 

Department should be doing to improve royalty collections ranging 

from comprehensive review to better measurements to accounting 

for the amount of natural gas that is being vented or burned. 

So let me just ask you two little questions. How much revenue 

does GAO estimate we are losing by not implementing the suggestions that you have identified to improve and increase the royalty 

collection? And secondly, how much effort and resources would be 

required to make these changes? 

Mr. RUSCO. I will try to answer the most satisfying one first. The 

effort, if Interior decides or determines that in fact we are collecting less than the fair share of revenues for oil and gas production on federal lands—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, you determined that already. 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, we determined that it was lower than a lot and 

we recommended that the agency do a comprehensive review, taking into account all the things that they believe are important. We 

are quite confident that they are going to find that they collect 

lower than many states and other countries. If they decide that 

they can collect more revenue, then it is not a costly or difficult endeavor to do so, at least going forward. When you issue a different 

lease, you can raise royalties, you can change lease terms. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So do you know how much revenue GAO is estimating that we are losing? I mean, they have communicated that 

to you so you must have some insight into it. 

Mr. RUSCO. No, we do not have an estimate of how much their 

study will determine, if any, that they are—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. They have done the study and they have communicated this to you? 

Mr. RUSCO. No, we looked at other studies, industry studies of 

revenue collection. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
69 

Mr. HINCHEY. How much revenue are you losing? How much revenue are we losing? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, we do not know but there are some countries 

that collect a huge proportion more. Now, it is very difficult to 

make comparisons across countries because, you know, some countries might collect a lot but they also do not have a rule of law or 

a set of contract law that we have here, and it is very difficult to 

compare. That is why we asked the agency to conduct its own review using the expertise of industry consultants and determine 

whether they could do this. There is a trade-off between charging 

more revenue and encouraging domestic oil and gas production. 

Where that trade-off is, is something for the agency to determine. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, GAO has said that to you. They have given 

you information. And you have come up with improvements to increase the royalty collection, right? 

Mr. RUSCO. Interior increased the royalty rates in the deep water 

twice, and they estimated that that would increase revenue by 

about $5 million on—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay, if you do not have the specific answer to 

these questions, I would very much appreciate if you would look 

into this and communicate this back to us, give us the specific answers to those two questions. 

Mr. RUSCO. I am sorry, but with respect, without looking at Interior’s study when it comes out, we would not have that information 

at GAO. I certainly will—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, GAO has communicated to you. There are estimates that they have produced. You have got that information. 

You have looked into this. You have decided that there are things 

that had to be done to change it, to make it better. So I would like 

you to communicate to us the factual information that you are looking into that you have got. You cannot answer it now but please 

give it to us. 

Mr. RUSCO. I will give you every bit of information we have on 

this. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So you know what GAO has done because, you 

know, you are from GAO. 

Mr. RUSCO. Yes. 

Mr. HINCHEY. You know what GAO has produced. You know the 

recommendations that they have made, and all of that has been 

put forward. So we would just like to understand this a little bit 

more clearly and more specifically, particularly with regard to the 

numbers, the estimates, things of that nature. If you can provide 

that, and I am sure you can, we would very much appreciate it. 

Mr. RUSCO. Yes, sir, will do. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Just one other quick thing that I would like to talk 

about, and that is the danger of the drilling that we are experiencing. We have seen a lot of danger with regard to the frack drilling for natural gas in a lot of places, places from Texas to Pennsylvania, a number of other states across the country. You have 

looked into this, I assume, to some extent. You understand it, to 

some extent, about what is happening and what is going on. There 

was a very interesting article in the New York Times on Sunday. 

I do not know if you had an opportunity to see that. But this is 

another expansion of the understanding of the cost of this kind of 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
70 

drilling and what damages that drilling can provide, and in this 

particular case, again with regard to the danger to water supplies, 

which are critically important for the future of everyone’s life. I 

would appreciate it if you would take an analysis of that, look into 

it and give us your understanding and recommendations as to what 

is going on. We are in the process now of following up on that information and providing a couple of pieces of legislation that we are 

offering to this operation here, and so I would appreciate anything 

that you could provide to us that would be helpful and useful. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Flake. 

GRANTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Mr. FLAKE. Ms. Kendall, these financial assistance awards, $3 to 

$4 billion a year that are given out, can you give us some examples 

of what they might include? 

Ms. KENDALL. The easiest example, it would be the financial assistance to Indian tribes and insular areas, but there are financial 

assistance agreements which are basically grants and cooperative 

agreements that go to any number of entities. Some are sort of 

partner entities to the Department. The cooperative agreements 

usually go to the partner entities. I can think of a couple that come 

readily to mind that we actually looked at, one being the George 

Wright Society with National Park Service. They have a very close 

cooperative relationship and a cooperative agreement that started 

out as about, if I remember correctly, I think a $35,000 cooperative 

agreement escalated up to over $800,000 without any significant 

change in purview and very little oversight. We are going to be putting together what I would call a roll-up report on cooperative 

agreements. We think it is an area that is a very high risk because 

there is so very little oversight. 

Mr. FLAKE. You are saying there is no consistent method of recording these transactions? 

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERSIGHT

Ms. KENDALL. It is another example where bureau by bureau 

they will do it differently, sometimes even region by region. There 

is not a consistent Department-wide guidance or requirement in 

terms of how financial assistance is overseen. For instance, and I 

realize I am speaking real generalities in terms of the financial assistance that goes to Indian tribes and insular areas, but using the 

insular areas for an example, funds are pushed out to the insular 

area government and the Office of Insular Affairs measures its performance on getting the money out, not necessarily on how that 

money is spent and whether it is spent wisely and well and it is 

accounted for. Although we have not made this recommendation, 

one of my personal thoughts is that there may need to be a complete rethinking of how BIA and Insular Affairs provides money. In 

the insular areas, for example, initially I had discussion with staff 

that perhaps we should do it on a reimbursable basis rather than 

put all the money out and then say tell us what you have done 

with it, which is not working, or to have an incremental requirement where a certain amount goes out, they report back with some 

substantiated information in terms of how the money was spent. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. FLAKE. With regard to insular areas, how much of the money 

that would come under what you term financial assistance is mandated under the compact of free association, for example, with 

Palau and the Marshall Islands? How much are we required under 

those compacts to give? Is this money that we can say, ‘‘we did not 

like how you spent it, so we are going to cut it off’’? 

Ms. KENDALL. That is an issue that would have to be addressed. 

I do not know the answer to that. I realize that it may require 

some changes in the compact language. The same would hold true 

with Indian tribes, that there may need to be some pretty fundamental and sweeping changes in terms of how those agreements 

are reached. 

Mr. FLAKE. Do you sense that the agency is moving ahead to address or remedy this? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have really just started to engage in discussions with OIA on this. 

Mr. FLAKE. How can we speed that process along? 

Ms. KENDALL. I will let you know. 

Mr. MORAN. If the gentleman would yield, I am told that the 

GAO has some additional information on that. 

Mr. FLAKE. Please. 

Ms. MITTAL. Well, we have looked at the Office of Insular Affairs 

grant to insular areas. They make about $70 million worth of 

grants every year, and what we have found is that about 40 percent of the grants that they make have at least one internal control 

weakness and that those kinds of internal control weaknesses are 

what lead to fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, and so we 

have identified a number of issues that we think the Office of Insular Affairs needs to address, and one of them is providing much 

more proactive monitoring and oversight of the grants. 

Mr. FLAKE. What I am asking is: if this is part of the compact 

that we have agreed to then how much leverage do we have over 

how they spend the money? 

Ms. MITTAL. The grants that we are talking about are not part 

of—— 

Mr. FLAKE. This is all discretionary? It is not part of the compact? 

Ms. MITTAL. Right. 

Mr. FLAKE. All right. That is what I was asking. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. A quick 

point and then I want to go to my line of questioning. But just on 

the oil and gas issue, when we are looking at comparable returns, 

which I think we all agree we need to do a lot better job than we 

have been doing around here, just foreign countries usually are not 

a very good way to look at it, simply because the costs of raising 

a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia versus raising one anyplace in the 

continental United States are dramatically different. So one of 

them in a sense is more profitable, and there is more money available to flow back to the government. Whatever the private people 

in adjacent areas are getting is usually a pretty good way to look 

at it because they are looking out for their own interest, so I would 

just urge you as you delve deeper into this to look at that. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
72 

INDIAN FUNDS: MISMANAGEMENT

I wanted to question you more in another area, not surprisingly, 

Indian Country. Ms. Kendall, I was reading your report with a 

great deal of interest and your testimony and there is a sentence 

that really bears repeating here. ‘‘Responsibility to American Indians has consistently been a top management challenge for the Department of Indian Country programs managed by the Department,’’ and then you go on and list all the ones that are there and 

you go on, ‘‘Approximately 25 percent of OIG investigations involve 

Indian Country issues.’’ That is a shocking number considering Indian Country does not get anywhere near 25 percent of the Interior 

budget. So clearly it is a problem area within a problem area. 

Could you and Ms. Mittal sort of comment broadly on the specific 

areas of mismanagement and concern that you have and whether 

or not—and I do not mean to make this partisan with this Administration or any, because I think this has been a problem with both 

parties, multiple Administrations, and I actually think there has 

been considerable progress made but I would like for you to give 

us a little bit more on the range of problem areas and the progress, 

if any, in recent years. And then I have got two or three specific 

areas to ask about. 

Ms. KENDALL. The range of problem areas really runs the gamut. 

We have focused in recent years on Indian schools, Indian jails. Actually Indian jails have been a perennial issue that we have addressed repeatedly. The actual handling of funds that go to tribes 

internally, we have had any number of criminal investigations that 

the tribal members or the tribal council are mismanaging or taking 

money from their own people. And I know that 25 percent is shocking but we have said internally that we could dedicate all of our 

resources to Indian Country and still not be wondering what to do 

with ourselves. 

Ms. MITTAL. Our work obviously is much more focused and has 

not been as wide-ranging as the IG’s work. Our recent work has 

focused on the land and trust issues that BIA is dealing with and 

that has become a greater issue now with the Supreme Court decision in 2009 and so we—— 

Mr. COLE. We will get to that. 

Ms. MITTAL. Okay. So it has raised a lot of uncertainty in terms 

of how many of the pending land and trust applications are actually going to be affected by the Supreme Court decision. We recently looked at the Native American Graves Repatriation Act and 

the extent to which federal agencies have complied with the requirements of the Act, and what we basically found is after 20 

years of enactment, the agencies are not in full compliance with the 

Act, and currently we have other work ongoing looking at Indian 

arts and crafts issues. We are also looking at sexual assaults and 

the ability of IHS to provide services to victims of sexual and domestic violence on Indian reservations. 

Mr. COLE. This committee on a bipartisan basis has made real 

progress in the last two or three years in trying to upgrade some 

of the funding in Indian Country, which has been very low. Have 

we made comparable progress on the executive side of the equation 

in addressing this problem? Again, I do not expect anybody to solve 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
73 

100 years’ worth of problems in 18 months but how much progress 

are we making in terms of administering the dollars we have in a 

more efficient manner, in a more transparent manner, making sure 

we are really delivering help through the tribes to people that need 

it? 

Ms. KENDALL. Based on the areas that we have been looking at, 

and I am drawing a blank right now on the one financial area that 

we have looked at recently, but I cannot say that we are making 

any considerable progress, that the problems that we see are repetitive and really fairly entrenched. 

Mr. COLE. Let me ask this to get to a couple specific issues. One, 

let us just start off with Carcieri, which you mentioned, which 

again this committee tried to address, and I think very successfully. Mr. Moran, Mr. Simpson, working together, we actually tried 

to correct the problem and we were probably a little unorthodox 

legislatively in our approach but we did it in a bipartisan manner 

to try and move through the House an amendment but basically 

legislation that would have ended this two-tribe distinction, because that is basically what we have now. We have got obviously 

a situation where the Department of the Interior is not sure what 

it can do for tribes versus whether they are in the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act or not, and we have got 80 years’ worth of decision 

involving billions of dollars worth of property that we now really 

do not know what the status is, and the Administration, to its credit, has tried to address this. We tried to address it here. It got hung 

up in the Senate. How big a problem is this going to be going forward for the Department? And if you want to hazard an estimate 

on litigation if we do not get this solved and basically have a uniform standard for the Secretary in terms of putting land into trust? 

Ms. MITTAL. We believe it could be a significant problem because 

there are at least a thousand pending applications right now for 

land in trust, new applications for land in trust. There are already 

two cases that have been filed, so it will be interesting to—— 

Mr. COLE. Can I ask you a question on that? On that thousand— 

and I know the answer—how many of them relate to gaming? Because that is one of the big objections we have, this is all a big 

game, but how many of these? 

Ms. MITTAL. The thousand are non-gaming. 

Mr. COLE. Yes. It is less than 2 percent of all the applications, 

which was the whole argument we heard on the Floor that this was 

a backdoor gaming thing. 

INDIAN LANDS: FRACTIONATION

Can I ask one other question? And you mentioned this in your 

testimony, I believe, Ms. Kendall, but the fractionation issue is of 

course a gigantic issue in Indian Country in just dealing with the 

vision of land over time under allotments. We tried through the 

Cobell decision and the Cobell legislation to empower tribes to 

begin to deal with that themselves. We have given them a considerable pot of money that they can go out and purchase fractionated 

land from individuals, recombine it and use it. I know the Department has been working on this as well. What kind of progress are 

we making on the fractionation issue and do you have any specific 

administrative things that we ought to be doing to push it forward? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
74 

Ms. KENDALL. We did issue a report not too long ago about land 

fractionation. What we were trying to do was get in front of the effort that will be undertaken by the Department as a result of 

Cobell. The Department has been hampered by some requirements, 

primarily by the Cobell court, where they are prohibited from discussing openly what their efforts are but we have been working 

with them. Our report identified a number of some fairly practical 

things in terms of just communicating among the various entities 

that will be involved in resolving the land fractionation. There are 

three or four entities within Interior that are going to need to work 

and coordinate together. We made some recommendations about 

that coordination, the level of communication, some elimination of 

duplication of effort. 

Mr. COLE. I would really appreciate it going forward if you can 

keep us regularly informed, particularly on the Cobell aspect. This 

has potential to make progress but it is also an enormously 

daunting challenge administratively for the Department. So if 

there are things we can do or ought to know I would hate to miss 

a great opportunity here to actually deal with the fractionation 

issue in the context of a court settlement where everybody has 

agreed because we administratively fumble the ball, and again, I 

do not think that critically of anybody. This is a big challenge to 

deal with but it is a great opportunity as well. 

Ms. KENDALL. I absolutely agree, and we have committed to 

work cooperatively with the Department and collaboratively to try 

to help them looking forward as opposed to what we oftentimes 

tend to do, which is sit back and wait until they do fumble. So we 

are actively involved in that right now. Our next effort is to look 

at the Office of Hearings and Appeals process for probate land but 

we have got a lot of maybe half a dozen areas that need to be addressed and we are working with the Department in that area but 

we will be glad to keep you apprised. 

Mr. COLE. Please do. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

INDIAN TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. SIMPSON. Before I call on Mrs. Lummis, let me follow up on 

what Tom was saying. I think this committee in a bipartisan way 

has felt like we have an obligation to meet our trust responsibilities to American Indians and that we also have to do it in an efficient way and help improve the operations of the BIA, and here is 

one of the things I have heard in talking with people at the BIA: 

if you look at this current Assistant Secretary now, he has been 

there two years and he is probably one of the longer-serving ones. 

Is it a problem that—and as I have talked to Mr. Echo Hawk—he 

is a good friend of mine, we have known each other for years from 

Idaho—this is a huge agency that has a lot of responsibility that 

is very, very complicated when you start looking at it. He has told 

me it is two years now and he is really feeling like he is just kind 

of getting his arms around what the problem is, and you have got 

to know what the problem is before you can solve it or propose solutions, and if this is one of the longer-serving directors of the BIA, 

is that one of the main problems we have, the same thing that you 

were mentioning with people working on the oil and gas industry 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
75 

for the government, that it is hard to get people who are going to 

stay around long enough to solve some of these very complicated 

problems? 

Ms. KENDALL. I think that is fair. If I remember correctly, we 

looked at the assistant secretaries for Indian Affairs and the average, Mr. Echo Hawk has exceeded the average. The average has 

been 16 months. And I know that the Department recently put in 

place an acting director for the Office of Special Trustee but had 

real difficulty finding someone to take that position. So it is a perennial problem and it is a real challenge for the Department. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I am not going to ask a question but 

I think this might be something that I think several of us would 

like to understand and get more into some of these issues. I requested and got a breakdown of not only the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but money that affects Indian Country and other budgets, 

and for the first time ever in history, they actually put together a 

budget so you can kind of holistically see, so tribes can holistically 

see resources that are available to them. I know you are putting 

together your hearing schedule, but I would really encourage you 

to do this not only for the Bureau, a hearing on that, but also have 

that budget document so we can kind of look at it wholly because 

I will tell you, the schools are a mess, and so are the health clinics. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. To that last point, in Wyoming there are two agencies in state government where they are considered so important 

that the appointees transcend the terms of the governor: the state 

engineer, which is water, and the Department of Audit, which we 

want to make sure is nonpartisan. And so those run for six years, 

and that person knows that for six years they are appointed regardless of whether it is a Democrat or Republican governor, and 

that may be something that the federal government should consider with the BIA, an appointment by the President that is confirmed by the Senate but then it extends beyond that President’s 

tenure. 

ONSHORE REVENUE COLLECTION: CHALLENGES

And I want now to change to the subject of onshore oil and gas 

drilling because that is another area where my state of Wyoming 

has a considerable amount of experience. Going back to Mr. Calvert’s question that really got lost, I think, in the stream of consciousness, he asked if there has been the notion of contracting out 

to a private party. I would suggest that it also should be considered 

to contract out to states because states that have a lot of oil and 

gas and coal production, my state, for example, is the number two 

energy-producing state in the United States and unlike Texas, 

which is number one, has an enormous portion of our oil and gas 

on public lands, both state and federal. The state board of land 

commissioners, state lands and investments, really has tremendous 

oil and gas lease terms in terms of benefiting the state and the 

ability for the state to monitor and audit. So I would say, as Mr. 

Cole said, looking to other countries as an example may not be the 

best apples-to-apples comparison. Look to states. And I would highVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
76 

ly recommend my state. I really think my state does a better job 

with its collections, with its severance and tax collections, its royalty collections, as well as the lease terms in our state oil and gas 

leases. 

There is a tremendous problem with onshore, and Ms. Kendall, 

I would like to pursue that with you for a minute. Does the federal 

government have the resources, both manpower and financial resources to manage the program? There is a report that indicates 

that over 90 percent of the leases in the intermountain west were 

protested. In my state of Wyoming, it is 100 percent. A hundred 

percent of the oil and gas leases are protested, and that we know 

that revenues collected from oil and gas declined between 2008 and 

2009 to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. So it is affecting 

revenues that these are protested and that part of the protests 

come from the fact that under the law, the agencies cannot seem 

to meet the deadlines, so these are sort of pro forma protests. They 

are cookie cutter protests that occur over and over because the 

agency misses deadlines. Is it your opinion that the agency is 

underresourced or are they just dragging their feet? 

Ms. KENDALL. I would say that they are underresourced. We 

have not done any work in regard to protests in particular but I 

was looking back at our report from last summer on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. The levels of expertise in areas that are involved 

in oil and gas extraction are really immense and there are so many 

considerations that have to be taken into account. You mentioned 

the protests. We have never even—I mean, we are aware of it but 

we have not looked at that particular issue specifically. So I guess 

I would say yes, the bureaus that oversee oil and gas production 

and leases are really challenged. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Is there any effort at the Department of the Interior to aggregate human and financial resources in areas where 

they are a revenue generator for the United States? 

Ms. KENDALL. Again, I think we face the chronic challenge of bureau coordination. In fact, although I cannot say this definitively, 

I have heard it anecdotally, that even BOEM and BLM tend to 

steal from each other. So the coordination effort, I think there may 

be some areas where they have that opportunity. We have not addressed those specifically. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Questions for the GAO folks. Many of these leases that are protested are by environmental groups that just file these canned 

briefs and obviously when 100 percent of leases are protested, they 

are protested by the same organizations over and over, some of 

which because a deadline was missed that is a statutory deadline 

and the deadline was missed by the agency. Some of these organizations receive compensation under EAJA, the Equal Access to Justice Act, out of taxpayer dollars for suing the federal government 

and then the taxpayers are paying them to sue the federal government. I support the intent of EAJA but I believe EAJA has been 

hijacked, and we do not know, though, there is no substantiation 

for how much money is being spent, how lawyers are being compensated. There are allegations and there is a university here in 

the East that has kind of looked at this as a research project. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
77 

Is the GAO the right agency to be the repository for how to monitor each award, whether they are made by the courts or by the 

agency itself in a settlement? And how much money in taxpayer 

dollars are agencies paying out? What are the sources of the payouts? Are they coming out of the agency budgets or are they coming 

out of the Department of Justice? Any thoughts there? 

Ms. MITTAL. We have done work at the request of Congress looking at appeals and litigation issues at the Forest Service so I think 

the type of questions you are asking is something that we could undertake as a review and we could try to get those answers for you. 

We have not done any work to date on those issues so we could not 

answer definitively today. 

Mr. RUSCO. With respect to protests for oil and gas leases, we 

have done a recent report on that. We did not address in that report this issue. We did find that most of the oil and gas leases, 

their protests come from a wide range of sources including, as you 

mentioned, environmental groups make up a large percentage, but 

also hunting, recreation groups, ranchers, state and local governments as well, and we also found, as you said, that this has affected the timeliness of issuing leases, so once a protest has been 

resolved and a lease is going to be issued, we found that protested 

leases missed their statutory deadline of 30 days’ issuance. Ninety 

percent of those were missed, and so it is an issue there. We have 

found sustained, longstanding workforce planning problems at 

BLM and they do not match their workforce planning with where 

they expect the most work to be very well, and that is a systemic 

problem. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Let me ask you further with regard to 

MMS reorganization, this question also for our GAO folks, have either of you looked into the Department’s handling of the leasing 

and permitting for coal? 

Ms. MITTAL. We have not. The only work we have done relating 

to coal has been mountaintop mining, and that is the Office of Surface Mining, but we have not looked in any great detail at leases. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. If I wanted to make a request that something be 

studied as a Member of Congress, how do these studies—what is 

the genesis of these studies? Do Members of Congress get to ask 

you to study certain things? 

Ms. MITTAL. Sure. The genesis of most of our studies are either 

mandates, committee requests or individual member requests. 

However, because of our backlog, we generally cannot get to member requests. We give highest priority to mandates and our second 

priority is to committee requests. So if a committee of jurisdiction 

was to request us to undertake a study, we would definitely be able 

to do that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Now I am going to switch to wildland fires, Mr. Chairman. Is 

that all right? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Congress gave the Forest Service tools to manage fuel reduction 

in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act but your report indicates 

that they do not have a strategy to even identify options for reducing hazardous vegetation and yet we are spending, well, I think in 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
78 

1999 a billion dollars on this subject, now $3 billion in recent years. 

So how is it that the agency does not even have a strategy to identify options about how to reduce hazardous fuels? 

Ms. MITTAL. The wildland fire issue is a major concern for us. 

It has been a major concern for us going back over a decade. There 

are four specific areas that we feel that the agencies have not 

moved forward in a timely fashion like we have recommended. One 

is to develop a cohesive strategy to deal with fuel reduction as well 

as respond to wild fires. The second area is cost containment 

issues. They still do not have cost containment goals and strategies 

on how to achieve those goals. The third area, as you just mentioned, is the fuel reduction options. They have not established 

good processes to determine which fuel reduction projects should be 

undertaken and what the costs would be associated with those. 

And finally, we have been concerned about the planning tool that 

they are developing, a budgeting planning tool that they have been 

developing for several years now, which is behind schedule. It is 

over budget and we have no guarantee that it is going to be able 

to deliver the objectives that it was designed for. So we have a 

whole host of issues related to the wildland fire issue, both for Interior as well as the Forest Service, and we will be talking about that 

next week some more. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran, do you have anything else? 

Mr. MORAN. I do, but I think given the fact that we have been 

here for, what? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just an hour and 55 minutes. 

Mr. MORAN. Call it two hours. I would be happy to let them go. 

They have done a great job. I do not think they are the problem. 

The problem is DOI, and in fact, it may even be us to some extent, 

you know, we have not provided sufficient oversight in the past, 

but this has been excellent testimony. It does seem to me there is 

some revenue here if we seek it out, and all we are doing to generate ways to balance the budget, this may be a very appropriate 

place to look, just getting folks to be more conscientious about not 

only the extraction of the people’s resources but getting adequate 

compensation. So hopefully we could pursue that in a bipartisan 

manner. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Just a brief question. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. HINCHEY. One of the things about natural gas that is very 

interesting, the price of natural gas in 2008 went up so high, it 

brought in a lot of revenue, then in 2009 it collapsed. So it is just 

one of those things. 

But I would like to talk about the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act 

just briefly, just give a little background on it. This was back in 

1995 when Congress passed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. It 

gave the Interior Department the ability to provide royalty forgiveness for the energy industry, royalty forgiveness. The idea was to 

spur deep-water exploration at a time when oil prices were low, 

drilling was less profitable. The measure was supposed to allow the 

Interior Department to institute price thresholds into the leases so 

that royalty payments would be made when prices were high. HowVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
79 

ever, due to something, allegedly a clerical error, whatever it might 

have been, the Interior Department left out price thresholds on 

contracts that were signed back in 1998 and 1999. That allowed oil 

and gas companies to extract resources from public property without paying royalties regardless of the price of oil or gas. Making 

matters worse, thanks to an industry-led lawsuit, an appeals court 

has ruled that companies would not have to pay royalties for contracts signed, whether they were signed in 1996, 1997, or interestingly enough, in 2000. So we are looking into this and trying to 

make some corrections about it, trying to prohibit the Interior Department from issuing any new leases to companies that refuse to 

recognize that the high price of oil no longer justifies royalty. 

So I wonder if you can remind the committee how much revenue 

we have lost, the United States is now losing thanks to this lawsuit? 

Mr. RUSCO. The amount is several billions already but it will be 

somewhere in—— 

Mr. HINCHEY. Several billions? What is more precise in terms of 

‘‘several’’? Is it three, seven? 

Mr. RUSCO. When we looked at it last, it was just over $1 billion 

that had accumulated but since then the lawsuit entailed paying 

back royalties that had been paid, so that has gone up and we have 

not yet looked at this issue since then. But we did estimate at that 

time that depending on the price of oil and gas, mostly oil in this 

case, the loss would be somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Twenty and 50 billion? 

Mr. RUSCO. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. And we have actually paid money back to the oil 

and gas companies. Are you finished, Maurice? I was just going to 

suggest, Mr. Chairman, before you conclude this meeting, I wonder 

if Mr. Cole might find that Indian tribe that got a thousand times 

reimbursement what BLM is getting for the right-of-way and 

maybe we can contact them on a consultant basis or something to 

get a little better break on our right-of-way. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I think that was something that—— 

Mr. COLE. I told Mr. Calvert at the time, look, we have learned 

something negotiating with you guys over the last 500 years. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Anyway, that will be the end of this meeting then. 

Mr. COLE. Can I make one quick point? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. COLE. First of all, I owe you an apology, Ms. Kendall. I think 

I called you Shelly and I did not mean to, so I apologize. 

Second, it would not be a fair meeting if my friend, Mr. Hinchey, 

and I did not wrangle a little bit over hydraulic fracturing. So I 

just want to make one point as you study this going forward. There 

are states that do this very well that have literally managed hydraulic fracturing for over 50 years. It is not a new technology. I 

think there are real problems here. I agree with Mr. Hinchey on 

that. And I think there is a lot of misunderstanding as well, and 

a lot of our problem I think stems from a difference in the sophistication and the experience at the state level in the regulatory 

arena, and I would suggest just as Ms. Lummis did, a good thing 

to do might be to go back to states that have a lot of experience 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
80 

and do this well as opposed to starting a whole new federal regime 

where we have no experience, no background. We already have a 

department that does not manage the things that it is supposed to 

do as well as any of us would like. I would be very careful about 

taking on a whole other area because natural gas production is rising in the country. This is a big thing, and again, there are real 

problems in this growth area but there are states that do this very 

well and it would be far better to keep this at the state level, in 

my opinion, help those states that have this challenge develop a 

regulatory regime than try to all of a sudden create one at the federal level when we have very little background in doing this, but 

just my observation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And I thank both the GAO and the IG 

for coming in and going through your reports today. My idea of 

oversight really is that we are all working together toward a common goal, so I appreciate your insights into this and working with 

the Department and with this committee to try to improve the operations of government. So thank you for being here today. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
81 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 66892A.047
82 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 66892A.048
83 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 66892A.049
84 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 66892A.050
85 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 66892A.051
86 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 66892A.052
87 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 66892A.053
88 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 66892A.054
89 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 66892A.055
90 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 66892A.056
91 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 66892A.057
92 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 66892A.058
93 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 66892A.059
94 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 66892A.060
95 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 66892A.061
96 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 66892A.062
97 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 66892A.063
98 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 66892A.064
99 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 66892A.065
100 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 66892A.066
101 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 66892A.067
102 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 66892A.068
103 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 66892A.069
104 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 66892A.070
105 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 66892A.071
106 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 66892A.072
107 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 66892A.073
108 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 66892A.074
109 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 66892A.075
110 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 66892A.076
111 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 66892A.077
112 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 66892A.078
113 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 66892A.079
114 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 66892A.080
115 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 66892A.081
116 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 66892A.082
117 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 66892A.083
118 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 66892A.084
119 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 66892A.085
120 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 66892A.086
121 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 66892A.087
122 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 66892A.088
123 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 66892A.089
124 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 66892A.090
125 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 66892A.091
126 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 66892A.092
127 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 66892A.093
128 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 66892A.094
129 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 66892A.095
130 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 66892A.096
131 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 66892A.097
132 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 66892A.098
133 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 66892A.099
134 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 66892A.100
135 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 66892A.101
136 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 66892A.102
137 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 66892A.103
138 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 66892A.104
139 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 66892A.105
140 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 66892A.106
141 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 66892A.107
142 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 66892A.108
143 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 66892A.109
144 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 66892A.110
145 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 66892A.111
146 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 66892A.112
147 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 66892A.113

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(149) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011. 

MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AT THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WITNESSES 

DAVID TRIMBLE, GAO ACTING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES & 

ENVIRONMENT 

ARTHUR A. ELKINS JR., INSPECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WADE NAJJUM, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR PROGRAM 

EVALUATION, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning, and welcome to our second oversight hearing this week. Today we plan to discuss Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General 

have identified a number of barriers to effective implementation of 

EPA’s mission and responsibilities through past audits, investigations, and evaluations. These barriers can be either self-imposed, 

internal constraints such as work force management that the agency may have the ability to address, or they may prove to be external challenges outside of the control of the agency, including one 

area that I have long had questions about, the lack of a government-wide coordinated effort and approach to climate change. 

We welcome the testimony from the GAO and EPA Inspector 

General today and look forward to an honest conversation about 

their findings and the next steps that either the EPA or the Congress should take in order to address these shortcomings. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I am pleased to be joined by our Ranking Member, 

Mr. Moran. Would you like to have your opening statement? 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Fine, Mr. Chairman. I will just say a couple words. 

First of all, when several of the members of the subcommittee get 

up and leave, do not think or do not wonder if was it something 

I said because it is just I know Mr. Cole is on and I think Mr. Calvert, we have got Secretary Gates at Defense Approps, so we are 

going to have to leave at quarter to ten or so. 

But we very much appreciate this, and speaking for the minority 

in this subcommittee, we particularly appreciate Chairman Simpson’s focus on the management challenges in these agencies. You 

know, they may draw quite as well, although we have got good attendance today, but they are not as sexy, but they are at least as 

important issues, and we are so dependent upon the credibility of 

the Inspector General’s Office and the General Accountability Office. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
150 

So this is terribly important and what we are going to hear 

about, and I have had an opportunity to go through the statements, 

so I am just going to take a couple of minutes because I want to 

ask some questions, if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, but these 

challenges that the Environmental Protection Agency confronts 

from water and waste water infrastructure, greenhouse gases, climate change, and so on and the regulation of chemicals that are 

used by Americans every day, they are enormous challenges, but 

what comes out from your testimony, and this is what the Chairman alluded to, EPA cannot fix it on its own. There has got to be 

an integrated collaborative strategy. 

And I have to say past administrators at times have ignored and 

delayed action until the lawsuits and court orders to implement 

legislation, and those court orders still exist today, and they are 

still going to be in place regardless of what we do in terms of providing federal resources. 

But there has been too much stove-piping of policies, and some 

of that is the Congress’s fault in terms of the separate authorizations. Now, we have been focusing through the continuing resolution on de-funding some of the EPA responsibilities, but the legal 

responsibility nevertheless stays even if the Federal Government 

does not have the resources. 

I am particularly concerned about the Toxic Substance Control 

Act because right here in the Washington area we are seeing it in 

the fish and the Potomac River and other things that there seems 

to be a real need to regulate the disrupting effects of these chemicals, but we are not sure how to do that, and EPA certainly cannot 

do it on its own. 

But we also lack this national approach with regard to infrastructure needs, and I know the IG’s report is particularly good on 

the issue of controlling non-point sources of pollution. The storm 

runoff, for example. But it is extraordinarily expensive, and now we 

are not going to have as much in the way of resources through the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund. So this is very relevant to the policy decisions we are making with regard to bringing about the kind of 

clean water that our citizens except and take for granted really. 

So this is a terribly important hearing, and again, I will end 

where I started, Mr. Chairman. I very much thank you for holding 

it. So thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and I also just want to emphasize what 

Jim said. It is tough because we all have different committees we 

have to serve on. I have Admiral Donald up in the Energy and 

Water Subcommittee that I have got to slip out and ask questions 

to, though we will have somebody here, but believe me, we do read 

your testimony and the recommendations and problems that you 

bring up, but we want to hear from you, and the subcommittee is 

allocating 15 minutes each to the GAO and the IG witnesses so 

they can adequately outline their concerns to the members, after 

which we will follow with members’ questions. 

We will first hear from Mr. David Trimble, Acting Director of the 

National Resources and Environment Group at the GAO. Mr. 

Trimble will be followed by Mr. Arthur Elkins Jr., the EPA InspecVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
151 

tor General. I thank both of you for being here today. Please share 

your thoughts with us. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID TRIMBLE

Mr. TRIMBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO’s work on key 

management challenges facing the Environmental Protection Agency as it implements and enforces laws intending to improve the 

quality of the Nation’s air, water, and lands and protect public 

health. 

Our work examines the full range of EPA’s programs, and we 

have made numerous recommendations to enhance the agency’s effectiveness. These recommendations have frequently targeted a 

lack of information necessary to make regulatory decisions, challenges with the agency’s management across headquarters and ten 

regional offices, and the need for enhanced internal and external 

coordination. My statement touches on five key challenges beginning with improving agency-wide management. 

First, EPA has not comprehensively analyzed its workload and 

workforce since the late 1980s to determine the optimal numbers 

and distribution of staff agency wide. We have recommended that 

EPA identify the factors driving its workload and develop accurate 

allocation systems for deploying staff with the right skills and capabilities to areas of need. 

In 2005, we reported that any efforts made by the agency to develop a more systematic process will be hampered by the lack of 

comprehensive and accurate workload data. In 2010, we reported 

that the agency still had not developed a comprehensive workload 

plan and that the only recent workload analysis conducted was limited to the Superfund Program. 

We have also identified challenges with managing its enforcement of environmental statutes and regulations and problems with 

incomplete and unreliable enforcement data. In sum, EPA could 

improve its oversight of state enforcement agencies and its regional 

offices and better inform the public about state enforcement efforts. 

Additionally, coordination on efforts such as the Chesapeake Bay 

Program and Water Infrastructure Projects in the border region 

with Mexico also needs improvement. In 2009, we reported that 

EPA and six federal agencies obligated $1.4 billion for drinking 

water and waste water projects in the U.S., Mexico border region 

from 2000, to 2008. We found that with only one exception the 

agencies had not comprehensively assessed the region’s needs and 

lacked coordinated policies and processes for selecting and building 

projects, potentially resulting in programmatic and budgetary inefficiencies. 

In 2008, we reported that while the Chesapeake Bay Program 

had developed a strategic framework for the restoration effort, it 

had not developed a coordinated implementation strategy for restoring the bay that identified the activities needed to reach its 

goals, resources needed to undertake the activities, or the partners 

who would be responsible for funding and carrying out the activities. We currently have work ongoing to assess the bay restoration 

effort at this time, and we are evaluating the steps EPA has taken 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
152 

since our report to improve the coordination with bay program 

partners. 

A second set of challenges involves the need to transform EPA’s 

process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. EPA’s ability 

to effectively implement its mission of protecting public health and 

the environment depends on credible and timely assessments of the 

risks posed by toxic chemicals. EPA assesses chemicals under its 

Integrated Risk Information System Program, IRIS, and is authorized under the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, to obtain information on the risks of chemicals and to control those it determines 

pose an unreasonable risk. 

Because EPA had not developed sufficient information under 

these programs to limit public exposure to chemicals that may pose 

health concerns, we added this issue to our high-risk list in 2009. 

Last month GAO updated its high-risk series and reaffirmed this 

as a continuing area of concern. 

Let me illustrate, if I could, the scope of the challenge in the 

IRIS Program. We reported in 2008 that of the 70 IRIS assessments in progress at that time 48 had been in progress for more 

than 5 years and 12 of those for more than 9 years, and most of 

these were still in the draft development stage. In addition, we reported that EPA indicated that about half of the chemical assessments in the database may potentially need to be updated. 

Third, EPA faces challenges concerning its management of a variety of clean water issues involving non-point sources of pollution 

such as urban and agricultural runoff as well as restoring large 

watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay. 

Additionally, there is a challenge posed by the cost of repairing 

and upgrading the Nation’s deteriorating water infrastructure. 

EPA finances infrastructure investments through the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These funds represent 

two of the largest items in the EPA’s budget, $2.1 billion for Clean 

Water and $1.4 billion for Drinking Water in 2010. These funds 

also received $6 billion in Recovery Act funding. 

However, as estimates predict that the cost to meet water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years will total from $485 billion 

to $1.2 trillion, additional federal, state, or local funds or revenue 

from rate increases will still be required to address future needs. 

Fourth, our work on the cost and pace of cleanup at Superfund 

and other hazardous waste sites has found that despite progress in 

cleaning up these sites, EPA’s future cleanup costs at non-federal 

priority-listed sites will likely be substantial and are likely to exceed current funding levels. Incomplete and inaccurate data hinder 

estimation of the amount of work remaining, as well as future 

cleanup costs at such sites. 

Key obstacles such as the absence of interagency agreements 

have delayed cleanups at some priority sites at Department of Defense installations. We have recommended that EPA assess comprehensiveness and reliability of the data the agency collects on the 

Superfund Program and make necessary improvements. 

Finally, the fifth set of challenges involves the agency’s role in 

addressing climate change. While our past work in this area has 

addressed various issues concerning others’ experiences with cap 

and trade programs and technical issues such as carbon capture 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
153 

and storage, the fundamental challenge facing EPA concerns the 

agency’s efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions under the 

Clean Air Act. 

These efforts have led to an array of legal challenges and uncertainty about prospects for further regulation. In 2009, EPA found 

that emissions from motor vehicles were endangering public health 

and welfare. This endangerment finding is the basis for EPA’s efforts to limit greenhouse gases under the Act. Twenty-six lawsuits 

challenging this finding have been filed and will be heard together 

by a panel of judges. 

In addition, EPA has issued a rule for greenhouse gas emissions 

from light-duty motor vehicles and additional rules for certain stationary sources have also been challenged in court. 

Furthermore, five bills that would preclude EPA from regulating 

greenhouse gases have been introduced in this Congress. As a result, EPA’s efforts to address greenhouse gases face substantial obstacles and uncertainty going forward. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you all may have. 

[The statement of David C. Trimble follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
154 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 66892A.114
155 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 66892A.115
156 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 66892A.116
157 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 66892A.117
158 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 66892A.118
159 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 66892A.119
160 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 66892A.120
161 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 66892A.121
162 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 66892A.122
163 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 66892A.123
164 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 66892A.124
165 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 66892A.125
166 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 66892A.126
167 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 66892A.127
168 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 66892A.128
169 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 66892A.129
170 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 66892A.130
171 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 66892A.131
172 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 66892A.132
173 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 66892A.133
174 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 66892A.134
175 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 66892A.135
176 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 66892A.136
177 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 66892A.137
178 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 66892A.138
179 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 66892A.139
180 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 66892A.140
181 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 66892A.141
182 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 66892A.142
183 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 66892A.143
184 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 66892A.144
185 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 66892A.145
186 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 66892A.146
187 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 66892A.147
188 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 66892A.148
189 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 66892A.149
190 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Elkins. 

TESTIMONY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ARTHUR ELKINS, JR. 

Mr. ELKINS. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Arthur Elkins, Jr., Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I also serve as the Inspector General of 

the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board as well. 

I am pleased to appear before you today for the first time to discuss 

the significant management challenges facing EPA that the OIG 

identified for fiscal year 2010. 

Serving as Inspector General is an honor and a privilege for me 

because of the opportunities presented to make a positive difference 

by protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud, waste, and abuse. Also, 

by making recommendations that assist EPA to achieve its stated 

goals of protecting human health and the environment. 

Since becoming Inspector General in June, 2010, I have been 

thoroughly impressed with the expertise, dedication, and professionalism of my OIG staff. Their hard work serves as the basis of 

my testimony this morning. 

OIG conducts independent, non-partisan audits, evaluations, and 

investigations. This independence is the source of our credibility. 

While my remarks this morning are on our fiscal year 2010 management challenges list issued last May, I should note that we are 

currently updating our challenges list for fiscal year 2011, and will 

have those ready by early this summer. 

We identified seven challenges which are detailed in my statement for the record. This morning I would like to focus on one of 

these challenges, which is cyber security. The challenge of cyber security as we see it is that EPA has a limited capability to effectively respond to advanced persistent threats, otherwise known as 

APTs, conducted by outside organizations which are designed to establish a beachhead within EPA’s computer networks to steal or 

modify information without detection. APT-type attacks are an infestation much like bedbugs. Once they are in, it is hard to get 

them out. 

EPA lacks sufficiently-trained personnel and resources to adequately address this type of threat. For example, EPA has faced 

APT-type compromises across its network computer systems. These 

compromises have resulted in proven thefts of intellectual data. 

Our investigations have shown illegal accesses to multiple key infrastructure components and high-level personnel to include political appointees. 

Now, why is this important? It is important because these compromises places EPA infrastructure and data at risk. For example, 

a risk to CBI, intellectual properties such as chemical formulas, 

and water utilities vulnerabilities—data that EPA is entrusted to 

protect. 

It is also important because it could have an impact on our economy and trade, environmental and human safety programs, and potentially allow for compromises due to trusted relationships between EPA’s computer domain and other government computer domains such as the USDA, Interior, and Commerce. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
191 

Discussing the challenges of addressing and responding to cyber 

attacks is also a natural segue here to our budget request for fiscal 

year 2012. The President’s budget included $56 million and 365 

FTE, which includes a $10 million transfer from the Superfund 

Trust Fund, about $5 million below our original request. 

Now, when Congress amended the Inspector General Act in 

2008, it provided the IGs with additional safeguards to our independence. One is the authority to provide comments in the President’s budget submission if we believe the budget request for our 

operations would substantially inhibit us from performing the duties of the Office. I do not take this authority lightly. However, I 

felt an obligation under the law to state my concerns about our 

2012 budget, so I provided comments with the President’s budget 

submission because I believe our budget request would inhibit us 

from doing our work. 

Additional funds would strengthen our Office of Cyber Investigations and homeland security efforts to help the agency address this 

security issue. We could hire more agents, obtain needed specialized training for agents, and purchase necessary hardware and 

software for cyber investigations. Specifically, this would allow for 

the proper future funding of our existing 11 FTEs, increase investigative and analytical staff from 11 to 23, and establish an office 

in the west, thereby expanding our presence beyond just DC and 

RTP where we are currently located, closer to any west coast compromises. 

Putting the OIG’s budget request in perspective, the total OIG 

budget represents an investment in oversight of less than half of 

1 percent of the agency’s total budget. I see the OIG as an insurance policy. During times of reduced resources is when there is a 

greater need for oversight to promote efficiency and address the 

heightened risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

Finally, in closing, management challenges are meant to bring 

the big issues to the attention of senior EPA management, Congress, and the public. I think we and GAO share the same goal 

here. That is to see that EPA improves its performance. The agency 

has made some progress in addressing some of the challenges we 

identified. For example, in the cyber security area, members of the 

agency have told my staff, ‘‘we get’’ it as it pertains to cyber security, and they are taking steps independently and with us through 

the development of an MOU to address the ever-changing landscape of cyber security threats. 

However, a more sustained and robust effort is needed to fully 

resolve not just cyber security but the other challenges that we 

identified as well. We will continue to monitor and track EPA’s 

progress and report on any other emerging issues, but if the OIG 

is under-funded, it will impact the depth of our reviews in these 

and other areas. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may 

have. 

[The statement of Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
192 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 66892A.150
193 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 66892A.151
194 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 66892A.152
195 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 66892A.153
196 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 66892A.154
197 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 66892A.155
198 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 66892A.156
199 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 66892A.157
200 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 66892A.158
201 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 66892A.159
202 

Mr. SIMPSON. I know that you have got to go here shortly. Is 

there anything you would like to ask before you go? 

Mr. MORAN. I would, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask about the 

Chesapeake Bay because that is particularly important to me and 

otherwise it might not come up. 

We have a new agreement that requires everyone to be involved 

in terms of achieving the total maximum daily load, but that requirement was then wiped out in the continuing resolution. Do you 

see, either of you, as that being sufficient to achieve our objectives? 

Because we are about 30 years behind in terms of achieving the objectives that we had set with the six states. Is there any comment 

on that? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I think as I noted, we have an ongoing review. Under a mandate we have a recurring obligation to review 

progress under the Chesapeake Bay Program. We have an ongoing 

review looking at progress since we last looked at the issue in 

2008. 

Part of that effort is to look at the latest plan taken by the EPA 

and the Administration and then, again, looking at the basic issues 

we have identified before in terms of identifying strategic goals and 

coordination issues. I think our report will probably get at a lot of 

the issues that you are asking. 

Mr. MORAN. When will we get that report? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That will be early summer, I believe. 

Mr. MORAN. Early summer of this year? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MORAN. All right. Let me just ask you, we have had some 

serious problems with regard to TSCA, the regulation of the chemicals that consumers use every day. Is TSCA sufficient? We have 

been considering reauthorization of TSCA, but again, you bring out 

the fact that there needs to be more collaboration than exists right 

now. Do you see the TSCA legislation as sufficient? Can we just 

renew it, or should there be a substantial reconfiguration of it? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I know that in our prior work we have identified 

substantial problems with TSCA both in terms of its implementation and also we have made very specific recommendations regarding legislative changes as well. So I think both need to be addressed. 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

Mr. ELKINS. And I would concur with that assessment as well. 

We found similar challenges as well. 

Mr. MORAN. So the existing legislation is insufficient to achieve 

the tasks both with combinations of chemicals and the existing authority. 

Just one last thing, and then I am going to let it go. The water 

pollution from non-point sources, this is a major finding. Do we 

need more resources? I know we have cut the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund and the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund, but 

you are telling us that these non-point sources, the storm water 

runoff particularly, we are really not making a whole lot of 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
203 

progress in terms of achieving the quality of the water that we 

need. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. We right now have an ongoing review looking at 

the 319 Program for non-point sources. It is clearly an area of need. 

A lot of progress has been made in the past regarding point-source 

pollution, and right now a lot of our focus in the current review is 

looking at coordination efforts and level of effort in the 319 Program. So certainly more is needed in that area. 

Mr. ELKINS. And I do not know exactly whether or not we have 

looked at that exact issue. You know, I would like to state for the 

record here, too, I have been on board now for about 8 months, so 

I am not going to claim to know all the small details. That is why 

I brought some of my qualified staff with me. 

So at this point let me turn around. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Mr. NAJJUM. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation. We have done work in the Chesapeake Bay but 

not within the past 2 years. We thought the program office and Executive Order did make some big steps, and also the coordination 

with the Department of Agriculture, in particular for non-point 

sources. And that has carried over, I think, into other areas of the 

country where agriculture is looking at it. That was part of a joint 

project we did with the USDA IG. 

WATER NUTRIENTS

We also issued a report on nutrients standards for the water. 

EPA accepted and began taking action on it to look at a lot of the 

nutrients that come from the non-point sources. They do have authority to deal with that. They just have to exercise it, which was 

one of the things that we recommended they do. 

Mr. MORAN. More challenging in terms of trying to get out. There 

are other issues, the important of the greenhouse gas registry and 

so on, but I suspect Ms. McCollum, Mr. Chairman, is going to pursue areas like that, so rather than be repetitive, I thank you for 

the opportunity, and thank you very much for having this hearing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned that workforce management is a 

challenge. I find that, I guess, kind of surprising because that 

would seem to be one of the primary goals of management is to 

make sure your workforce is aligned with priorities that you have 

established. 

Why is that a problem, and how do we get at it, and could workforce management or the lack of workforce management lead to differences between the regions and how different rules and regulations are applied? I continue to hear this from businesses, industries that have plants in different parts of the country that say 

rules applied one way in this region and another way in another 

region and that type of thing. 

Could the lack of workforce management lead to that type of implementation? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. You know, I do not know if our work is specifically 

tied to that, but that is certainly one potential consequence. I 

mean, the fundamental issue is identifying your workload, lining 

up your workforce with that workload, and then linking it to your 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
204 

strategic objectives, and that is really where we have found the 

agency has fallen down. I believe the last workforce plan was in 

2006, and I believe that was the first one by the agency. 

And so without the ability to line up your resources with the 

workload, a natural consequence is that you have such disconnects 

as you mentioned. I think the other area that leads to that kind 

of disconnect is in the area of enforcement, where we have repeatedly made observations or recommendations concerning improving 

the data EPA has to manage enforcement undertaken by the states 

and the regions in their oversight capacity. And it is the absence 

of that data or the absence of using that data to analyze why there 

are differences, I think is also a potential cause of the situation you 

described. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Speaking of data and data the states have, do you 

know many of the environmental responsibilities are delegated to 

the states, if those states demonstrate that they can operate programs and they are at least as stringent as the federal standards? 

The EPA IG is finding that more data collection is required to ensure proper oversight of state-delegated programs is in direct conflict with what we hear from the states quite frankly. 

The GAO has also identified the need for more consistent enforcement and compliance data, yet some states already believe 

that the EPA’s data requirements are too burdensome. We even 

saw a few states rejecting Recovery Act funds because of the reporting burden that was too high for those states. 

Have you heard similar complaints as you conducted your reviews or since the release of your findings, or have you found that 

states generally agree with the recommendations to increase data 

collection? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I would have to go back to check on specific state 

responses. I believe a lot of the focus of our recommendations concerns consistency of information across the regions and the states 

as much as it is additional information. So I am not sure it is necessarily an additional burden we are talking about. 

DATA: COLLECTION AND REPORTING

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, and also on the work that we have done, I am 

not quite sure that I have information on what the states’ reaction 

has been to our report because we do the review and then release 

the report to the agency, although we have found that data quality 

issues have been an ongoing challenge. 

Again, I would like to turn to my subject matter experts and see 

if anybody can give me—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. And your name is for the record? 

Mr. NAJJUM. Wade Najjum, Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. NAJJUM. What we have found is, yes, the states have told us 

when we have talked with them about not liking some of the requirements or the inconsistent requirements that EPA has. What 

we found from our point of view is the real issue is there is a difference in definition. It’s not so much that we have not looked to 

see that the requirements are burdensome necessarily. But when 

we are looking at an enforcement function it is to see do they have 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
205 

the information to make the right decisions? And what you will 

have generally is through the regions, EPA relies on the state systems to provide them the information. 

That information varies from state to state, and the definition of 

what goes into the database varies from state to state. So by the 

time it gets through the regions and their interpretation and ten 

different regions’ interpretation of it, it is inconsistent. 

I do not think it is one that you would blame any of the states 

for having their own system, but what you do have is that lack of 

a consistent definition so that when the data gets brought in and 

consolidated, you don’t have a real understanding of what it means. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How hard can it be to ask for consistent data from 

the states or from the regions? 

Mr. NAJJUM. Well, it is not hard to ask for it unless you are asking the states to change their system to provide information to a 

definition that they did not design their systems to do. I think that 

is the issue. The states have their systems which are to serve their 

own purposes. To the extent it can, EPA draws their information 

from these systems. 

There may not be a standard definition. We recently issued a report on emergency drinking water wells. It is not something that 

EPA looks at but based on the situation in Crestwood where a 

town was blending water using contaminated water from an emergency well to supplement their water supply. We looked to see does 

EPA know where emergency wells are. Because it is a data element 

that is reported but depending on which state you are dealing with 

depends on how they categorize and report it. 

So when you pull all the information together, it is useless. I believe Colorado, for example, maintains emergency wells strictly for 

firefighting. Does not have anything to do with whether it is contaminated or not. Some other places in Illinois, for example, maintained an emergency well of contaminated water for firefighting, 

just for emergencies, but there are two different types of wells 

there that we are really talking about. 

So I think that is the issue, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. This is baffling to me. I mean, I would think 

that if we define what an emergency well was and there could be 

many different types, potable water, emergencies for firefighting, 

that would be pretty clear. You say states are doing their own 

thing. If we ask somebody to report on emergency wells and we 

say, okay, potable and for forest fires, how hard is that? 

Mr. NAJJUM. It would be hard if you wanted to use your authority to tell the states, including the ones that do not keep those 

records necessarily, they have to do it. I think that is the issue 

there on lots of things. 

If we use somebody else’s system, unless you are willing to tell 

them how to define all the data elements in it, if you are willing 

to accept their system, then you accept the information that is in 

it. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay. 

Mr. NAJJUM. And it may be of different definitions and quality. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
206 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am a mom. So if I say drink your milk, it 

means drink your milk. It does not mean drink the water or drink 

something else, or go to the refrigerator and get juice to drink. It 

means drink the milk. So if I ask people to report on emergency 

wells and I have described what emergency wells are to them—— 

Mr. NAJJUM. Yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM [continuing]. They might have systems that account for things differently, but is it that they cannot or will not? 

Because you could have a system that lists that differently, but you 

still have it in front of you to pull it out. 

Will they not or they cannot? 

Mr. NAJJUM. I do not think it is a will not or cannot. I think 

there is so much information available. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I think you are being very polite, sir. 

Mr. NAJJUM. I try to be. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, it is kind of surprising to me. You would 

think that when the states accept the responsibility to enforce the 

Clean Water Act or are delegated the authority to do that, part of 

that delegation would be this is what we expect, not only that you 

meet standards, but that you have reportable data that fits within 

the system so that we know what is going on. 

DELEGATIONS TO STATES

Mr. NAJJUM. As a matter of fact, sir, we issued a report on inconsistencies between the EPA State Clean Water Act memorandums 

of agreement that have been put into place. They are the basic underlying internal controls to that delegation of authority, and depending on when that delegation was made and when it has been 

updated or how it has been updated, some of those memorandum 

of agreements were not complete as far as changes, statutory 

changes to the act or things had changed over time. 

And what they covered, since they were individually negotiated 

between the regions and the states, they were not consistent, which 

may go back to your earlier point about inconsistencies in enforcement. It is that delegation to the states and then how the states 

actually do the work that is how the inconsistencies come about. 

I think the memorandum of agreement has been described as part 

of a layer cake. It is not a sole defining document, but it is part 

of a layer cake of how we do business with the states, and many 

of them were of our date. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I have a couple of things I would 

like to ask about, but I really want to take the time while I have 

you here to learn, so I am going to just see how I go from here. 

I would like to talk about Toxic Chemical Reform. 

I come from a state that actually has invested and put money 

into public health and toxic chemicals and is working on even listing emerging chemicals of concern. 

The EPA, as we were kind of talking before, something that was 

even easier to describe, what is emergency water, states have been 

working with the EPA in chemical reform. In the GAO report, 

there suggests that there is a barrier to the EPA’s ability to assess 

chemical risks because of the lack of authority under TSCA to require comprehensive health and safety information. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
207 

Then I go to page 8 of your report, and you have in here in the 

first paragraph, I read from it, ‘‘In contrast to the approach taken 

by the European Union which generally places the burden on companies to prove the data on the chemicals that they produce to address the risks posed by these chemicals to human health and the 

environment.’’ So we have just the opposite here. 

I would like you to, as you comment, have that in the back of 

your mind as you respond. 

Then you go on to say, ‘‘Nevertheless, although 85 percent of the 

notices lack any health or safety tests, EPA does not often use its 

authority to obtain more information.’’ So there is someone out 

there kind of collecting and saying, jeez, 85 percent of this information we have on whether or not this is toxic is really, really inconclusive. 

And then one of the challenges that you kind of addressed in 

your report is to shift more of the burden to chemical companies 

for demonstrating the safety of their product, so I am kind of concerned that we are not watching what is going on there with these 

chemicals of emerging concern, let alone we still have a lot of 

chemicals that are currently out there. 

And then you go on to talk about nanotechnology, which is even, 

I do not want to say frightening, because I think nanotechnology 

possesses a lot of good, but we have no idea on how to handle it 

as waste and what is safe. 

Could you maybe talk to me about how you really think your 

ability to guard and protect public health is not being addressed 

because we are not sharing the burden with the companies who are 

for profit, who sell these products and then we end up cleaning or 

we end up as taxpayers cleaning it up or dealing with the public 

health risk. Could you talk about that and maybe what is preventing you from being more efficient in that? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. Well, I think our work on EPA’s Toxic Chemical Programs, I mean, there are two pieces that form the base for 

why it became a high-risk area. One was IRIS, which is EPA’s program for assessing toxicity, and the program you alluded to is 

under TSCA, which regulates chemicals. 

What our work has found and which is what has led to the numerous recommendations in the area for both agency and legislation is that there is sort of an overwhelming amount of work to be 

done. When TSCA first kicked in, there were about some 60,000 

chemicals in use at the time, registered for use. Currently there are 

about some 80,000 registered for use. Not all are currently in use, 

but that is the number in the registry. 

The challenge has been to get information on the potential health 

effects of those chemicals. The level of burden or what kind of information varies depending on whether it was in use or if it is a 

new chemical. For chemicals that are coming into use, companies 

have to provide a pre-manufacture or pre-use notification to EPA, 

and the 85 percent figure you allude to is in reference to new 

chemicals coming into commerce. Eighty-five percent of the notices 

coming to EPA did not have the health effects information associated with that. 

Now, some of that may be because it is known, it is a no-brainer. 

But a lot of it is an unknown. It is a question mark, and the chalVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
208 

lenges that we have reported on and previously have been that the 

thresholds, the legislative, the statutory criteria EPA must meet in 

order to demand more information has been a very high hurdle and 

has impeded EPA’s ability to get the information on the potential 

health affects of those chemicals. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Do you know if the EPA requires if you were 

able to have the information, what would be the level effect on pediatrics versus adult? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That kind of question goes more into the Integrated Risks Information System, which is on the potential health 

effects of a chemical, and that would be the kind of thing that 

would go into that study, and that is the area where we have noted 

problems just because they have been, again, long in tooth in terms 

of getting these things out. They have not been keeping up with 

the pace and then a lot of the assessments already into their Integrated Risk Information System are already in need of updating. 

So I believe in my opening statement I made the reference to the 

70 that were in the process and about 40 of those or 48 of those 

were already over, I believe, 5 years old and 12 were over 9 years 

old. And the IRIS process is what is the foundation for EPA’s other 

regulatory actions, because that provides the human health effects 

information which then becomes the basis for regulating it in air 

and water and for Superfund cleanups. 

So that is why that is such a critical program. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So you have a list of the backlog and how far 

behind we are? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I believe we touched on that in our report from 

2008. I do not know if we have current information. In 2008, I believe we had said there were about 70 ongoing IRIS assessments, 

and at that time I think we had been told that about half of the 

assessments were already in the database, and I believe the database had around 500 or so chemicals already in potential need of 

updating. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. There was some legislation that passed through 

our university system, so we are not necessarily growing the Federal Government larger to do all this, but have emerging centers 

of excellence with our university systems. Are you aware of that, 

and how do you interface with other people who are working on it 

so we are not, you know, trying to create another wheel when there 

is somebody out there who can do it, and we can work with them 

more effectively and efficiently with the taxpayers’ dollars? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. GAO has not looked at EPA’s interaction with 

the universities and centers of excellence and whether that is part 

of their current strategy for reforming the process. I know they 

have a lot of initiatives ongoing regarding both IRIS and TSCA, but 

I am not familiar. That is not an area we have done work in recently. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trimble, to you first. 

The Environmental Protection Agency has obviously, and you mentioned it, caused controversy with some of the actions that have 

been taken, including overreach lawsuits, legislation introduced on 

greenhouse gas regulation, push back on Clean Water Act regulations that have been interpreted to include virtually every body of 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
209 

water including those created when a truck tire makes an indent 

in the surface of the earth. It just seems that there is over-zealousness everywhere. 

What roles does the federal oversight community, including the 

GAO and the Inspector General, play when such overreach is occurring? Is it your role or is it the Inspector General’s role to say, 

‘‘hey, is it time to back off a bit here’’? Like I said, whether it is 

greenhouse gas regulation or any of the other areas, there seems 

to be a chorus outside of the agency saying there is overreach here. 

What role do you play? 

INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT

Mr. ELKINS. I will address that. Under the IG Act, the IG’s role 

is clearly laid out by statute. One of the prohibitions for IGs is not 

to get involved in operational issues of an agency, which would include making policy decisions or policy judgments. The type of 

issue that you raised is a policy issue. 

What the IG’s role is is that once the agency has implemented 

a policy, then the IG can take a look at what the impact of that 

use of discretion is. That will be our proper role. So I would be out 

of my lane to comment on issues related to the agency’s exercise 

of policy beyond the impact issue. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Trimble, has the GAO been commissioned to 

study this issue by any members? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. No, we have not. The one observation I would 

make is that GAO has a policy of not getting involved in areas 

where there is ongoing litigation, so for example, I think one of the 

areas—— 

Mr. FLAKE. Then how do you get involved in anything? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. Exactly. One of the areas, for example, is I believe there is a lawsuit challenging the TMDL for the Chesapeake 

Bay by I believe the Farm Federation or Farm Bureau. That is an 

area which, while it is related to ongoing work we are doing, we 

are going to shy away from because it puts us at risk of getting 

right in the middle of the litigation, and we do not want to sort of 

have our records subpoenaed and be called out. So as a policy matter we will shy away. 

So I think the fact of what happens is because this is such a litigious area, we sort of get bumped out of it for other reasons. 

Mr. FLAKE. Then it is up to us, I guess. Right? 

Mr. Elkins, you noted in your testimony that the agency is implementing a sustainable water infrastructure policy that includes 

finding ways to expand and incorporate green infrastructure options. 

Now, given the limited funding that is available right now for 

new initiatives, have you done any assessment or has anybody on 

what new costs that might incur, what relative effectiveness and 

efficiency of using these new green infrastructure options? 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE: GREEN

Mr. ELKINS. You know, I hate to do this, but it seems that this 

is turning into the Wade Najjum show here, but he seems to be my 

subject matter expert. He has all the details on this, so Wade. 

Mr. NAJJUM. Wade Najjum. The short answer, sir, would be no. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
210 

Mr. FLAKE. You work just like my staff. So, we will turn to the 

GAO then. Has that been the subject of a study commissioned by 

any member? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. We have not looked at that directly. It came 

up incidentally in our work looking at the Recovery Act money that 

went to the Revolving Funds, and there was a 20 percent set-aside 

for green projects. So we looked at more sort of technical implementation issues regarding that. 

We have an ongoing review due out I think at the very end of 

May, beginning of June. That report is sort of an update on our 

monitoring of the Clean Water, Drinking Water Funds, and I think 

we will get a little bit more in detail, but nothing specific as to the 

cost implications, I believe. 

Mr. FLAKE. So you have not issued any reports that you can report on or give a summary of now? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. No, I do not believe, not on the efficiency of the 

costs of those initiatives. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I think Mrs. Lummis has a problem with her voice 

today and so she came to listen more than anything else because 

the voice is gone. I understand that. 

Let me ask. In the report the GAO released yesterday entitled, 

‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and Enhance Revenue,’’ the GAO identified coordination with other agencies as an issue in the U.S.-Mexico 

border region leading to an ineffective and fragmented use of resources. I think you mentioned this in your testimony. 

The GAO suggested that Congress establish a taskforce to review 

and coordinate those activities. Any idea how that taskforce would 

work and why Congress should do it rather than the Administrative Branch of government? As I understand seven agencies are the 

EPA, the USDA, the Army Corps of Engineers, IHS, EDA, the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. I am not that familiar with the details as to 

why that became a matter for Congress other than, of course, when 

you have that many agencies it is not something one agency can 

do unilaterally. So obviously having sort of another force to tell 

them to do it, I think, is the obvious answer. 

That was an area, I think as I mentioned in my opening statement, you have seven agencies involved in the border region of 

Mexico, providing similar services for clean water, drinking water 

projects. Only one of those agencies has actually done a comprehensive sort of needs assessment of the region. That was the Indian 

Health Service at the reservations or the Indian lands. 

And so what you had then is both Ag and EPA as the big players, sort of working potentially across purposes because the actions 

were not coordinated. 

Moreover, you increase the burden on the local communities because a lot of the application requirements for those projects, which 

can involve a lot of engineering drawings, which could cost you 

$30,000 to put a package together, they are not identical. So if you 

are going to apply to both funding streams, you have to do it twice, 

and then sometimes people would do it, and then they would 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
211 

choose one funding stream but not the other, and then you have 

had a waste of resources in that regard. 

So there is clearly a potential for improvements at the local level 

just to make the program more effective. And moreover, the way 

the program is constructed is that the areas perhaps of greatest 

need may not be communities that have the technical or financial 

wherewithal to go through the application process for these federal 

programs. So you need to have a strategic outlook to target those 

communities because the ones who will be silent may be the ones 

who are most in need as well. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Mr. Elkins, you mentioned and talked some 

about adequate funding within the EPA for cyber security. Tell me 

about that need more if you would. When I think of cyber security, 

the EPA is not something that I really think of. Yesterday when 

we heard about the Department of the Interior and other agencies 

uniting cyber securities, I always think of that with Homeland Security and Defense and some of the other agencies. 

Why is it important within EPA, and what would be the results 

if we did not pursue that, make sure they had a secure system? 

CYBER SECURITY

Mr. ELKINS. Sure. That is a fair question. Most people do not realize that EPA has information that is of a sensitive nature. For 

instance, treaty information, information on climate change that 

someone might have an interest in to be able to use that information against the interest of the United States. 

There has been evidence and we have investigated intrusions 

into EPA systems. I cannot get into the specifics of that because 

it is of a classified nature, but it suggests that this is a real issue. 

Also, I think, just looking at the recent press releases would indicate, generally speaking, this is not just an EPA issue. This is a 

global issue, and it is a Federal Government issue. Other agencies 

than EPA are also being attacked as well. 

The challenges and the threat changes. The players change. You 

know, these are organized operations that are specifically set up to 

infiltrate, to get into the system, to bury themselves in there, and 

then to use the systems against EPA. That compromised information then goes out to some of our partners. So it is a very insidious 

type of an operation. 

So it is a major management challenge for the agency. It is ongoing. It is complicated to the extent that the current authorities, for 

instance, the IG Act provides that the IG is responsible for overseeing the operations and programs of the agency. However, on the 

other hand the agency also has certain responsibilities in terms of 

security and how it protects its assets. 

So sometimes there is a disconnect between the agency’s desire 

to run its show and the IG’s responsibilities to oversee. So we run 

into conflict and where we have that gap is where those who have 

an interest in taking advantage of that can play and can get in and 

cause a lot of harm. 

So to have some sort of consistent approach to dealing with cyber 

security would be helpful, and it may require legislation to do that. 

I am not quite sure. But every day we see more and more attacks. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
212 

It becomes more and more serious, and I am not quite sure we totally have a coherent strategy to be able to address it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is it more of a focus issue within the Department 

or a resource issue? 

Mr. ELKINS. It is a little bit of both. From our perspective it is 

a resource issue because it does take money. This is not an issue 

where I can just take criminal investigators from one shop and just 

detail them over to do cyber work. Cyber folks come with a certain 

skill set and also requires investment in certain types of software 

to be able to detect when there has been an intrusion. So from our 

standpoint it is a resource issue. 

I believe the agency, as I said, gets it. They understand that this 

is a challenge, and it is a threat, and we are working hopefully as 

a team, the agency and the IG’s office, as we move forward to be 

able to address this. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. One of the things that sometimes 

we do not think about when we talk about growth and potential 

and expansion and everything else is what is changing in the 

world. Now, we touched on the chemicals a little bit. One of the 

things, nanotechnology, when these legislation and these agencies 

were set up, nanotechnology was not on anybody’s radar screen, 

and there you are dealing with it. Cyber security was not anything 

that people were worried about. There we are dealing with it. 

Another thing that has kind of come up of concern is coordinating climate change activities, and the chair touched on this yesterday. One of the things that, when the EPA was looking at and 

people were not talking about fracking and people were not talking 

about, capturing carbon and storing it and all that. 

And these are things you have to look at because they impact 

clean water for populations to drink. It is a public health issue. It 

is a conservation issue for future generations. 

Has GAO or the Inspector General, have you looked at, and I 

mean, this is not about growing government bigger. These are responses to technology. Have you looked at just doing the basic mission of the EPA plus these new, whether it is new chemicals, new 

technologies, new production methods, how they impact your budget, and when you are talking about building in for inflation, are we 

building in for how we have to respond to technology so that you 

can really do your job efficiently? 

I think we still need to look for ways, and I think climate change 

is one way where we can start molding the interagency cooperation 

better. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Well, I mean, I think you make some excellent 

points regarding sort of the evolving, fast-changing world and the 

evolving challenges, and I think, you know, to go back to the importance of workload and workforce planning, that is sort of why 

you need to do that. That is why that is so important, and I think 

in our prior reports what we had noted was EPA, even though they 

had identified changes in their workload and their responsibilities 

under the Clean Water Act and these other duties, that there is not 

a systematic process by which they look at those evolving responsibilities and make sure both that their staff are aligned to address 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
213 

that, as well as to make sure that their staff’s skill sets are aligned 

to address that to meet their changing strategic goals. 

So I think that is sort of the heart and soul of the importance 

of that issue. In general, in sort of an incidental way, we come 

across this repeatedly, so in terms of the coordination issue, we 

have done a report on carbon capture and storage, and in that report we noted that to do this is not something the EPA can do 

alone. You are talking about massive technology, you are talking 

about massive transportation systems to ship this stuff across the 

country, plus storage. So you are talking, you know, the Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture and Interior. 

All these guys are going to be involved in some effort like that, and 

we had made recommendations along those lines, and I believe the 

President last year or the end of the prior year had started a coalition or an executive level group to look at this issue. 

But absolutely most of these big changes, these challenges are 

going to require large amounts of coordination across the agencies. 

NANOTECHNOLOGY

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS

Mr. ELKINS. And we agree with you. We think these are important issues in areas that we should be looking at from an IG perspective. As a matter of fact, currently we do have ongoing projects 

right now looking at the nano-material areas as well as endocrine 

disrupters as well. 

So I guess what I can say to you is stay tuned because there will 

be reports coming out within the near future. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I think that makes it a real challenge for you and for this committee putting the budget together, 

and we have to do a lot of belt tightening right now. I am not saying that we do not, but we have a responsibility for not only today’s 

public health issues but being smart for the next generation, because if we are not, it is going to be even more expensive for them 

to deal with that. 

If I could, it is quick, and it is short. It is the Great Lakes, which 

I know everybody is just so excited to hear about it. The EPA has 

been given an initiative, and it came together primarily working 

with the governors and the elected officials from Canada and then 

working out things between the two federal governments and so 

there has been a lot put in at the local level, not driven necessarily 

at a national level. 

And you have some initiatives that have come out as a result of 

that, the Great Lakes Initiative. Now, I understand that there was 

money to fund this, and the Canadian government is doing its part, 

too. I was just with an official from Canada in my office yesterday, 

and we were talking about the Great Lakes Initiative. They are 

concerned that the United States and so are the states, Minnesota 

in particular, that we are not going to live up to our commitment, 

and it goes to infrastructure needs, testing, innovation and other 

things. 

So can you tell me how much of that might have been from lack 

of resources because I am hearing different things from different 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
214 

people so I am not judging. I am just asking for your factual/opinion on this. 

Did we have funds there before you were able to scale up with 

a staff to do that? Was there a hard time attracting the right staff 

with the right tool set? And then the other interesting thing that 

I have heard, believe it or not, is that weather has been a problem 

because there are only certain times, as you know, that you can do 

certain things with bodies of water because they get hard at certain 

points during the year. 

So part of it is that funds are obligated but they were not being 

able to be used because we have a little thing called a cold climate. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. The GAO’s work on Great Lakes, we have not done 

anything in the last couple of years on that. That is an area we 

definitely believe needs attention and some focus. The work we 

have done in the past in that area noted some coordination issues 

as well as some issues concerning questions about how they would 

monitor progress on the plans that they had talked about. 

I think the issues and concerns you speak of will probably be 

echoed in the work ongoing in the Chesapeake Bay. So I think the 

issues and the lessons learned from that effort will clearly have applicability to the ongoing effort. You have the same, you know, 

budgetary pressures among the states versus the Federal Government and then the questions about who is going to pick up what 

piece of the load and whether or not people can still meet those 

commitments given the pressures at the state and the federal levels. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And I am not trying to be funny about it, but 

I know from even serving on a city council, you do road bids, you 

put things out, and then weather just does not cooperate. When the 

GAO looks at timeliness of being able to fulfill obligations in reports, I mean, seriously, do you look at the impact that there are 

certain times of the year where we just cannot do certain things? 

And does that factor in? If it factors in, then is it a help, or is it 

never accounted for at all, and then we could look like we are not 

doing our fair share when we are just prohibited to do it because 

of climate? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I mean, we have not done a recent review of, you 

know, specific milestones and progress, so we are not in a position 

to talk about any potential delays. I can speak from experience. I 

was involved in tracking the Recovery Act money for water projects 

specifically across the country and then also mostly I did a lot of 

detailed work in Ohio. And clearly the weather impacts the 

progress of those projects, and that is all accounted for both in the 

state’s planning and the layout and distribution of those funds. 

So it is clearly something that is foreseen and accounted for both 

in the planning and then in the evaluation of those efforts. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

indulgence. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. No more questions. Just a comment. How can people 

with so much water still complain so much? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We are protecting it for you or from you. I am 

not sure which. 

Mr. FLAKE. No more questions. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
215 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate that, and I appreciate you both being 

here today. As I said, or as Mr. Moran said, there are a number 

of hearings, unfortunately, that are going on. We appreciate the 

staff for being here also and answering questions. I can tell you 

that we do take your reports very seriously. I still would repeat 

that I am kind of stunned that a concern of yours is the workforce 

development within the EPA when you look at the fact that 25 percent of their budget is spent on employees and salaries. You would 

think that that would be a high priority of making sure the workforce fits the task that you ask them to do and the priorities that 

you have asked them to do. 

And that is certainly questions that will come up during the 

hearing with the EPA, but you have given us a basis of questions 

that will be asked, and we appreciate your work on this, and 

thanks very much for being here. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
216 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 66892A.160
217 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 66892A.161
218 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 66892A.162
219 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 66892A.163
220 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 66892A.164
221 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 66892A.165
222 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 66892A.166
223 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 66892A.167
224 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 66892A.168
225 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 66892A.169
226 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 66892A.170
227 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 66892A.171
228 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 66892A.172
229 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 66892A.173
230 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 66892A.174
231 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 66892A.175
232 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 66892A.176
233 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 66892A.177
234 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 66892A.178
235 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 66892A.179
236 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 66892A.180
237 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 66892A.181
238 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 66892A.182
239 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 66892A.183
240 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 66892A.184
241 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 66892A.185
242 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 66892A.186
243 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 66892A.187
244 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 66892A.188
245 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 66892A.189

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(247) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WITNESSES 

LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

BARBARA BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The hearing will be come to order. Good morning, 

and welcome to the third meeting and the first budget hearing of 

the 2012 season for this Subcommittee on Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies. I am pleased to kick off the 2012 debate 

with the Environmental Protection Agency, whose programs and 

funding are of great interest to this subcommittee. Administrator 

Jackson, thank you for being here this morning and testifying on 

your 2012 budget proposal. We find ourselves at a critical juncture 

as we begin to focus on our work for the fiscal year 2012 while we 

continue to finish the 2011 budget. The overspending has gone on 

too long, and now it is time to tighten our belts. Difficult decisions 

await this subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee in general. The House took the necessary first steps to move in a fiscally 

responsible direction on February 19th by passing $100 billion in 

discretionary spending reductions. The package included $4.4 billion in cuts from agencies funded through this subcommittee, of 

which $3 billion came out of the EPA budget. 

We did so, in large part, by reducing the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by almost $2 billion in order to return those programs to the 2008 funding levels. In 2009, the SRFs 

received $6 billion in stimulus funding, equivalent to five years of 

appropriations at the 2008 level. I think we can all agree that a 

5-year infusion of funding in one year is a huge influx for any program to absorb. I raise this not because I am opposed to the purpose of the SRFs, but as the clearest example in this bill of too 

much, too fast which could be the mantra for the EPA whether we 

are talking about spending or regulations. 

The House full-year CR also cut $303 million from the geographic programs, including $225 million from the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative. This is another program that has struggled 

to place funding on projects within a year, following a staggering 

seven-fold increase in 2010. The CR also cut $68 million in climate 

change funding and targeted reductions to the EPA’s air, water and 

policy offices, which continue to develop what I believe to be job 

killing regulations. 

We also put a halt to the EPA’s clear attempt to legislate 

through regulation on a number of policy issues, including greenVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
248 

house gases and navigable waterways. It should be up to Congress, 

not the administration, to determine whether and how to regulate 

greenhouse gases, but the litany of overreaching regulations does 

not stop there. Jobs in the cement industry are under attack by the 

Portland Cement Rule. The oil and gas industry has been unable 

to obtain air permits to work in the Outer Continental Shelf in 

Alaska and agriculture is under attack as EPA considers whether 

or not to regulate farm dust. 

The coal industry, which is of great importance to Chairman 

Rogers, is under attack on multiple fronts, whether it is where industry can place a mining fill materials, whether coal ash may now 

be labeled as hazardous waste, or whether a company may be able 

to use existing permits to work in Appalachia and keep mines 

open. We put a hold on all of these regulations and the House 

passed the CR in order to relieve the burden on industry and to 

give our authorizers the opportunity to address these issues in a 

more comprehensive fashion this year. 

EPA’s 2012 budget request provides $8.973 billion, a 12.9 percent 

decrease from the 2010 enacted level. Generally speaking, the EPA 

2012 budget is balanced on the back of States as State grants have 

been reduced by 22 percent while EPA operations and research 

budgets have received only a 2 to 4 percent reduction in order to 

reduce spending by $1.3 billion from current levels. 

The 2012 budget cuts $947 million from the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, $125 million from the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, $70 million from the Superfund 

Program, which cleans up the most toxic hazardous waste sites and 

eliminates $179 million for earmarks as every administration does. 

This is not the blueprint for reduced Federal spending and debt reduction that the American people and Congressional Republicans 

are demanding. In stark contrast, we cut more spending out of the 

SRFs in the House passed full-year CR than has been proposed in 

your entire 2012 budget. 

The demand for 2012 is simple, spend less and regulate less. 

Furthermore, I question the rationale for some of the 2012 proposals, most notably eliminating the diesel emissions reductions 

grants to retrofit old diesel engines while proposing new start programs to regulate greenhouse gases. 

I am not sure it makes sense to eliminate a grant program with 

clear, proven, quantifiable benefits in favor of new programs with 

no demonstrated benefits. I am also not sure that it makes sense 

to eliminate a grant program with broad bipartisan support and 

the support of the States and industry in favor of climate change 

initiatives that you know are most likely dead on arrival in the 

House. As my good friend and colleague Mr. Calvert said on the 

floor during the CR debate, the DERA Program is a win-win. So 

either the President is playing politics with his budget or this further illustrates that the EPA is simply out of touch. We have a 

number of issues that I know all members are interested in discussing with you today. 

So I will save additional remarks for questions following your 

testimony. I am pleased to now yield to our distinguished ranking 

member, Mr. Moran. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
249 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really 

appreciate your commitment to the important programs that are 

contained in this bill. And I certainly want to welcome Administrator Jackson and Ms. Bennett, the chief financial officer for EPA. 

You represent the best of our civil service. And I don’t take that 

lightly. I mean it, and it is a high compliment. The Environmental 

Protection Agency has worked so hard on behalf of all of the American citizens to protect the nation’s environment and public health. 

And for that, you certainly deserve the praise of all and the appreciation of all Americans. EPA’s budget request, though, is $9 billion, $1.3 billion or 13 percent below fiscal year 2010. 

And below the current continuing resolution level. That is too 

low. While I understand that the budget request aims to reflect the 

fiscal constraint, all agencies must operate on, I am troubled that 

most of EPA’s reduction comes at the expense of the Clean Water 

and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, as the Chairman 

has referenced. These funds were collectively reduced by $947 million, or 27 percent. But they are prudent investments that help 

maintain the infrastructure that makes clean and healthy water 

available to all Americans, which we have all taken for granted. 

I guess when most governors have claimed that the Federal stimulus money was wasteful spending, then they won’t object to a reduction in these important grant programs. What do you think? Although I am not sure that is going to be the case, I suspect most 

of the governors are hoping that we will take all the heat and yet 

provide all that money for them. But if we don’t, I don’t see how 

they come up with it. When I had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee last year, I suspect at the behest of local and State governments, members from both sides of the aisle—and I know the 

Chairman is aware of this, they requested more than 1,200 

projects, just in fiscal year 2010, for water and wastewater infrastructure. That source of funding has now dried up. It is gone. 

So you make the cuts to the State revolving funds a much larger 

issue for State and local governments. With a reduction in the Federal commitment, I don’t know who tackles these problems. Certainly individuals can’t do it unless they want to start digging wells 

in their backyard, and we go back to outhouses or something. Because the State and local governments don’t have the money themselves. But this is our national plumbing system. And like our 

home plumbing, it doesn’t get noticed until it backs up and makes 

a mess. 

Cutting billions from Clean Water and Safe Water Drinking programs is ignoring a problem that will require much more expensive 

investments and upgrades to our water sources down the line. 

While the Appropriations Committee has the authority and the 

duty to exercise Congress’ constitutional role in providing funds to 

the executive branch, the appropriation bills have become ground 

zero for contentious policy debates. 

I ask the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky if he remembered that quaint phrase, ‘‘this is out of order because it is legislating an appropriations bill.’’ I didn’t get a full response, but I 

know he is fully aware of this issue. The full year continuing resoVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
250 

lution we call H.R. 1 included 22 amendments that were hostile to 

EPA’s and other government agencies’ current work on climate 

change, wetlands, air toxics, renewable fuel standards and mountain-top mining. And most of them were adopted on the House 

floor. Beyond this, several riders were included in the base bill, one 

would stop EPA from updating rules or guidance pertaining to the 

definition of U.S. waters that will perpetuate delays in permits and 

land use decisions. 

We are hearing from a number of people in the private sector 

saying, look, this is not helpful, we need to have clarity, we need 

to know what is appropriate or not. A lot of the builders are saying 

we can’t move forward until we have clarification and permits that 

allow us to do our work. The EPA needs to be allowed to carry out 

the laws and the Congress and the courts have authorized them to 

carry out. The Bush administration’s EPA administrator, as well as 

you, Ms. Jackson, determined that greenhouse gas emissions do, in 

fact, endanger the health of our citizens. 

Ms. Jackson, you have done your job, and you actually issued an 

endangerment finding, and thus you are now required as we know 

to regulate these harmful emissions. The law requires you to. If 

Congress no longer wants certain pollutants cleaned up to improve 

America’s health, then Congress should change the underlying law, 

not simply stop funding EPA. Otherwise, EPA is violating the law 

by not enforcing it. 

And actually, if you want to cut costs in this country, then you 

should allow the Clean Air Act to do its job. A report released 

Tuesday by EPA estimates that the benefits of reducing fine particles and ground level ozone pollution under the 1990 Clean Air 

Act amendment will reach $2 trillion in 2020, while saving 230,000 

people from early death in that year alone. 

230,000 people in one year will live longer because of the Clean 

Air Act. It is still my hope that this committee will refrain from 

controversial policy riders and leave these issues to the authorizing 

committees where they belong so that we can return to the bipartisanship that has defined the Appropriations Committee in previous 

years. 

I am glad we have been joined by Mr. Dicks. I know he feels 

strongly about this as I do. On this side of the aisle, we are going 

to continue to try to pursue that tradition because it is time we 

started enacting our appropriation bills. We understand that the 

more we work together, the better chance these bills have in moving forward in the Senate and getting them signed into law by the 

President. So Administrator Jackson, we all look forward to receiving your testimony and again thank you for your leadership. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. We are also joined today by our chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, Chairman Rogers, and 

I thank him for taking the time to contribute to this important conversation. Mr. Rogers, do you have an opening statement? 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations, by 

the way, on your elevation to this great post. We know you will do 

a great job. This is truly a historic time. I don’t need to remind us 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
251 

that the Nation has found itself at a crossroads. The 112th Congress has been solely focused on reining in out of control spending, 

getting our economy back on track and putting Americans back to 

work. It is all about jobs. I reiterate, getting our economy back on 

track to create jobs and provide opportunity. With unemployment 

still hovering around 10 percent under this administration, this is 

unquestionably our top priority as a country and our chief responsibility as legislators, policymakers and yes, administrators. 

Chairman Simpson alluded to some of our concerns about your $9 billion budget submission. The EPA’s third largest in history. 

While we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend, we are 

borrowing 42 cents on every dollar of the 9 billion that you are asking for. That staggering figure is, in and of itself, disconcerting. But 

I have to tell you for the record that I am not confident that the 

budget you are defending today, or frankly your Agency’s actions 

in the last 2 years align with our important goals of creating jobs 

and opportunity. 

In fact, I believe you have been a great hindrance. The EPA is 

headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous 

regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority of this Congress 

that you have been given. And I think we have a responsibility to 

rein you in. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

recently released a report identifying over 60 regulatory actions recently taken by EPA that could have negative impacts on job creation, 60 different ones. I have to wonder whether you are taking 

heed of the President’s January 21st executive order to account for 

the cumulative costs of regulations because EPA is running absolutely roughshod over our country’s small businesses. The very engines that propel our economy forward and provide most of the 

jobs. 

And you have hit every sector of the economy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation and the lifeblood of my region of the country, Appalachian coal miners, wrongheaded greenhouse gas regulations, so-called guidance on surface mining, the 

retroactive veto of a coal permit that has undergone more than a 

decade of environmental review, reopening a longstanding definition of ‘‘fill material’’ that could have devastating impacts on the 

mining sector nationwide. 

All represent constitutionally dubious legislation by regulation. I 

think you have exceeded your authority by far. A number of these 

matters are being adjudicated by the courts even as we speak. We 

have corresponded, you and I, on a number of these topics. So you 

are aware that my people feel like EPA has taken dead aim at an 

industry that sustains 20,000 high paying jobs in my State of Kentucky and supplies the fuel to power 50 percent of our Nation at 

a low cost. Our Speaker, in recent weeks, has reiterated the need 

for adult conversations about the fiscal challenges that confront the 

country and I hope that is what we can accomplish here today, an 

adult conversation. Thank you, chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. The Ranking Member of the 

full committee, the former Chairman of this subcommittee, Congressman Dicks, is also here today. I know these issues remain of 

great interest to him. Mr. Dicks, do you have an opening statement? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
252 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations on you becoming chairman. And being from the Northwest, I 

know we will work hard together to get some positive things done. 

I want to welcome Administrator Jackson and Barbara Bennett, 

EPA’s chief financial officer. In fiscal year 2010, this committee 

provided you with the largest budget in EPA history. Your current 

budget request of 8.9 billion is a reduction of 13 percent and reflects the fiscal restraints we find ourselves in today. I am glad to 

see that Administrator Jackson submitted a reasonable budget request that will allow essential environmental cleanup and monitoring. 

That is in stark contrast to the long-term continuing resolution 

approved by the House 2 weeks ago, H.R. 1. That bill cut EPA by 

nearly 30 percent and includes 22 environmental riders to defund 

EPA and other government agencies’ activities ranging from limiting greenhouse gases to reducing water pollution and those were 

done without any hearings. They were just put into this bill and 

they are all legislative language that have a negative impact. 

I am also pleased that the request includes language started by 

this committee that allows the use of the Drinking Water and 

Clean Water State Revolving Funds for loan forgiveness and other 

affordability tools, green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency 

improvements or other environmentally innovative activities. I do, 

however, have concerns about this budget request but not as much 

as I do with H.R. 1. My biggest concern is that we are shifting the 

problems of today for bigger problems tomorrow. We talk about 

saddling our children with debt. That concerns me greatly. But by 

cutting these important environmental infrastructure programs 

like the drinking water and wastewater revolving funds, we are 

saddling future generations with deferred maintenance costs and a 

crumbling infrastructure that will cost more to fix than if we did 

it now. 

Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, when she was administrator of EPA said we have a $688 

billion backlog on wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities. And a group of scientists looked at all of the things that happened in civilization and what had made the greatest difference in 

health to the world and it was wastewater treatment facilities and 

clean water. I was on the staff up here when Richard Nixon was 

President of the United States and we passed a Clean Water Act, 

the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act. And all 

of those things were passed in a bipartisan manner and signed by 

a Republican President. And the country is better today because of 

environmental protection than it was 40 years ago. 

Remember when we had these rivers on fire? Think of how terrible those things were. And now we have turned this thing 

around. And I think what you are doing on climate change is absolutely essential. Some people are just turning their head away from 

scientific reality and just saying it isn’t going to happen. They are 

saying they care about their grandchildren’s future. If we don’t deal 

with climate change, if we don’t deal with ocean acidification, the 

world is going to be a disastrous place in 50 to 100 years. And to 

say this doesn’t exist is just preposterous. The best scientists in the 

world have said this phenomenon is going on. Our committee held 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
253 

hearings. We asked the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the USGS, can you tell us on the ground, can you see 

manifestations of global warming already and they said, ‘‘yes’’. The 

fire seasons are longer, the oceans are rising. 

We are having more drought, more bug infestation because of 

this. We are watching what is happening in the Arctic. I don’t 

know how people don’t understand the importance of these issues 

and addressing these issues. And I am not—I am going to fight 

every step of the way against efforts to weaken and take back the 

environmental improvements we have made starting with Richard 

Nixon and the Congress back in the 1960s and the 1970s when 

people worked on a bipartisan basis and cared about the environment. 

These riders have got to go. And we are going to fight them to 

the end. Don’t be intimidated. You are doing your job and you have 

to do it under the law. And the Supreme Court said you had to do 

certain things. And don’t be intimidated. Do your job. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, thank 

you for being here this morning, Administrator Jackson. And we 

look forward to your proposed 2012 budget. And after those warm 

welcoming remarks from all of us, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to 

you, Ranking Member Moran and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and 

America’s other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to protect American children and 

adults from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy and less prosperous. It did so to make the air and 

drinking water in America’s communities clean enough to attract 

new employers. It did so to enable America’s local governments to 

revitalize abandoned and polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the pastime of America’s 40 million anglers. It did so to protect the farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America’s surface fresh water withdrawals. And it did so to preserve the livelihoods of fishermen and America’s great waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. DICKS. Don’t forget Puget Sound. 

Ms. JACKSON. And Puget Sound. And the Great Lakes. Congress 

gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those 

laws, and each year Congress appropriates the money that makes 

EPA’s implementation and enforcement work possible. As head of 

the EPA, I am accountable for ensuring that we squeeze every drop 

of public health protection out of every dollar we are given. So I 

support the tough cuts in the President’s proposed budget, but I am 

equally accountable for pointing out when cuts become detrimental 

to public health. Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable 

to implement or enforce the laws that protect America’s health, 

livelihoods and pastimes. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
254 

Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers and onto the ground. Toxic plumes 

already underground would reach drinking water supplies because 

ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA 

grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems and 

the standards that EPA has set to establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and from tailpipes would remain missing 

from a population of sources that is not static, but growing. 

So if Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful 

pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt. The result would 

be more asthma attacks, more missed school and workdays, more 

heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths and more 

polluted waters. 

Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply appreciate 

continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential 

work that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water 

they drink and the air they breathe. President Obama believes that 

our Federal Government must spend less money. Decreasing Federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice, it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, the President has proposed to cut 

EPA’s annual budget nearly 13 percent from its current level. That 

cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult, 

even painful choices. We have done so, however, in a careful way 

that preserves EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to 

protect the health and well-being of America’s children, adults and 

communities. 

You have been reviewing the budget request for more than 2 

weeks now, so I will not march through all of its details. Rather, 

than I would like to provide just a few examples of the difficult 

choices we have made while preserving fundamental safeguards. 

This request provides $2.5 billion, a decrease of 947 million for the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Future 

year budgets for the SRF will adjust, taking into account repayments to the funds. EPA, the States and community water systems 

will build on past successes while working towards the fiscal year 

2012 goal of ensuring that over 90 percent of the population served 

by community water systems receives drinking water that meets 

all applicable health standards. 

This budget requests an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities, including disadvantaged ones to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollution 

through regulatory enforcement and voluntary efforts. An additional $3.7 million will improve our monitoring of toxic air pollution 

and our dissemination of that data to State, local and tribal governments and to the public. The budget contains $350 million for 

programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

That represents a cut of $125 million from fiscal year 2010, which 

was the first year of the initiative. We will implement the most important projects for the Great Lakes restoration and achieve visible 

results. With this budget, $16 million investment in enhancing 

chemical safety initiatives, we will take action to reduce chemical 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
255 

risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments and provide the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. We will use the funds to implement chemical risk reduction 

steps that address impacts on children’s health and on disadvantaged, low-income and indigenous populations. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I look forward to the subcommittee’s questions. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
256 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 here 66892A.190
257 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 here 66892A.191
258 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 here 66892A.192
259 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 here 66892A.193
260 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 here 66892A.194
261 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 here 66892A.195
262 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 here 66892A.196
263 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 here 66892A.197
264 

H.R. 1 AMENDMENTS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. I appreciate again your being here 

today. Because of the interest in this, we are going to try and enforce, to the extent possible, the 5-minute rule. We have a timer 

up here and we will keep time with that so that we can have several rounds of questions if that is possible. First let me just make 

a general comment and question. During the debate on H.R. 1 that 

has been mentioned up here by just about everybody, we talked 

about authorizing on an appropriation bill. Most of these amendments were limiting the funding to be used for certain things, 

which is appropriate within an appropriation bill. I also noticed 

after all of the criticisms about some of the underlying riders, if 

you will, that were greenhouse gas provisions and that dealing 

with navigable water, I don’t remember any amendments being offered by anyone to remove those from the bill. 

If they were such a concern to the Ranking Member of both the 

full committee and this subcommittee that maybe there would have 

been an amendment to remove those. But I didn’t see any of those 

and I wonder why that was. And I think you and I have discussed 

many times the concern I have about what I hear when I go home, 

not just from businesses that are trying to operate and trying to 

do the right thing, they don’t want to pollute the air and water, but 

from cities, counties, State government and others about the concerns about the direction that the EPA has gone. 

And I have always wondered if it was just in my region, or it was 

across the country. And I have got to tell you, in all honesty, I was 

surprised by the number of amendments that were offered that addressed the EPA concerns from people all over—representatives 

from all over this country, and I am wondering after that debate 

and the 22 amendments, if any other agency had that many 

amendments directed at them or their actions, if you will. I am 

wondering what message you took from that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, there have been a number of discussions, some 

of them on the Hill, some of them outside in the countryside. I 

spend a lot of my time meeting with people and dealing with people 

around the country. And I think overwhelmingly there are also 

some other truisms that haven’t come out yet and that is that the 

American people believe that EPA plays a very valuable role in 

safeguarding the health of their families and their communities. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I don’t think anybody disagrees with that. 

Ms. JACKSON. And that the American people believe that the 

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, other things like the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, our environmental laws are there to protect 

them from polluters who otherwise would not have any controls on 

them. And last but not least, that the American people believe that 

there are lots of laws on the books that aren’t enforced. And when 

they look at something like the Deep Water Horizon spill or other 

environmental catastrophes, they say we are not sure we need new 

laws, we need people to enforce the laws that are on the books and 

protect our air and water quality. 

So while I have great respect for the deliberations of this body, 

of course, and I am happy to sit down and meet with any of the 

members individually or together. I think we must also bring back 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
265 

to bear as we look at what is the appropriate role of an independent agency. 

NAVIGABLE WATERS

Mr. SIMPSON. When you look at, as an example, navigable 

waters, the attempt there was to prevent the EPA from expanding 

the definition of what waters are regulated by EPA under the 

Clean Water Act to all waters of the United States. It is not as if 

those waters are not regulated at all. They are, in fact, regulated 

by the States. And now the EPA, by removing navigable, or attempting to remove navigable, expands what EPA controls instead 

of the States. And that is the problem and that is what concerns 

me and many other people. 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, that is not the intent. Almost all 

of the States, about 46, I believe, implement the Clean Water Act 

under delegations from EPA. So EPA has a couple of roles there. 

The first is to ensure some uniformity so that the playing field is 

level for businesses and for citizens across the country. And the 

second is to look at issues that are regional. So when we look at 

the confusion and we see genuine confusion right now about what 

is covered jurisdictionally under the Clean Water Act and what is 

not. That confusion stems in part from two Supreme Court cases 

that are a bit murky in terms of when you put them together what 

they mean. 

One of the things the EPA can and should do is offer clarity 

within the law. We are not looking to change the law, and we are 

not looking to change the Supreme Court’s ruling; we respect them 

both. But we can certainly, I think, use our expertise to offer clarity to protect headwaters. If you don’t protect headwaters, then the 

waters downstream will most certainly be polluted. 

EPA WORKFORCE

Mr. SIMPSON. I would suggest that the States do a good job of 

that in most areas. And I don’t want you out controlling and regulating drainage and irrigation ditches in Idaho, frankly. The State 

of Idaho can do that. Let me ask another question. We heard from 

the Inspector General yesterday, that one of the problems with the 

EPA’s workforce alignment—and this has been kind of an ongoing 

problem that the workforce hasn’t been aligned with the roles and 

missions and goals of the EPA. This is a management issue. Where 

are you on that and what is your take on that recommendation or 

that concern by the GAO? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I certainly appreciate the management challenge of constantly working to improve our workforce allocation 

and planning. I disagree with some aspects. Frankly, I believe that 

the most effective workforce planning has to be local. We have 

moved around in the last budgets, the ones that I have been involved in, our agency talent to address concerns. When we look at 

cuts to programs, what we are reflecting is a need to move talent 

around. I think that we have to manage our people efficiently. And 

I disagree with the IG that we aren’t doing that right now. And I 

also think we have to work closely and realize that some of our 

tools, the 1982 position management system, I don’t believe we 

should be going back to try to make a new one. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
266 

I think we should look at the programs we have right now and 

do as we have done, which is constantly strengthening our capabilities and working within a strategic planning process, that we have 

given real time and attention to make sure our resources match up 

with our priorities. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But the GAO disagrees with you. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think they do in part and I don’t want to—I don’t 

want to say that I don’t agree with them, that it is important to 

manage people effectively. I certainly believe we have done that 

consistent with OPM guidelines, but we probably have some differences in terms of management of the Agency. And I believe that 

the local management of resources, whether here or in the programs or adjustments that we make as part of our strategic planning has done a lot of that work. 

STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND REDUCTION

Mr. SIMPSON. Another question. During the debate on the CR, we 

were criticized as undermining and destroying the State revolving 

loan fund because we took it back to the 2008 level, about a $2 billion reduction in the Clean Drinking Water Fund and the State Revolving Loan Fund. Your proposal decreases it by about $1 billion. 

Are you destroying the revolving loan fund? 

Ms. JACKSON. Half as much as you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So you are destroying it? Is that right? You are destroying it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Destroying, I don’t know what that word means. 

We will be doing half as many cuts as is proposed in CR 1. And 

that was a tough decision. It is made based on the fact that when 

we are being asked to cut back, we do know that there is still some 

money that will hit the streets from the Recovery Act. It has almost all been obligated, but it hasn’t all been spent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How much has been obligated but unspent? It was 

supposed to be spent two years ago, at least shovel ready projects. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is within the States. These are contracting 

issues. I think it is all under contract. But the obligation, I think, 

is close to 100 percent. The actual spending, I think, might be 

around 60 percent. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON. 75 percent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Why did you decide $947 million in reductions of 

the State Revolving Loan Fund? Where did that number come 

from? 

Ms. JACKSON. The number was designed to reflect a significant 

cut, but to try to keep us above the last Bush budget which we felt 

was so low that we increased it in both the Recovery Act as well 

as in our fiscal year 2010 proposal. So we are at $2.5 billion for 

the two combined funds. That is still higher than we saw before the 

President’s administration. 

UNOBLIGATED FUNDS

Mr. SIMPSON. In the Recovery Act, you got essentially six years 

worth of 2008 funding levels for the State revolving loan fund. As 

most of it is obligated, some of it, I think about a billion and a half 

or something like that, is unspent yet but it is obligated. There is 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
267 

still about $1.47 billion in unobligated funds from last year that 

are unobligated for the State Revolving Loan Fund in last year’s 

appropriation. And is the reduction due to the fact that we have 

all of the unobligated funds sitting out there? That is what we 

looked at frankly when we were looking at H.R. 1 and trying to reduce the overall budget. We were trying to find savings. Because 

believe it or not, I know there is a lot of people in government that 

don’t believe this, a lot of people here in Congress that don’t believe 

this, but the fact that we have a $1.6 trillion deficit is an issue and 

we have to reduce spending. And is that how you decided to come 

up with the $1 billion, is that you had all of these unobligated 

funds from last year? 

Ms. JACKSON. I certainly think that is something worth considering, Mr. Chairman. I don’t disagree with you that we can look 

at the money that is on the street. It is very much a pipeline, 

though. So having run a State agency, having seen how funds 

work—these are revolving funds. The money goes out in loans to 

local governments, to municipalities, to small systems. And if it is 

not forgiven, and in some cases it is, then it comes back in. 

So our goal over time will be to fund about 5 percent of the need 

annually through a combination of direct appropriations and paybacks. But this is a tough year and we recognize that in a tough 

year, we may not be able to fund the 5 percent we would like to. 

So it is a cut. It was simply intended not to be as drastic a cut as 

has been discussed in the House. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, just briefly. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sure. 

Mr. DICKS. On this revolving fund, some of the newer members 

may not realize, this money goes back to the States and these 

funds are loaned out and then they are paid back to the revolving 

fund. So from time to time, if you increase the revolving fund funding, they can make more loans and they get money coming back. 

So you can make a reasonable cut here. There is no question 

about that because we added a lot of money in the stimulus bill for 

these revolving funds. 

The other thing that the committee agreed to and you as ranking 

member helped on this, was that some of the money can be forgiven for the low-income communities. What I worry about is now 

that we have taken away earmarks for STAG grants, a lot of these 

poor communities are going to have a hard time doing the projects 

without some grant money. So I hope we can figure out a way and 

maybe the Department has already done this, of putting a pot of 

money together that will be competed for across the country by 

low-income communities to do projects that will help them deal 

with their problems. If not, they simply will not do the projects. 

That is the reality of it and the environment will suffer from it. 

But I just wanted to give that little history. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I will have some more questions in the second 

round. Mr. Moran. 

RULE: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Administrator 

Jackson, you have testified that from 1990 through 2020, the benefits of implementing the Clean Air Act are projected to exceed the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
268 

costs by a factor of 30 to 1. We also have EPA’s current report that 

the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020. The growing talking 

point that we heard on the House floor and so on from the other 

side is that the EPA’s regulations are destroying the economy when 

we, in fact, have seen quite the contrary. Back during the Clinton 

administration, Carol Browner made very serious strides in cleaning the environment by issuing rules on the ozone, air toxics from 

the chemical industry, refineries industries, et cetera. And yet with 

all of that environmental protection, regulation, the economy grew 

at an unprecedented rate during the Clinton administration. Twenty-three million new jobs, 3 successive years of surpluses. 

So the point is we achieved substantial surpluses while very actively enforcing the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Now, Administrator Jackson, could you walk us through your Agency’s costbenefit analysis? Because it does seem to me that it is at the heart 

of whether this is a prudent investment or not. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. Of course we have to do these analyses every time we do a rule. The Clean Air Act, a report that you 

cited, talks about $2 trillion in benefits by 2020. In 2010 alone, 

160,000 cases of premature mortality avoided, 130,000 heart attacks avoided, 13 million lost workdays avoided. Certainly an economic impact. 2.4 million asthma attacks. 

So essentially, there are two ways the environmental regulations 

help the economy, not hurt it. The first is it is preventive medicine. 

It is as though we took all of those health care costs, however they 

are borne through our economy, and zeroed them out and said now 

spend all that money that you would have spent dealing with your 

asthmatic child or your own heart disease issues and put it into the 

economy, spend that money somewhere. 

And the other way is, I think it is now generally accepted that 

the air pollution control sector of our market is a world leader. It 

is net positive in our U.S. trade balance. It generates $11 billion 

surplus in our trade balance. We export air pollution control commitment to countries like China who need it because we have invested and have the resources, innovation and expertise in this 

country and have stepped up to deal with air pollution as a challenge. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. I have got this information. Boy, we 

have wonderful staff. I don’t know what we would do without them, 

Mr. Chairman. They are so good. But it turns out that the Bush 

administration did an analysis; they thought the results were going 

to be that the regulations were more costly than the benefit, but 

in fact, the health benefits alone were substantially greater than 

the cost of a ratio from 16 to 1. From 1997 to 2007, the Bush White 

House estimated that EPA regulations promulgated during those 

years cost between $32 and $35 billion, but the health benefits 

alone were between $83 billion and $592 billion. So interesting. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Let me ask one other particular question here on the Chesapeake 

Bay, if I could. You mentioned the Chesapeake and the Puget 

Sound, of course, and the Great Lakes. I will mention the Puget 

Sound again when Mr. Dicks is paying attention. But you got a request for $67 million. It is an increase of $17 million. We have got 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
269 

six States and the District of Columbia working on this because we 

lost so many jobs in crabbing, fishing, tourism and so on. So you 

are aware, I am sure, my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte 

sponsored an amendment that passed the House to stop Federal 

funding for the cleanup of the Bay. His reasoning was that the 

total maximum daily loads take control away from the States. He 

claimed the States were making progress, even though it has taken 

more than 2 decades to get to this point, and, of course, the Bay 

isn’t clean. What prompted EPA’s issuance of the total maximum 

daily load standard? And if the Goodlatte amendment was included 

in the final appropriations bill, how much of that $67 million in 

EPA funds would localities lose out on in terms of their efforts to 

clean the Bay? 

Ms. JACKSON. TMDL, the total maximum daily load, the pollution diets in the Bay, was a result of lawsuits which were basically 

joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others who said that 

our progress was woefully inadequate on meeting the goals that 

had been set by EPA for improvements in the Bay. We have seen 

some slight improvements, but I don’t think—I would not characterize it that we have turned the corner on the issues we have. And 

the TMDL is meant to assign to each State a load. It is your diet, 

here is how much pollution you can put into the Bay and still see 

the Bay improve. That is our job. It is a regional approach. 

Then it relies back on the States through what are called watershed implementation plans, WIPS, to meet those numbers. So we 

are not, every day, working inside the States. The States are. I 

want to salute the States that have really taken a leadership role 

and stepped up to come up with these watershed implementation 

plans. The $67 million is a $17 million plus-up, about 60 percent, 

almost two-thirds of it, goes back to the States in support of those 

watershed implementation plans. 

We are also working very closely with USDA, because as you 

might expect, agriculture is a significant player, not the only player 

here. So States have really done an amazing amount of technical 

work, and I would hate to see us lose time on the Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have got a number of 

questions on greenhouse gases, but I suspect we want to try to get 

everybody in the first round. We are going to have other rounds so 

I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

APPALACHIAN SURFACE COAL MINING PERMITS

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In June 2009, EPA 

signed a memorandum of understanding with the Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department to ‘‘reduce the harmful environmental effects of Appalachian surface coal mining.’’ And in conjunction, EPA then later released what was called guidance, which puts 

in place unachievable thresholds for water quality measurements, 

which everyone but you believes are arbitrary and based on unsound science. Preempted, well-established State water quality programs target only coal mining, specifically Appalachian coal mining 

when the Clean Water Act applies to industries such as road construction, development, farming, construction and the like. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
270 

A Senate committee told us that these so-called guidances are 

‘‘having a deleterious effect on rural jobs, energy production and 

small businesses in Appalachia.’’ 

One hundred and ninety permits were expected to produce 2 billion tons of coal, support over 80,000 jobs and 81 businesses, and 

yet the 190 applications have been practically all denied. Only six 

permits issued since 2009. One company in my district still doesn’t 

have a permit after wading through 3 Army Corps colonels, at least 

6 EPA reviewers. They have invested an additional $1.5 million to 

deal with the EPA regulatory hurdles, and the longer the permitting process takes, the higher these costs become. On average, coal 

companies can expect to pay 2 to $3 more per ton to mine coal with 

a 5-year permit process. And guess who pays the cost of that? It 

is the people that use electricity. 

According to your Web site, there are 79 permits that are being 

flagged. The Senate committee says there are 190. Whatever. You 

have only issued six in over 2 years. In your budget request, you 

are asking for more reviewers, I think four or five people. Thanks 

a lot. How much faster will these people be able to process these 

permits through their regular order? 

Ms. JACKSON. I cannot commit to a time frame, sir. We are working very diligently on those permit requests. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who is working on them? 

Ms. JACKSON. Primarily staff in our regional offices, but also 

staff in our Washington office. 

Mr. ROGERS. Can you explain why there have only been six permits issued out of 190 applications in over 2 years? 

Ms. JACKSON. The enhanced coordination process covered approximately 79 permits. We are down to, I think, two to three 

dozen permits, many have been withdrawn, a few have been 

issued, and many have gone back and are working diligently 

through the State and through EPA, as mentioned in your State, 

Mr. Chairman, to try to find ways to reduce the environmental impacts. 

This is about clean water and impacts on water. And, sir, I have 

to say that this is not unscientific at all. It is the result of peer reviewed studies that have gone through both EPA’s scientific advisory board and independent scientists who agree that without 

intervention, there would be irreversible harm to waterways in the 

region. 

PERMITTING GUIDANCE

Mr. ROGERS. But since the issuance of the so-called guidance in 

June of 2009, you have only issued six permits. That is a drastic 

change, is it not? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are not waving permits through. We are reviewing them with the States and the Corps of Engineers and with 

the applicants to try to decrease their impact on water pollution. 

Mr. ROGERS. The question is, it is quite a change. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I absolutely agree with you that the enhanced 

coordination has changed the landscape in that part—— 

Mr. ROGERS. And it was a substantive change from prior regulations, right? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
271 

Ms. JACKSON. It is guidance that has been out for comment, and 

will be finalized quite shortly, I think. 

Mr. ROGERS. But the guidance does represent a big change from 

prior regulations, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, it reflects the latest science that shows that 

the way that permits were being issued was not protective of water 

quality. 

CLEAN WATER ACT: PERMIT VETO

Mr. ROGERS. And that is why a lot of people are saying that 

when you issued those guidances, you violated the law on how you 

come up with regulations because there were no hearings, there 

was no advance notice, no one had a chance to weigh in on this 

substantive change in your prior regulations and that is why you 

are being sued by the State of Kentucky, the National Mining Association, several other States and coal operators on the grounds that 

the guidance constitutes a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, APA, which requires that any major changes to existing 

regulations must go through a formal rulemaking process, to include public comment and peer review science. 

And in January, the U.S. district court for D.C. ruled in a challenge to you on this APA. Violation would ultimately succeed on 

merit. So what do you say about the charges that you violated the 

Administrative Procedures Act? 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I don’t agree with them. I wouldn’t 

want to violate it. It is guidance. It is subject to public comment. 

In fact, we have just concluded a lengthy public comment period 

and our responsibilities have not changed under the Clean Water 

Act. It is simply a matter of ensuring that as these permits are 

issued, we are not trading future water quality for issuance of permits hastily today. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, the coal mining industry that provides over 

half of the power—the electricity around the country, is being shaken to its boots because of a ruling that you issued in Logan County, 

West Virginia, where you repealed retroactively a mining permit 

and shut down a mine even though they had been granted a permit 

previously by the Corps of Engineers in 2007 after a 13-year, 1,600 

page environmental review by State and Federal agency, including 

EPA, you said it is okay, you got the permit. Three, four years 

later, you come back in and say we are going to revoke your permit. Now, every construction company that is building highways, 

every coal mining company and everybody that does the business 

that has to be done is unsure of themselves. They are—and it is 

having a very destabilizing impact on this industry. Where do you 

think—where do you claim to have the authority to retroactively go 

back and undo a permit that has already been issued for several 

years? 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I think it is inaccurate 

to say there is a retroactive undoing. EPA has the authority under 

the Clean Water Act to veto a permit issued by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers if we believe it is not protective of water. That 

is what the Clean Water Act says on its face. The reason the 

Spruce permit has been hanging around since 2007, is that it was 

in litigation. When it was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of EngiVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
272 

neers, not with the concurrence of EPA, and in fact, without taking 

into account significant comments by EPA, it was litigated. 

And in the course of that litigation, EPA was asked to determine 

whether or not—EPA had to determine—we were not asked to, we 

had to determine whether or not we would stand behind a permit 

that we did not agree with and instead we chose to use our veto 

authority under the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. ROGERS. But the permit issued by the Corps in 2007 had approval of EPA. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. No, sir. The EPA commented on several 

versions of the permit discussions. And I know the permit applicant has said over and over again that we approved, but we did 

not. Our comments were taken, many of them were not addressed, 

and the final permit issued by the Corps, in our opinion, was not 

protective of public health and not protective of the water quality, 

not consistent with the language of the Clean Water Act and I do 

admit that that is being litigated. 

Mr. ROGERS. I guess you noticed that during the debate on the 

CR a couple of weeks ago, 240 Members, bipartisan, voted to strip 

EPA of your authority to retroactively veto existing permits. I don’t 

guess you noticed that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, of course I did. I certainly noticed the vote. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I am sure there are others who want to ask 

questions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member 

Dicks. 

PUGET SOUND

Mr. DICKS. Administrator, again, welcome. 

One of the things I just wanted to bring up was, I think we are 

making some real progress in the State of Washington on the 

Puget Sound Geographic Program. I appreciate the fact that there 

is money in the President’s budget for this program. I wish it were 

at the higher level that Congress had approved, and I just want 

you to know that we have developed in Washington State an action 

agenda, a scientifically credible plan for restoration. And it really 

depends now on being able to get State and Federal funding to 

make this thing work. I know that the administration has a tremendous interest in the Chesapeake Bay, but you know, the difference in funding between the Chesapeake Bay—not the Chesapeake Bay, but the Great Lakes. And I wish—I wish they had a 

similar positive view of the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. 

We feel like we are the orphans here. And these are two extremely important bodies of water. It has been obvious that the administration can’t spend all the money that has been given to the 

Great Lakes. I mean, it is just not going out the door. I just hope, 

one, that you will insist that both the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake develop an action agenda too. They need a scientifically credible plan. EPA now is in charge of the recovery in the Chesapeake 

Bay, and I hope that we will take that seriously, and a lot of the 

run-off issues that have been neglected by the States should be addressed. And I know you are trying to do that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Will the distinguished ranking member yield 

for a minute? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
273 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You are not suggesting to take money away 

from the Great Lakes for Puget Sound, are you? 

Mr. DICKS. Oh, no. That would be wrong. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That would be horribly wrong. All right, well, 

thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. DICKS. I would just like to see the budget give a little more 

help to Puget Sound. And I would also like to see the Great Lakes 

have an action agenda, a plan. I don’t think they have a plan 

yet—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. We have all kinds of plans. 

Mr. DICKS. Wait a minute—that is scientifically credible and 

verified by independent sources. That is what I think you need to 

do. And that is what we did in the State of Washington. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I would just say to the distinguished former 

chairman and now ranking member that when the Puget Sound 

has 20 percent of the world’s fresh water, perhaps you could make 

the case and take some money away from us but not now. 

Mr. DICKS. But when we have the most endangered species in 

the country in Puget Sound, it also is a priority. All I am saying 

is, let’s try to be fair. And the administration’s budget again I don’t 

think was fair to budget Puget Sound. Now Tom Eaton is out there 

doing a good job. He is working hard. But we have been the forgotten party here. It has always been the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Everglades. And Puget Sound has been, I 

think, not as important to the administration as it should be. I 

mean, this is a very important body of water. So anyway, I have 

used my time up. But again, we want to work with you on this, 

but we hope to get that budget request up in the future. I think 

it is totally justified. And I think we have done what we need to 

do out there with our action agenda, and the Puget Sound partnership is moving forward. So I yield back. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you, Mr. 

Chairman, that with the passion of my colleague, the ranking 

member, Puget Sound will certainly not be forgotten. 

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. 

AIR QUALITY

Mr. LEWIS. In the meantime, Madam Administrator, Ken Calvert 

and I, the gentleman sitting to my left, represent the Inland Empire in southern California. Years ago when I first became involved 

in public affairs, for something over 250 days a year, you could not 

see the mountains that surround this valley for almost 360 degrees. 

It is a beautiful valley. And over many a year, many of us have 

been involved in air quality questions because of that. 

Today you can see those mountains almost every day of the year. 

But indeed, I will never forget taking a trip. I spent a whole month 

one weekend in Detroit, to talk to the Big Three about air quality 

questions and what the American automobile industry was not 

doing in terms of improving the impact of auto emissions on air 

quality questions. It was not until foreign manufacturers produced 

cars with better gasoline mileage that there began to be a change, 

and that has contributed significantly to the cleaning of our air. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
274 

But also I will never forget that during those years, there were 

voices heard, including my own, that we should be very cautious 

as we go forward with developing regulations and policies in the 

arena of air quality because often times we just plain don’t know 

what we are talking about. It is easy to point to the big smokestack 

and say that if we can solve that problem, we will solve 95 percent 

of the problems and so forget about the rest of it. 

And you, Madam Administrator, and I know that that automobile continues to be the problem. And I would be very interested 

in what EPA is thinking about and what your experts are thinking 

about relative to having a direct impact upon how people deal with 

their own transportation needs. Automobiles, et cetera. Please don’t 

talk to me about high-speed rail. That is hardly a solution to some 

of these problems. In the meantime, the Air Quality Resource Center, which was then located at the University of California at Riverside, helped us a lot in trying to deal with some of these problems. I once converted a very beautiful and wonderful convertible 

that I had to propane. The car never ran again, by the way. But 

that was by way of legislation that was moving that would suggest 

that we ought to take all automobiles that have a stationary 

source, major pools of cars, and convert them experimentally to 

propane to see what effect it might have. 

The Research Center came to me as that bill was moving and 

said, Jerry, we ought to be kind of cautious about this because our 

research is beginning to show us some things that we didn’t anticipate, that it would appear that propane, when it goes through the 

combustion process, creates a thing called propylene and the emission in that form may be even worse than the standard automobile 

emission that we are concerned about. 

We talk a lot about scientists and research and independent peer 

review, et cetera. But oft times in these arenas, we don’t know 

what we are talking about. If we are going to promote regulations 

that dramatically impact people’s lives and spend a lot of money in 

doing it, we should know what we are talking about. 

Just by way of asking you to comment on that general area, let 

me mention also that back in those days, a community known as 

Chino was in my district. They had the largest cowherds in the 

country. Cows in numbers of 1,000 per farm, et cetera. And I note 

that within your air quality arena, you talk about animal gases. I 

must say, it astonishes me. And I would really like to see the background of those experts who talked about animal gases for indeed 

the people of Chino who would wonder whether we know what we 

are talking about. So thank you, Madam Administrator, for being 

here. I would be very interested in your thoughts and where you 

would be taking us by way of research and otherwise relative to air 

quality. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Just a few things. I will begin by hailing your State as being one 

of the engines that has driven us towards cleaner vehicles in this 

country. EPA’s history with vehicles includes things like taking the 

lead out of gasoline, which I think single-handedly made a tremendous difference in children’s health. But also enabled the catalytic 

converter which is an American invention that is now on cars all 

over the world that has made our cars run cleaner. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
275 

Mr. LEWIS. California Legislature, as a matter of fact, led the 

way. 

Ms. JACKSON. California has a history of leading the country 

with respect to vehicles, sir. And of course, there is a large market. 

The Clean Air Act actually recognizes California’s leadership by 

giving your State a special role. 

I simply would say this, we have probably a million more cars 

on the road than we had in 1970, just in absolute numbers. And 

the emissions from all those cars is much lower than the emissions 

from 1970. That means we are driving more cars, but they are 

much, much cleaner and more fuel efficient. That was the genesis 

of the fuel efficiency greenhouse gas deal, the car deal that was 

worked out last year. And so as cars become cleaner, Americans, 

of course, as the population grows—I have two young sons, both 

who want to be drivers sooner than I would like—we need to continue to sort of push that envelope so that we make our cars cleaner. 

You asked about research. I am a scientist by training. I just recently visited our Ann Arbor laboratory which, sadly, is not in the 

State of California, but is an impressive place. I would invite you 

to see it. But if you ever have a chance to see it, you are struck 

by what an engine of economic development that it is. Many of the 

car companies locate the parts of their research lab that deals with 

emissions near us as they do in parts of California because they 

know that they are going to have to design cars that continually 

ramp down on efficiencies. 

The last thing I will say is that with respect to animal emissions, 

I assume you mean greenhouse gas, methane emissions. EPA has 

no plans to regulate such. The number of agricultural sources that 

are even being required to report their greenhouse gas emissions 

is zero. So I know that has been discussed and is a source of worry. 

And I find myself often giving some amount of reassurance to people, to ranchers about that matter. 

AIR QUALITY: MOBILE SOURCES

Mr. LEWIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just kind of add, the 

bottom line there for the administrator, I really want to hear from 

you how you think this committee can help you accomplish EPA’s 

mission relative to air quality without overly impacting our already 

very fragile economy. There is little doubt that we could take a 

small piece of the money that some people are touting for highspeed rail and at the other end of that line, use that money—small 

piece of money—and buy more buses than we would know what to 

do with to replace that high-speed rail, move a lot more people and 

help clean the air in that fashion, assuming we could get those engines to operate considerably more efficiently. Please tell us how 

we can help. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will be happy to work with you in any way I can, 

Mr. Lewis. I think obviously my colleague, Secretary Ray LaHood, 

your former colleague, I think very, very highly of. And I think his 

work—and EPA is working closely with DOT as he looks at the 

transportation acts of the future, we are happy to share with you 

the information we are sharing with him. I think that communities 

are differently situated when it comes to transportation choices. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
276 

And our interest is simply to ensure that we are not going to sacrifice air quality. And my belief is, with technological innovations, 

including mass transit, we don’t have to do that. 

Mr. LEWIS. I haven’t thought about asking Ray LaHood to talk 

with you about this. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for this. But, indeed, those buses at the other end hopefully have cleaner driven 

engines as it were. You could perhaps put together a major study 

to help us change the pattern of what people are willing to do in 

terms of transporting themselves. We can buy those buses but we 

can’t get folks to ride in them in southern California. It is an incredible challenge, and we are a long, long ways away from turning 

that corner. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But representing the 

Great Lake State of Lake Superior, the gentlemen from Lake Erie 

were here first before me. I respect seniority and I respect their 

ability to make my life miserable if I went first. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Representative Hinchey. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. First of all, 

it is a great pleasure, Administrator Jackson, to be here with you 

and to be involved in this situation with you. I want to commend 

you for the courageous way in which you have led the EPA and the 

kinds of things that you have been able to do quickly already in 

the context of the kinds of circumstances that you inherited and 

had to deal with. Your mission is to protect human health and the 

environment, and that is exactly what you have been working to 

do. So I deeply applaud you for it. I think your work on the Clean 

Air Act particularly is saving lives, keeping people healthier and, 

as a result, providing enormous benefits across the country, in communities across the country and in our economy. 

So, as you know very clearly, we need a strong EPA to safeguard 

our children, safeguard the community, safeguard our future. 

There was a recent series of articles in The New York Times which 

are absolutely fascinating and which are producing a significant 

amount of new information that is presented in ways that are more 

understandable than they have been in the past, for many people. 

And in fact, stories like little or no testing for radioactive levels, 

and the radioactivity of those levels can be very important. 

So I just want to ask you a few questions along these lines. Along 

the many issues raised in The Times series was that hydraulic 

fracturing wastewater contains radioactivity at levels much higher 

than previously known. And it is being sent to wastewater treatment plants that cannot safely remove the radioactive materials. 

These plants are then dumping this contaminated water into rivers 

and streams and those rivers and streams supply drinking water. 

And as a result of that, there is a threat to the health of millions 

of people. Such material such as barium, strontium, radioactive elements, little or no testing is going on. 

So I am wondering if there is anything that can be done to deal 

with this. Given these reports, will the EPA, for example, order the 

immediate testing of water from these facilities that accept 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
277 

fracking wastes as well as testing at drinking water intake systems 

downstream from these treatment plants? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. I think that EPA is very 

interested in ensuring we get data on radioactivity and flow-back 

water. And the only hesitance I have to say—and absolutely yes, 

we will order the testing—is that I would like to have an opportunity to speak to the States involved—specifically Pennsylvania— 

who has done some amount of work. I actually intend to go tomorrow to our office in Philadelphia to have those discussions. But I 

do believe additional information is due the public as a result of 

that series. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, I appreciate your saying that. And I think 

that is absolutely true. A lot of these States are doing things that 

are not really strong enough. And Pennsylvania I think is one of 

them. There is an awful lot of drilling going on in Pennsylvania 

and the rapid increase of that drilling is going on over the course 

of the next few years. It is going to cause a whole host of problems, 

particularly if there is no oversight as to what is going on. And if 

you live close to Pennsylvania—like, for example, in New York— 

and you find that Pennsylvania is dumping a lot of these radioactive materials and other toxic materials into rivers that are on 

the border of your State, then you have got to be concerned about 

it too. 

Just leaving these situations open to individual States is not 

going to do it. So that is part of it, and I am glad that you are very 

interested in this. 

EPA STUDY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Let me just ask you something else. The narrowing of the national fracking study and the squelching of other researches. Again, 

in The Times, they also raise serious concerns about the process behind EPA’s study on hydraulic fracturing. In general, what I believe is that EPA has put forth to the study advisory panels that 

are positive. I commend the Agency for not falling into the industry’s trap of narrowly defining the drilling process, and we are seeing that all over this country in State after State where these 

things are going on. And they are doing this—the industry’s trap 

of narrowly defining the drilling process because you were able to 

overcome that because you were under some real pressure to do so. 

However, it is what has been left out of the study scope that I 

would like to discuss, what is outside of that study scope. 

According to The Times initial versions of the study scope recommended research on a number of dangers, dangers of toxic 

fumes. The risks of contaminated run-off from landfills where drilling waste is disposed. Whether rivers can sufficiently dilute hazardous gaswell wastewater that is discharged from treatment 

plants and more, a whole host of other things. 

However, the scoping document sent to the advisory board late 

last month included none of these topics, interestingly enough. So 

Agency officials expressed concern about the public’s reaction if it 

was discovered that the study scope was being narrow and staff 

were discouraged from putting anything in writing about the national study unless vetted by managers. So it could not be in the 

Freedom of Information Act, for example. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
278 

One regional administrator apparently instructed his subordinates to not spell out their grandest visions about what the study 

should examine, less the public see all of these concerns. These are 

the kinds of things that we know are very, very dangerous. And we 

know there are a lot of activities that are going on to try to keep 

adverse circumstances too quiet. 

Now EPA did have recommendation from Congress on what it 

should study, specifically drinking water. But if the Agency’s scientists felt there were additional areas to examine because of concerns over human health, such as with air emissions, then the public and Congress should have been made aware of those. Contrary 

to assertions from the industry, the report language was a congressional recommendation, not an order. And EPA had the authority 

to ignore or expand on it. Instead, what we see here are deliberate 

attempts to shield from the public additional concerns expressed by 

EPA’s scientists. There is a lot of positive things going on by the 

scientists, particularly in EPA under your leadership and under 

your direction. 

So there are clearly other risks worth examining that have come 

to light since this report language was first drafted in June of 

2009. 

Shouldn’t the public and Congress be made aware of all of the 

concerns EPA’s scientists had about the risks that fracking poses 

to public health? Why would EPA managers believe this information should be withheld? Why is that? Why would EPA not allow 

these additional topics to be submitted to the advisory board? Furthermore, at a January meeting in Washington, regional directors 

were informed that the national study would be the only forum for 

research on hydrofracking. 

While I understand the Agency might want to ensure there is no 

redundancy, there is absolutely no justification to stop research 

outside the scope of this study. So one other issue, should the national study be the only forum for research on fracking, even if regional offices and other scientists and researching risks outside the 

scope of the study in response of public health concerns just keep 

rising and getting more serious? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Why don’t we give the Administrator a chance to 

answer that. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. There are several questions. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Hinchey. 

On the issue of the public and Congress having access to what 

we know, absolutely, I have committed the Agency to transparency 

in information. And I would like to point out that the issues seem 

to stem from some concerns that are really located in Philadelphia. 

We have 10 regions. We have 10 different offices of EPA across the 

country. The one that handles New York is in New York City. I 

think they have submitted strong and principled comments to the 

State on its draft EIS and we await the State’s actions on the EIS. 

Many of the States are very involved in this issue. It is affecting 

them now while we do this big study, which is going to take about 

2 years. 

Texas, we have actually taken enforcement actions there, and we 

are in something of a dispute with the State because our belief is 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
279 

that we needed to take those actions to assure protectiveness. So 

I want to first just start by saying we believe natural gas is important. It is a homegrown source of energy, but it must be 

sustainably and responsibly produced. And future generations 

shouldn’t somehow bear the burden of a rush to produce it. We 

think it can happen, both can happen. You asked about withholding information. I just want to clarify one thing. The article— 

the series is very important. But we are looking at radionuclides 

as part of the study. 

So somehow the reporter reports today that that was left out of 

the study. That is not true. But I am sure it is just an inaccuracy, 

something he read. But the study is with our science advisory 

board. We have used a transparent consensus-based process to 

scope this study. We expect the science advisory board to have a 

meeting on the study parameters on Monday. All of that has been 

open. We have vetted the people who sit on the board to make sure 

they don’t have undue conflicts of interest so that we don’t have 

folks later worry that the study was somehow skewed. With all 

those safeguards that we have put in place, I am certainly not 

going to be closed-minded to say we don’t need to look to make sure 

we are doing everything right. 

So that is why I am going to go tomorrow to Pennsylvania to 

Philadelphia to our office to try to understand what the state of 

play is there. Your last question was about the national study. The 

budget this year calls for $6 million for that national study. And 

I thank Congress for last year or the year before—I can’t remember—for authorizing it and for your leadership in ensuring that we 

have the study money. 

The only thing I will say is, we have to spend money wisely. So 

I will not say that the national study should be the only study, sir. 

But after a process that open, that transparent, that rigorous to try 

to outline a study, I would want my science adviser, my head of 

research and development, to understand what additional work is 

happening so that we are not somehow being redundant. We don’t 

want to stifle science, but we want to make sure if we are doing 

work that we are not doing the same work over here. 

I think that is only fair. It is a wise use of money. But otherwise, 

I think we should certainly not be tying the hands of our scientists 

and trying to understand this. While at the same time recognizing 

maybe the article didn’t do the greatest job of portraying that many 

States who are used to drilling have done significant work in regulating the fracking and drilling and natural gas recovery process. 

States like your own have sort of taken a time-out so they can 

make sure to get it right. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I deeply appreciate that. If I could respond to that 

briefly. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Very briefly. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I deeply appreciate that, and I know that you are 

doing a lot of things that are very, very important and need to be 

done. But also there is a lot of damage that is taking place right 

now and that damage is going to increase dramatically, rapidly 

over the course of the next couple of years. And if nothing is being 

done to try to just control and oversee what is happening, then 

there is going to be a lot of damage to a lot of people. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
280 

So all of that is critically important. There are a number of 

things that can be done by this Congress, and one of the things 

that could be done and should be done by this Congress is to go 

back and correct a piece of legislation that took out an important 

Federal Act which was put into place back in 1974 to regulate this 

frack drilling, and to ensure that whatever frack drilling is being 

done, it is being done honestly and not being done in ways that are 

corrupted and corrupted quietly so that nobody knows about the 

corruption, nobody knows about the danger, nobody knows about 

what is going on, including what is being injected into the context 

of this drilling. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Calvert. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the chairman. I wanted to follow up on Mr. 

Lewis’s comments regarding nonstationary sources. And I think 

Jerry certainly has credibility on the issue. He wrote the Clean Air 

Act in the State of California, which is probably the most stringent 

set of clean air regulations in the United States. Because we understand that nonstationary sources are the problem—automobiles, 

trucks, trains—and cause a significant part of pollution, especially 

particulate pollution. One of the programs that has been very successful at EPA has been the DERA program, the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Act. 

And Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, myself and others have 

been very supportive of that program because it is removing old 

diesel engines from the inventory and replacing them with clean 

diesel, which has a significant positive effect on reducing particulate pollution. We know that is a program that works and there are 

a lot of things that we do in government that don’t work. 

So a lot of us were concerned when you zeroed out the DERA 

program. I just want to bring that to your attention. 

In my home State of California, as you have mentioned, we have 

our own environmental laws. And I would say in almost every case, 

we meet or exceed Federal standards. We have a process in California called CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, 

which exceeds the NEPA requirements almost in every requirement in the State of California. One agency after the other—because obviously we have a significant job problem in California, our 

unemployment rate is at 12.5 percent. 

In my district, one out of every four people are either out of work 

or underemployed. And the NEPA requirements are causing significant delays in permitting processes and in getting projects underway. Have you ever given any thought to States such as mine? 

Where permit applications that are submitted from States such as 

California, which exceed NEPA requirements, can NEPA be waived 

in States such as California? I can’t think of a State that has more 

stringent environmental laws than the State of California, but 

don’t you think that is a way that we can work toward getting 

these projects underway quicker? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I haven’t focused on the NEPA process, you 

know, that is run out of the Council on Environmental Quality 

from the White House. So it is not really entirely within our jurisVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
281 

diction. We comment as part of the NEPA process, but it is not 

mine to manage. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, wouldn’t EPA certainly have some input into 

this and supporting a new process in which NEPA can potentially 

be waived? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I am happy to take a look at and/or discuss 

it along with the chair of the council. I will say this for our environmental permits, like our Clean Air Act permits in the State of California almost across the board is delegated the permit authority for 

those issues. So there is no duplicity. We don’t issue the permit, 

and then in California, they issue one permit. 

Mr. CALVERT. Any comments on the DERA program? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I do not disagree with you in terms of 

both the popularity and the effectiveness of the program. I think 

it is around 13 or 14 to one, health benefits to dollars spent. It is 

a tough, tough budget, full of tough choices. And the only consideration I would offer for you, sir, is that there was DERA money included in the Recovery Act, and that money is about 60 percent 

spent I believe. So the thought was in a year of tough budget 

choices that we could let that money hit the street, if you will, and 

retrofit more engines. 

So that was the basis for the very difficult decision to not add 

money to the program this year. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for coming to testify here today. I want you to know 

on behalf of my constituents and the citizens of Minnesota, your 

hard work in ensuring the EPA’s protection of public health and 

the environment is much appreciated. In fact, I got Valentines to 

pass on to you. We support your mission to enforce our Nation’s 

laws to make the air we breathe cleaner and the water we drink 

safer. We know that we do face tough fiscal times and difficult 

choices must be made. But the one thing that can never be sacrificed is the health of our children, our seniors and our most vulnerable populations, which you addressed in your testimony. There 

has been a lot of talk about jobs and what can happen and what 

can’t happen. This morning I was looking at Politico and there was 

a story that talks about what happened when we as a Nation were 

working on controlling and removing ozone-depleting CFCs. Some 

of the quotes in the story were from the air conditioning and refrigeration institute, who warned that we will see shutdowns of refrigerator equipment in supermarkets. It went on to say, we will see 

shutdowns of chiller machines which cool our large office buildings, 

our hotels and our hospitals. According to the EPA—and this will 

be the last quote I do from the article—the phaseout happened 5 

years faster than predicted and cost 30 percent less than expected. 

I was working for a company that is called Sears Roebuck in 

major appliances, and it was doom and gloom about what was 

going to happen. People got it when they came in to buy their refrigerators to replace them. People understood that what they were 

doing was making the air better for their children. I never heard 

a consumer complaint about what was moving forward. And in fact, 

it caused a lot of great improved technology. Thank you for the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
282 

work that you do. I think lots of times, we focus on what our problems are and trying to understand regulations and why we are 

moving forward and we don’t celebrate our successes. 

EPA BUDGET

I do want to talk about something. I am concerned when you are 

talking about balancing your budget. I think the chairman has 

been very thoughtful on how we work to coordinate climate change. 

You were mentioning that too about using the best science and not 

duplicating it. But yesterday, we heard from the GAO and Inspector General about the increasing new demands on the EPA. They 

listed in their reports things that you didn’t even have to deal with 

a few years ago. Nanotechnology, cybersecurity, contaminants of 

emerging concerns in our water. 

So one of my two questions is, is the EPA’s budget significant to 

address these issues as well as working on past issues and the 

mandate that you have in front of us? Because I think you can roll 

these together, I will do my second question too. 

CHEMICAL SAFETY

We also heard from the GAO and the Inspector General the difficulties that the EPA has in regulating toxic chemicals. That is 

due to the fact that for-profit chemical companies are not required 

to fully disclose health and safety data information. This puts the 

burden on the EPA and the taxpayers to prove the safety of the 

chemicals that are being sold for profit. This is in contrast to the 

European Union’s approach. I am heartened to see you have made 

toxic chemical safety one of your priorities. But I am concerned 

about how you are going to do that with a decreasing budget and 

fulfilling all the other things that we have heard about today and 

backlogs and the evolving water counts and the concern that the 

gentleman from Kentucky had with ongoing litigation. 

My question is, how are you going to be able to carry out your 

enhancing chemical safety initiative that has been given to the 

EPA, not the chemical companies, to determine the safety of these 

chemicals? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, thank you. The reason I smiled when you 

said Sears Roebuck is my dad worked there in hardware for many 

years, so it brought back a very nice memory. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I was in division 1, 2, and 3, you can tell him. 

Ms. JACKSON. So your question was about the new challenges 

that we face at EPA, and that has been our management challenge 

in trying to put together this budget. We understood the President’s strong call, and actually I very much agree with that we just 

have to find efficiencies and do what Americans are doing, which 

is trying to find ways to get our job done on lower budgets. That 

is fair, and I think we should be, at EPA, embracing that and be 

a part of it. 

I just want to note, for example, on toxics which I do and we 

have identified as a real area of focus and concern. We have also 

called for modernizing our Nation’s toxic chemicals, laws. I am still 

hopeful that we will get around to that soon, that Congress will 

continue its work there. But we have increased our funding for 

toxics in this proposed budget. It is a plus-up of $16 million to deal 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
283 

with some of the issues you mentioned including—and we are really proud of using the existing law to challenge confidentiality 

claims where we can. We are going to add some people simply to 

do the legal work of challenging these companies to open up the 

window shades, if you will, and let scientists see what is in some 

of these products. That takes legal resources though because there 

are challenges under the law. So we have made cuts but we have 

tried to preserve and actually, in some areas, increase those places 

where we believe with the challenges we see before us we really 

need to increase our resources. 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I was in a cab today and the cab 

driver didn’t know what I do for a living. But he asked me where 

I was from and I said I was from Minnesota. And he asked me if 

I fish. I said do you fish in the Potomac? We were at a red light 

so he turned around and he gave me the slightest smile and he 

said, Do you think I am crazy? We have no idea whether they are 

boy fish, girl fish, what kind of fish they are. And the cab driver 

used the term endocrine disrupter. 

Mr. MORAN. It is getting through. It is getting through. 

Mr. SIMPSON. His message is getting through. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We have our work to do to protect future generations. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple 

of specific questions, and one in particular that my colleague 

asked—and I have a more general one—but he asked me to put to 

you, Mr. Young from Alaska, so I am going to read the question. 

He asked, ′′Were due processes and basic notions of fairness considered when you rescinded a properly issued permit on the Desert 

Rock power plant? If built, it has been said that this plant would 

be the cleanest coal plant in the United States. If this doesn’t meet 

clean air standards, would any coal plant be able to do so going forward? So I wanted to tell you ahead of time, I don’t know this issue 

particularly well, but he asked to be given the opportunity for you 

to address it. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is in New Mexico, does that sound right to you? 

Mr. COLE. Again, I wish I could tell you more. It just said the 

Desert Rock power plant. 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe he is talking about a title 5 petition for 

a coal-fired power plant in the four corners region of New Mexico. 

Mr. COLE. He was particularly worried because this has a Native 

American angle to it as well. There was a tribe that was going to 

benefit tremendously financially had this gone ahead. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. We had significant petitions and concerns 

raised by the State of New Mexico in downwind areas that were 

very concerned that this plant would contribute to regional haze, 

visibility issues over the Grand Canyon as well as some significant 

additional pollution issues. I can get more information. 

Mr. COLE. Please do. I would appreciate that very much. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
284 

ASSISTING SMALL WATER SYSTEMS

I have got one other specific question. And that is on drinking 

water issues. What is the EPA doing right now to assist small 

water systems and meeting compliance on the Safe Drinking Water 

Act? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our work there continues. I have had many discussions with the chairman about that very issue. We have two 

roles. The first is to put out health-based standards but the other, 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, acknowledges that there are affordability issues. So we are looking at both. We have encountered 

some amount of resistance understandably from communities who 

say, because I choose to live in a rural area or small town doesn’t 

mean I choose to have water that doesn’t meet Federal standards. 

That is a tough, tough spot to be in. So we tend to err on the side 

of trying to bring resources to communities to meet the standards, 

although we are increasingly looking at providing guidance on affordability as well. I don’t think we have finalized that. 

REGULATION

Mr. COLE. Let me ask you a more general question. And I don’t 

mean this to be adversarial. I really don’t. I want to give you an 

opportunity to state a broader case. As was mentioned earlier in 

some of the questions, we had an awful lot of amendments on H.R. 

1 aimed obviously at the EPA. And I can just say to you, when I 

go home, I get more questions about your Agency and concerns 

than I do any other agency in the Federal Government. And they 

sort of run the gamut. If it is farmers in the southwestern part of 

my district, they are worried you want to regulate dust in the area. 

Well, you can’t farm in southwest Oklahoma without having dust 

in the air. If it is oil and gas people—and again my friend Mr. Hinchey and I sometimes disagree on hydraulic fracturing—as a matter of fact, we always disagree on hydraulic fracturing, to be fair. 

But again, I recognize the legitimacy of the issue that he raises, 

particularly in areas that haven’t had oil and gas activity on the 

scale we are seeing for decades. In Oklahoma we have. Hydraulic 

fracturing is not a new technology to us. We think we regulate it 

very well. We have been using it since the late 1940s. We think 

they probably ought to talk at the State level to other regulators 

who do this. 

But I have got a whole industry that worries they are on the 

verge of having a Federal regime they have never had to deal with 

imposed upon them when it is a practice they have been doing safely for a long time. And I have got communities that come to me 

continually and say they keep raising the standards on water. And 

we get unfunded mandates. 

So while you pointed out in your testimony the environment is 

bipartisan—it was Nixon that created the EPA, Roosevelt the National Park Service, and air and water is better today than it was 

20 years ago and I think everybody appreciates that—but somehow 

this administration, whether deliberately or not, stumbled into a 

situation where it is becoming very ideological and very partisan. 

Is that because you think the science or the technology has 

changed so much? Again, we clearly have a clash here in an area 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
285 

that we don’t need a clash. So are you more aggressive? Are you 

going further? I would just ask you to reflect a little bit about why 

all this political controversy is happening around the Agency. 

Ms. JACKSON. I wish I had the benefit of history so I could look 

back and reflect on these times. But I will say this, it is fair to say 

that there is a backlog of—especially under the Clean Air Act, but 

not only under the Clean Air Act—standard setting that has been 

overdue for a while, either because the previous administration— 

and, again, not to be adversarial—set the standard and the courts 

overturned it. That is the case for mercury and other toxics in air. 

Or transport of pollution from sort of the western half of the country because of course the air blows from west to east. 

Mr. COLE. In Oklahoma it is north to south. 

Ms. JACKSON. I should have said in general. There are always exceptions. So there is a backlog of updating the standards under the 

Clean Air Act. None of the standards are without cost. It is my job, 

as administrator, to do and make sure that the analyses show they 

are done in a way that is transparent that protect, first and foremost, public health but don’t surprise business but give them a 

clear set of rules to operate by. 

We have been in sort of a stasis for quite some time. The other 

issue, quite frankly, and many of them—and I make this offer with 

some trepidation. But many of them I think have to do with our 

ability to communicate what is really going on inside the walls of 

EPA to people who shouldn’t spend most of their time worrying 

about that. 

So especially with the agricultural community, we have endeavored to redouble our efforts with USDA to communicate better. For 

example, on coarse particulate matter which most people would call 

dust in parts of rural America, there has been no regulatory 

change proposed. There has been a study. The study, interestingly 

enough, says it gives equal weight to retaining the current standards as it does to changing them. And there has been absolutely 

no regulatory decision made. We have committed to listening sessions. We just had a bunch in Iowa and Missouri about that very 

matter. So I think we need to find ways to get out and speak to 

people where they are and explain to them because I absolutely 

agree with you. Americans don’t want dirtier air. Certainly farmers 

rely on clean water for their livelihood. We just need to be able to 

ensure that we are doing everything we can to communicate with 

USDA but also in the States. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I am going to have a series of questions later 

on. I know my time is about up. I would just ask you to recommit 

or think through that in the Agency. Because I can assure you that 

the political backlash is real. It has real consequences. So I don’t 

know if we are going too far or too fast. I have opinions on all these 

things individually where I may well differ with the EPA. But I 

can just tell you, attitudinally and atmospherically in a political 

sense, there is a reason why all this is happening. So sometimes 

you can be too zealous or too quick or not—I don’t mean you personally. I am just talking about in general. Agencies or people in 

government can get ideas, move a lot further and faster than the 

public wants them to go. And I think we are in one of those situations right now where the EPA is concerned and we are going to 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
286 

continue to have clashes in Congress unless we can find some more 

cooperative way to move forward. And we have done that in the 

past and hopefully can do that going forward. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be a 

member of this subcommittee. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is an honor to have you here. 

Mr. SERRANO. It only took me 21 years. 

Before I begin to ask my questions, let me just say that in those 

21 years, I always realize that every day you learn more or you 

hear things a little differently. For instance, listening to the gentleman, since he goes back and he hears from farmers and he hears 

from people who are drilling for oil or whatever, gas and so on. I 

don’t have in the south Bronx any oil wells, and I don’t have any 

farmers. We enjoy the results of the hard work they do. 

But on the other hand, in looking for a balance in how we deal 

with the EPA and all that, I have the highest asthma rates in the 

Nation. So I know that people want, yes, whatever balance we need 

to strike but not to go back into the days when the air in New York 

was totally, totally, totally polluted. I also have a river. And for 

most people, they say, you have a river in the middle of the Bronx? 

Yes, the Bronx River. It is a great name for it. And most of you 

live in communities where rivers and ponds and waterways are 

just a way of life that you even take for granted. 

Well, that the whole community worked on cleaning up that river 

and that river became a very special place is so important and EPA 

played a major role in making sure that fish came back to the river 

and animal life in the neighboring area that didn’t exist before. 

So again, some may say, well, that is a little melodramatic. But 

in the middle of a city with a lot of cement, that is extremely important. So as we look forward to the balance of not hurting industry, we also have to make sure that we don’t move back on the advances we have made. And that is just my comment. 

Thank you so much for your work and for your service. I know 

the next couple of years will be rough ones, but we all stand here 

ready to assist you in any way we can. 

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

As you know, I have been actively involved in working with the 

EPA on finding ways to address the public health impacts of PCBs 

in both window calking and light ballasts in our schools. This past 

week, New York City announced that it is moving forward with a 

10-year plan to remove and replace all PCB-contaminated light ballasts throughout the New York City school system. So I have three 

questions. Based on the current science and the EPA guidance that 

was issued in December 2010 on PCB-contaminated light ballasts, 

do you think that in order to protect our schoolchildren that the 

city needs to resolve this problem sooner than the announced 10- 

year time period? Secondly, as you know, separately from the light 

fixture problem, there is also an immediate and real concern about 

the PCBs contained in window caulking in our schools. 

Could you please take a moment to update me on your efforts to 

have New York City also address this issue as well? When the safeVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
287 

ty of our children is at risk we cannot afford any further delays. 

And lastly, is this something that is in the inner city in New York 

more than other places? Or is this an issue affecting the Nation as 

a whole? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, thank you. I will start, Mr. Serrano, with 

your last question because I had just written down that this is not 

a New York City-only issue. It has to do with basically the generation of the buildings. So to very quickly summarize, PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls are cancer causing. They are found in ballast, in fluorescent lights, old fluorescent lights. They can be found 

in caulk. They were a component of caulk until they were phased 

out beginning in the 1970s, I believe. 

So I do think that we were gratified to see the city’s announcement that they are going to move forward to address the ballast 

issue. The reason that came to be was that the city had signed up 

to do an investigation of PCB in caulk because PCB was showing 

up in the air, and they came to understand, I think, through very 

quick sampling that the bigger problem might well be these PCBs 

in the ballast. The ballast get old. They start to leak and PCBs can 

be a concern. 

So I think our next move is to meet with the city and encourage 

them to—10 years is certainly I think part of their budgetary impetus and they are looking at, to their credit, an energy efficiency and 

sort of an updating revamp that would be beneficial to the schools 

in terms of their operating costs. So they may well be able to do 

this work, replace the lights and the ballast and it may well be 

able to pay for itself or nearly pay for itself over time. We are going 

to encourage them to focus on the places where we think there is 

contamination leaking so that we don’t have some child, God forbid, or teacher who ends up being on the 10-year side of that. 

We would like to at least give some assurance that they are 

triaging this situation. But I do think that has been a tremendous 

step forward. The city in general has been dealing with this issue. 

Other areas around the country—and we now have guidance up on 

our Internet site. It is not a regulation. It is not a requirement to 

help school districts who are dealing with either caulk or PCB. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, you answered the last question which I was 

going to ask you which is, has the city been cooperative? And you 

do feel that they have. Well, maybe you don’t feel that they have. 

So let me ask you a question, has the city been cooperative in 

moving ahead on this? And again, 10 years may be a budget piece, 

but can we wait 10 years? Should this be dealt with at a much 

quicker pace? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think when you are talking about a health issue, 

especially one that is a children’s health issue, young bodies still 

developing, we don’t have a lot of data on how pollution or toxics 

affect them more or less than adults. Urgency is always called for. 

I have not been dealing with the city in day-to-day negotiations. I 

will suffice as to say that where they are now is a good thing. They 

have stepped up after some period of time to say, we now know and 

understand that we need to be aggressive here. And I don’t think 

we should discount that. Our goal now is to ensure that they improve even their 10-year plan, which is a wonderful improvement 

and a step forward to try to make it as effective as we can always 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
288 

with children in mind, always with children and doing it within 

their budget. I mean, the city schools have their own set of challenges, and the mayor and officials are quick to point that out. So 

we are trying to help them deal with this issue in a way that is 

protective but also mindful. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Flake. 

SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAM

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ms. Jackson. 

The theme seems to be, at least from this side of the aisle, that 

there seems to be overreach by the EPA. I don’t know how it can 

be classified otherwise, and we saw this in response on the CR. 

And, just to give you an example, a couple of weeks ago the Wall 

Street Journal talked about a new rule promulgated just 6 weeks 

ago by the EPA finalizing a rule that subjects dairy producers to 

the spill prevention control and countermeasure program. This was 

created in 1970 to deal with oil spills near shorelines and navigable 

waterways. This is done, as the EPA put it, because of the percentage of animal fat that is a nonpetroleum oil in milk. Now my understanding is, this rule requires mitigation measures be put in 

that include dairies training first responders in cleanup protocol 

and building containment facilities, berms, and dikes, if possible. I 

can tell you, I grew up milking a cow and I would have loved to 

have told my dad, ‘‘sorry, there is no berm here around the barn. 

I am not going to do it.’’ 

How with a straight face can anyone in the EPA say that, given 

all of the problems and the need to maintain the progress that we 

have made in a budget environment like this, we need promulgate 

new rules like this? We understand it is not going to cost the EPA 

much, but it costs the dairy industry and farmers a lot. Those who 

produce cheese and other milk products are required to be in this 

as well. I mean, what is next? Sippy cups in the House cafeteria? 

What are we going to do? But, please, explain how that is not overreach. Many seem to deflect any criticism of anything the EPA is 

doing, saying there is no overreach and they are not going too far. 

Is this not overreach? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it is not accurate. I can just read to you from 

the letter to the editor that we wrote that I think the Wall Street 

Journal has yet to find time or space to publish. EPA has already 

proposed to exclude—exclude—milk storage tanks from this spill 

prevention program. This commonsense decision was announced 

months before the Wall Street Journal chose to write their inaccurate article. Moreover, EPA stayed enforcement. Compliance requirements were changed pending the final agency action. 

It is widely known that EPA will take action on this this spring, 

and I can give you a personal update. EPA has already sent the 

draft final exclusions to the White House. So we are on schedule 

to do that, which we had announced months ago. I have no idea 

why the Wall Street Journal chose to inaccurately report. We have 

tried to fix the record, but I don’t believe they published it. 

Mr. FLAKE. Well, it sounds like this rule has been promulgated 

and now you are just looking to make exemptions to it. Would that 

not be accurate? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
289 

Ms. JACKSON. No, that is not entirely accurate, sir. Because 

when we promulgated the rule, at the same time we made clear 

that we were announcing and proposing an exemption. So it does 

take a bit of time for the regulatory process to ensure the exemption is through. And so to ensure no producer was subject to a rule 

that we did not intend for them to be subject to, we have also announced that we won’t enforce it. So there has been no period of 

time where anyone has been subject to worry about whether milk 

and spilled milk was going to be regulated. We have announced 

that we don’t believe that is an area where regulation is necessary. 

Mr. FLAKE. It would be accurate to say that the EPA has spent 

a considerable amount of time promulgating this rule in the first 

place. 

Ms. JACKSON. The rule is for oil. The rule is for inland oil facilities that need containment to ensure our waterways are protected, 

but we wanted to ensure there was an exemption for milk and the 

fats in milk. 

Mr. FLAKE. There has been no effort to include or to subject dairy 

producers to the spill prevention control and countermeasure program then? No effort then? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. There has been an effort to exempt them, 

but there are rules under SPCC, if we can just use the shorthand, 

to deal with preventing spills of large amounts of oil into inland 

waterways. That is part of our requirements. But because this unintended consequence came up, EPA announced an exemption so 

there would be no confusion. 

Mr. FLAKE. But it is still inaccurate to say that this was not 

being considered by the EPA and time was not spent on it because 

there was a rule finalized to subject dairy producers to this that 

is now being considered or exempted or held back, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. At the same time as the rule was finalized for oil 

containment and storage facilities, large ones, I think over a million gallons, sir, but I can double-check that, EPA proposed to ensure that milk was exempted. So there has been time and effort, 

in my mind, my opinion, spent on just the opposite of overreach, 

which is underreach. We made it clear through our rules that we 

were not going to or intending to have milk, milk as a substance, 

regulated, regardless of whether it is over a million gallons. 

So you ask why I cannot entirely buy into this idea of overreach. 

Many of the things that EPA is accused of are, in my mind, attempts to misinform people of what is actually happening. What is 

happening on the ground is that we are not intending nor do I believe will ever regulate milk. As soon as the rule becomes final, 

that will be quite clear. 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

Mr. FLAKE. Let me move to Arizona here. Arizona counties and 

municipalities are very worried about a review of ambient air quality that could result in the lowering of the coarse particulate standard. You talked about this being considered before. I understand 

the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended 

that the standard be lowered or raised or bettered, I guess you 

would say. Is that correct? Is that why the EPA is moving ahead 

with consideration of changing the standard? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
290 

Ms. JACKSON. The actual language in the Scientific Advisory 

Board document says that it is equally—I don’t have the exact 

quote. I will try to find it for you. It is equally like possible to retain the current standard. There is a standard now or to lower it. 

So, as far as I know, they have not made a determination or a recommendation to lower the standard to EPA. 

Mr. FLAKE. We know that they have made a recommendation. 

And is it safe to say that EPA tries to or often follows recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Committee? 

Ms. Jackson. We are required by law to consult with the Case 

Act. There has only been one case when EPA did not follow the recommendations of Case Act. That was the ozone standard promulgated at the end of the Bush administration which we are now reconsidering. 

Mr. FLAKE. This clean air advisory—— 

SCIENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Ms. JACKSON. Scientific Advisory Council—— 

Mr. FLAKE. They recommended that EPA establish a new coarse 

particulate standard for rural dust, but my understanding is that 

EPA has rejected their recommendation in the past; is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. My understanding, sir—and I will get the 

backup—is that their recommendation says that they support either retaining or revising. So they did not take a position. But I 

will make sure and get you the exact language. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
291 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 66892A.198
292 

Mr. FLAKE. The concern would be that the EPA is following one 

recommendation and not following the other recommendation. The 

one recommendation would impose considerable costs. And when 

the other recommendation made might spare the cities and municipalities that cost, the new standard or separate standard for rural 

dust was to be adopted. So my concern would be that the EPA 

would be picking and choosing which recommendations to follow 

and only following those that impose significant costs. 

And then the problem is, and we have been through this again 

and again, every time the EPA comes in to say they are going to 

change the standard there has already been lawsuits. There has already been action forcing cities and counties to take action to reach 

a new standard. And while they are in the middle of trying to comply with this, here comes EPA again saying you might have a new 

standard. 

And it would behoove all of us to sit back and say, all right, can 

we have a 10-year standard and here are the benchmarks. Here is 

what we have got to reach. This would be instead of putting the 

cities and counties through the wringer every couple of years that 

they find very difficult to comply with. 

That is my concern. I will wait for the next round of questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have much of 

a voice today, so thanks for your tolerance. 

I would like to start, Ms. Jackson, by associating myself with the 

remarks of Mr. Cole. I have never heard the vitriol during town 

hall meetings that I hear towards the EPA from everyone from coal 

miners to ranchers to people who do believe climates are changing 

but believe that the EPA’s heavy hand towards regulating greenhouse gases will put us out of business and just send those jobs 

into countries that do not have environmental regulations that 

match ours, thereby causing greater pollution elsewhere in the 

world that will eventually get to us as well. 

Most of us have more confidence in our own country’s ability to 

manage environmental issues with the latest technologies than is 

capable around the world. So I think that we should concentrate 

on trying to keep jobs and technology in the United States. We can 

actually be the leader in those areas and export those technologies 

elsewhere in the world. 

So please do take careful heed of Mr. Cole’s remarks. I believe 

they were right on target. 

I do have some questions for you, some of which I will submit 

in writing. 

REGULATORY ACTIONS

Mrs. LUMMIS. How many regulatory actions is your agency currently undertaking under the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water 

Act? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t have the exact number in front of me. We 

classify regulations according to their economic significance I believe over the course of a year. Are you asking about maybe this 

year? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes, ma’am. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
293 

Ms. JACKSON. I think we have two or three economically significant requirements, maybe four under the Clean Air Act that are in 

our regulatory calendar. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S JANUARY 18, 2011, EXECUTIVE ORDER

Mrs. LUMMIS. Are you complying with President Obama’s January 18th executive order that requires agencies to take into account—and this is among other things—the costs of cumulative 

regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And do you have some data you can share on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have been asked to do a retroactive look-back 

of regulations to determine impacts, and we have begun that 

scoping process, but I don’t have anything to share at this time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And when will you? 

Ms. JACKSON. I cannot give you a date today, but we will get you 

a date. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. When you get us the date, can you also give us information? 

Ms. JACKSON. When we have it. We will get you a date when we 

will have information that we are able to share, absolutely. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

CRITERIA FOR REGULATORY CHANGES

What criteria do you use to determine when a regulatory change 

must follow the open rulemaking process or where guidance will 

suffice? I can tell you we hear a lot of concerns that guidance has 

broadened the scope of the Clean Water Act in ways that skirt the 

rulemaking process. 

Ms. JACKSON. We follow the Administrative Procedure Act in determining what should be a regulation; and, of course, once we 

have a regulation, we have made a determination about a regulation, it goes through full public comment, usually a very long and 

detailed process. And we are pretty proud of the fact that we think 

we have a very transparent rulemaking process. The guidance 

issues are for those issues which generally EPA needs to offer guidance and clarification, doesn’t rise to the level of a rule. 

And, increasingly, EPA’s guidance is subject to public comment 

as well. For example, you heard perhaps earlier the discussion 

about the mountaintop removal mining guidance and surface mining guidance. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

HYDRAULIC FRACKING

I want to follow up on the conversation on hydraulic fracking, 

something that occurs commonly in my State, and there has never 

been a connection proven in spite of frequent revisiting of the hydraulic fracking issue between the diminution in water quality and 

modern hydraulic fracking techniques. 

I would also point out to those that are concerned about it, especially those that are concerned about the New York Times article, 

that the former director of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality and the former governor, Governor Rendell, subVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
294 

mitted a rebuttal to the New York Times that the New York Times 

wouldn’t print because it was too long. But it addressed many of 

the concerns that were raised in the article. 

And, of course, the article also was not a peer-reviewed, scientific 

expression of hydraulic fracking. So I would refer those who are 

concerned about it to former Governor Rendell and the former director in the State. 

And following up on that, using that as a segue, can you tell me 

what does the EPA do that States are incapable of doing through 

their own departments of environmental quality? 

EPA AND STATES ROLES

Ms. JACKSON. Well, ma’am, as you know, water moves between 

States, and air moves between States and countries. And so I think 

EPA’s most important role over its history, EPA often helped 

States to set up their program. Now we have moved more into a 

role where we oversee programs to ensure that the Clean Water 

Act is implemented the same way, for example, across the country. 

Where I think EPA has made some tremendous progress and 

where we have work to do is on regional issues, on places—for example, the transport of pollution from the Midwest to the East or 

water quality issues that are regional in nature that require the cooperation of several States. I think a national environmental 

body—as well as research. EPA has a very fulsome environmental 

research budget. Most States can’t afford that. I used to run a 

State program, and we just didn’t have the money to put in research we would like. 

We still set international standards for risk assessment. And our 

work still—I am always amazed wherever I go internationally, almost every slide, if it is an environmental issue, is attributed to 

many of the scientists and researchers at EPA, car standards. I 

could go on and on and on. 

But the States are extremely important in the day-to-day implementation of our environmental laws. They write permits. They enforce the law. But the EPA’s role is one of oversight as well as scientific knowledge and working on regional issues. 

EPA RESEARCH

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you believe that research is your highest priority expenditure at EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our mission is protection of public health and the 

environment. So I wouldn’t call it our highest priority, but I would 

say increasingly environmental issues are so complex that you need 

very, very good science. So we spend a lot of money and a significant portion of our budget on science issues, whether in applied research or in grants to do research. 

EPA PRIORITIES

Mrs. LUMMIS. In making decisions about prioritizing your funding, do you look at what States can do versus what they cannot do 

or what you believe they are incapable of doing and prioritize for 

the EPA to do those things that you believe the States are incapable of doing as well as EPA is capable of doing it? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
295 

Ms. JACKSON. We have seven priorities that I established at 

EPA. One of them is working in partnership with our States and 

tribes. Because many of our managers, including myself, came from 

State government and know very well that there is a synergistic 

relationship. 

There are also times, quite frankly, when we don’t agree and the 

laws carve out a role for EPA and implementation of the environmental laws that we must also uphold. We are ultimately accountable for implementation of those laws. 

AIR QUALITY AROUND GRAND CANYON

Mrs. LUMMIS. There are State and tribal groups that form commissions such as the Grand Canyon Air Visibility, the Transport 

Commission. That is not the exact name of it. But it was the western governors, the tribes near the Grand Canyon and others who 

worked diligently together to address air quality issues in the 

airshed around the Grand Canyon. I know there are similar intrastate and intratribal interagency efforts around the country. Do 

you look to those as a primary driver or do you look more to the 

Federal Government as the primary driver? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, of course. And, in fact, those groups, if they 

are the ones I am thinking about, are authorized under the Clean 

Air Act. The Clean Air Act realized that haze is a regional problem, 

visibility is a regional problem, and so there are several regional 

haze groups that protect Class 1 visibility areas around the country, and they are authorized under law, and we work very closely 

with them. 

EPA BUDGET

Mrs. LUMMIS. Since President Obama became President, it looks 

to me as if, in terms of percentage increase, the EPA has received 

the highest percentage increase in its budget. Do you agree? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly we received the highest increase of any 

EPA budget under President Obama in fiscal year 2010, yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So as I understand, it was about 39 percent total 

for the previous administration’s budget and so your current proposed 13 percent cut really amounts to a 24 percent increase over 

previous EPA budgets. Do you agree with my math? 

Ms. JACKSON. Top line, yes. It is essentially so, yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So you are still dealing with about a quarter increase over previous administration’s budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. With the very vast majority of that money going 

out to States, either for the Great Lakes or for water and wastewater infrastructure grants. What the President thought was very 

important was investing in water and wastewater infrastructure 

but in a tough year we have had to basically give some of that 

back, reluctantly, but we are part of the team and we think we 

have to make those tough choices. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And among those were the State revolving funds, 

the safe drinking water? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is what I referred to. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Excuse me. You are being very generous, Mr. 

Chairman, with my 5 minutes. So I will yield back. I do want to 

pursue that if there is another round. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
296 

Mr. SIMPSON. The gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is nice to see you, Madam Administrator, again; and I want 

to thank you for the courtesy that you have extended to me personally and to my constituents. 

And, also, on the issue of the Great Lakes, I want to commend 

the President and you for the emphasis placed on the Great Lakes. 

I am sorry that the distinguished ranking member of the full 

committee isn’t here anymore, but I think he was engaging in a little bit of revisionist history. It is actually this administration that 

is the very first administration that has put real money behind the 

Great Lakes cleanup initiatives. We sort of limped along at $50 

million here and $50 million there, and the President’s original vision of $475 million would have actually let us move forward in a 

lot of important areas. And if the gentleman from Washington is 

short on species, we would be happy to send him the Round Goby, 

the sea lamprey, the zebra mussel, or the Asian carp. Perhaps he 

could repopulate some of his areas. 

Mr. MORAN. Is the Asian carp edible? That is a heck of a big fish. 

What can you do with it? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I would say to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee that I will bring him one and maybe we 

will check it out. 

Mr. MORAN. I bet it is a tough one to fillet. It is about 6 feet long. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Some of them go 100 pounds. So I hope it is 

good eating. 

MISLEADING PESTICIDE PRODUCT BRAND NAMES

With those things, there are a couple of things that are of concern to me; and I would like to get through in the 5 minutes, if 

I could. And one is something that Ms. Kaptur and I sent you a 

letter on. It was a draft PR Notice 2010 Act and you were kind— 

actually, you didn’t send the letter back to me. It was Mr. Owen, 

the Assistant Administrator. 

The U.S. EPA draft PR Notice 2010 Act has to do with false or 

misleading pesticide product brand names. And here is my concern. 

There are two companies in Ohio. One is Scotts, which is pretty 

well-known, and the other one I didn’t know about until this sort 

of dustup started, and that is Anderson’s Golf Pro. And the proposed PR Notice, which isn’t going to go through rulemaking, it is 

going to be guidance, as you were discussing with others, wants to 

take a look at trademark names. 

Now, I have a lot of problem with that from a legal standpoint. 

A trademark name is a trademark name. But on the draft guidance 

that comments are being solicited on, names that apparently the 

agency is going to have problems with are eradicator, germ shield, 

professional grade, pro, safe, safer, safest, and green. 

Now, when I was growing up, green was a color. And if somebody 

has gone through the process of having its fertilizer trademarked, 

I have no problem with the EPA looking at what is in the bag to 

make sure it is safe for human health and everything else. But, obviously, a lot of time and money—— 

Some of these trademark names have been around since the 

1960s, and there is just a—Scotts Lawn Pro, I have trouble on a 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
297 

couple of levels. One, I don’t find anything deceptive in having a 

trademark name called Lawn Pro; and, two, I do have trouble with 

the EPA proposing without the rulemaking process to move forward with a guidance that would say that the word ‘‘pro’’ was inappropriate. 

In the case of the Anderson’s company, the reason Ms. Kaptur 

signed the letter—it is in her district—they make a product called 

Anderson’s Golf Pro; and apparently in correspondence with the 

agency they have been advised—because it can be used on your 

front lawn and not just a golf course—that they have trouble. They 

find the word ‘‘golf’’ as deceptive. So they are going to be able to 

call it Anderson’s, I guess, because they can’t call it Anderson’s 

Golf and they can’t call it Anderson’s Pro. 

The problem moving forward is that—I said to the people at 

Scotts who are down in Marysville, Ohio, I think Mr. Tiberi’s district, I said you are really only scratching the surface when you 

talk about things like pro and green and everything else. Because 

the one Scotts product that I use is Miracle-Gro. And how the heck 

are they going to be able to establish that a miracle has occurred 

when they put their stuff—they are going to have all of these little 

old ladies take their tomato plants over to Rome to present them 

to the College of Cardinals to determine whether a miracle has occurred. 

So that is the trouble I have got with this thing; and I would 

hope that at the very least, because we are dealing with trademarks and the fact that they have been in place for a long time— 

I could argue it is an unconstitutional taking of property without 

due process of law. But I would hope that perhaps because I find 

you to be a reasonable person, that maybe you could pull back the 

people that want to take the word green and pro and everything 

else out of the trademark. And if you want to proceed in this direction, that you put it through the rulemaking process and not 

through this guidance process. 

And your letter—again, the letter from the Assistant Administrator at the end of January—indicates that that is not the position 

of the agency. But that is my request, if you would take a look at 

this. And if you want to really get into what lawn care products 

are called, that it go through the rulemaking process and not just 

solicits comments from people but also lets the Congress also weigh 

in and make some observations. So that would be request number 

one. 

FLY ASH OR COAL AS REGULATION

Request number two has to do with fly ash. And you know that 

there was an amendment during the CR. One of our new members, 

Mr. McKinley, offered the amendment to deny funding to the EPA 

relative to declaring coal ash to be a hazardous material. I think 

that amendment passed. 

Regardless of that amendment—and I am not a big fan of 

amendments limiting funding. But the history of fly ash or coal 

ash, to my understanding, is that there was a series of studies, the 

Bevill studies, that the agency actually presented a recommendation to Congress that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
298 

ardous material. And now, without consultation with the Congress, 

it appears that the EPA is about to do a 180 degree turn. 

And so, one, I have the same problem. Why would Congress direct the EPA to make a study and a recommendation only to have 

the EPA go in the other direction? And then, two, just the folks 

that are engaged in waste tell me when you increase the amount 

of fly ash that needs to be treated as a hazardous material, it is 

going to be about 40 to 50 million tons a year, which is going to 

exhaust our landfill space in just about a couple of years. 

So your comment on Miracle-Gro and your comment on fly ash 

would be greatly appreciated. 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe in miracles. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I do, too. 

Ms. JACKSON. So I will take a look at the issue you raise seriously, sir. I am sorry for the joke. 

And on the second issue of coal ash, let me just say a couple of 

things in terms of where we are. EPA continues to support the beneficial use of that material. We proposed a rule. The rule did not 

take a—it proposed two different approaches and took comment on 

it. The approaches were to regulate it under Subtitle C, which are 

the hazardous provisions of the law, of RCRA, or Subtitle D, which 

is the solid waste provisions. Either way, increased regulation, 

which I believe is warranted because there is certainly real and potential public health and environmental issues. 

All this was in the aftermath of the failure of the big impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee. We received over 450,000 comments 

on the proposal, and that is going to take quite a bit of time to 

work through. So we remain committed to rulemaking on this matter; and we are going to analyze that information and make a final 

decision based on comments, science, and the law. But we will almost certainly not do that this calendar year. I think it is going to 

take quite a bit of time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I had understood that you had come up with 

actually three different proposals to have comment on—C, D, and 

D prime—and that there were actually three different ones. 

The only concern that I have, if you look at the Tennessee incident, which was obviously serious, it seems to me that it is a matter of engineering and studying and dams and things of that nature. But to just reclassify fly ash as a hazardous material I think 

is a big step. And just like in the case of the fertilizer, I hope that 

if you, as the leader of the agency, reach a conclusion that that is 

the direction you are going to go in, that you would at least consult 

with the United States Congress before moving in that direction. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LaTourette, I hope that that is not your Alexandria lawn 

where you are using all of that fertilizer stuff. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Nothing but natural green products go onto my 

property in Virginia. But thank you for asking. 

Mr. MORAN. I hope that is the case. We have got some people 

using all that stuff, and it is getting into our water supply and 

then we have to spend all this taxpayer’s money trying to clean it. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
299 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think that is probably how you got the 

doghead fish in your—— 

Mr. MORAN. I suspect so. But we have been trying to find our 

neighbors who are accountable for that, and maybe we found the 

problem. 

Anyway, that is not really what I want to focus on here, but 

thanks for raising it. We will send the lawn police out after you, 

Steve. 

GREENHOUSE GASES

First of all, greenhouse gases. We have heard so much from so 

many people on how aggressive you have been on greenhouse 

gases. We have got this old coal-fired power plant in Alexandria 

that is redundant, and we still can’t get it closed down. So some 

of us would like a little more aggressive action. But I know how 

differential you want to be to the industry, and you want to make 

sure that everything is done right. 

But there is another point of view from the one that has been 

expressed, particularly on the floor of the House when we were considering the CR. During consideration of the CR, Mr. Poe from 

Texas, who was the author of the amendment to stop EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases, said, and I quote, this amendment will 

rein in EPA and prohibit them from implementing the so-called cap 

and trade philosophy on States such as Texas. Other Members said 

that the EPA was trying to implement cap and trade. So I want 

to ask you, do the greenhouse gas regulations that EPA finalized 

in December actually institute cap and trade, and do you intend to 

implement cap and trade at EPA in the future without congressional action? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is no and no. EPA has taken no steps to establish a cap and trade program, and we do not need to do so. I 

joined the President in calling for legislation in the absence of that. 

We do not—— 

Mr. MORAN. So, without congressional action, you are not going 

to be acting on that. So thank you, Ms. Jackson. 

We heard also from Mr. Barton, who had been the ranking member on the Commerce Committee, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act, so EPA has no authority to regulate that. Is that true? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, that is untrue. 

Mr. MORAN. So all the members are clear, what have you asked 

of industry in the greenhouse gas regulations and have you seen 

evidence of refineries and power plants actually going out of business as a result of your actions? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. Actually, we have seen some permit activity that would be encouraging, I think. We have had about 100 

PSD applications that are now in process. PSD are Clean Air Act 

permit applications that are needed before either undertaking a 

new facility or a significant modification that would raise the 

amount of greenhouse gases quite significantly. Twenty-six of those 

100 have already done their analysis for greenhouse gas emissions, 

and that is before the permit riders. Two have already received 

their greenhouse gas permits. I believe one is in Louisiana; one is 

in California. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
300 

CLEAN WATER ACT

Mr. MORAN. Now, on clean waters. This dump truck of a bill, 

known as H.R. 1—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Dump truck? 

Mr. MORAN. A dump truck, because we dumped everything—or 

you guys dumped everything you could imagine into it and weighing it down so we are having trouble getting it passed, of course. 

But it contains language that prohibits EPA from updating its 

rules and guidance pertaining to the definition of waters under the 

Clean Water Act. So, without question, there are two Supreme 

Court decisions, one in 2001 and another in 2006, that have created some confusion and uncertainty over the scope of the Clean 

Water Act. But the prohibition in H.R. 1 is anti-real estate and 

anti-business, given the past position of industry groups that they 

do support a rulemaking process that would provide all sides with 

clarification, with an ample opportunity to participate in that regulatory process. 

So I ask you, Madam Administrator, how would the prohibition 

that was dumped onto H.R. 1 impact the permit process in EPA’s 

future actions on limiting water pollution? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe it would prevent EPA and the Corps from 

offering clarification to permit writers who work for either EPA, 

the Corps, and authorize States under the Clean Water Act. That 

level of confusion is having a real-world impact in implementation 

of permitting and enforcement and in my belief will have an impact 

on water quality if not addressed. So if we are prohibited from 

making any clarification possible, it will have an impact on our 

ability to move as we try to develop and invest money as we try 

to create jobs. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, that is what I was concerned about. We are 

trying to grow this economy, and real estate developers who have 

plans that have been worked out with the locality, a number of 

smart-growth ideas in metropolitan areas, we are being told that 

they can’t move until they can get clarification on the Clean Water 

Act. And they are asking you to do it, and now you are stopped because of H.R. 1. 

LIMITING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

One last question with regard to H.R. 1. This is Section 1746. It 

would fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal 

year, but it would stop EPA from limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But what is less clear is the impact of section 1746 on renewable fuel standards. So I want to ask you, is the language included—and I shall use that expression once more—in that dump 

truck of a bill known as H.R. 1, I mentioned on the floor that it 

had more poison pills than Rasputin’s medicine cabinet. That is the 

kind of thing we would have expected out of Representative LaTourette. 

But here we are burdened with all of this stuff, and we have got 

this language in H.R. 1 that stops EPA’s renewable fuel standards 

for the remainder of the fiscal year. How do you deal with that, 

with the impact of the consequences of Section 1746 in H.R. 1, 

Madam Administrator? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
301 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I think we agree that the greenhouse gas prohibitions and the riders thereto have an impact on our ability to 

implement the renewable fuel standards because they are, after all, 

greenhouse gas based or based on a lifecycle analysis with respect 

to greenhouse gas compared to conventional gasoline. So I think 

that is one of the consequences as well. 

FUNDING RESTRICTIONS

Mr. MORAN. Well, just one final comment to address—we have 

talked a lot about the Great Lakes restoration. And I happen to 

agree. We ought to be investing money because it has an immediate economic benefit and a deleterious one if we don’t make that 

investment. 

But I think Mr. Dicks is right with regard to Puget Sound, and 

that affects the quality of water all the way downriver and Chesapeake Bay. And on Chesapeake Bay we have had support on both 

sides of the aisle, but now we have this language that says you 

can’t use any Federal funds, even though we have had the Agriculture Department, we have had EPA, we have had any number 

of agencies working in a collaborative manner, particularly with 

the States and localities, to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. 

We have got miles of dead zones from all the fertilizer, as Mr. 

LaTourette referenced, that is killing the vegetation at the bottom 

of the water; and now we have got this legislation that says you 

can’t use any Federal funds to implement the total maximum daily 

load, which is precisely the tool that we are using to try to clean 

up the Bay. 

If you have any further comment, that is fine. Otherwise, I will 

let you go. I appreciate the opportunity, though, to make these 

points, Mr. Chairman. And I trust that you would agree, we ought 

to get back to a regular interior appropriations bill so we can deal 

with these very difficult regulatory and legislative issues in an appropriate document and not in that dump truck of a bill known as 

H.R. 1. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments, but funding limitation amendments are appropriate in an appropriation bill 

because we are the Appropriations Committee and hence the definition, funding limitation amendment, which is what was offered. 

And I would also say that I think you are incorrect. Section 1746, 

that was stationary sources of greenhouse gas. It had nothing to 

do with fuel standards. So it would have left those completely untouched. 

Whenever we put something in, everybody throws out this, oh, 

the world is going to fall; we won’t be able to do anything. Originally, when it was proposed, the Energy Star standard wouldn’t be 

able to do Energy Star anymore. That is a program that existed before there was ever any mention of greenhouse gases. There was 

nothing that would have affected Energy Star. But yet all of those 

comments are made. 

And, of course, people that don’t like it throw out the worst-case 

scenario. I am surprised that the world just didn’t fall apart the 

day after that passed. But, unfortunately, or fortunately, I guess, 

it didn’t. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
302 

Maybe some of those things that were said aren’t true. And it 

seems like the agency—I am smart enough to understand the agency on almost anything it does overstates a benefit and understates 

the cost. And I am also smart enough to understand that businesses that maybe don’t like it overstate the cost and understate 

the benefit. And the truth is somewhere in the middle. And the 

problem is having an honest discussion about this stuff because of 

all the bull that is thrown out, and that is the reality. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you that you are 

a very smart guy. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. MORAN. You suggested that. And I agree that you are a 

smart guy, but I think you would also agree that we shouldn’t be 

deciding these issues with 10 minutes of debate. For example, the 

Chesapeake Bay, it didn’t mention EPA. It just said all Federal 

funds. And that is the problem with legislating in that manner at 

2:00 in the morning. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just to clarify that. You will notice that on the 

greenhouse gas regulation or limitation that was put in there, we 

only did it through the CR, through the 7-month CR, because we 

didn’t want the EPA and business to spend a ton of money implementing a rule that was being taken up by the authorizing committee. 

The one thing I don’t want to do is I don’t want to have this committee substitute its judgement for the authorizing committee. But 

working with them, they said, through the term of this CR, that 

is fine; let us work. They are currently holding hearings. 

I don’t know what Congress will ultimately decide. I may agree 

or disagree with whatever Congress decides. But let us let the authorizing committees do their work, because sometimes there are 

things that have to be done on an appropriations bill. 

I will also tell you that there are an awful lot of statutes out 

there that are unauthorized. They have expired. And what do we 

do? We extend the authorizations through the appropriations bill. 

If you want to just stop doing that, we will close down the Indian 

health clinics across the world. We will do a lot of other things that 

are unnecessary. 

Mr. MORAN. So who is exaggerating now? I don’t want to be argumentative with you, Mr. Chairman, because you are a good guy, 

and you want to do the right thing. But I do think we have got a 

real problem with all of those riders that were put on to that continuing resolution. But thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And, as I said, they were so devastating that no 

efforts were made by your side to remove them. 

Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Chairman, thanks very much. 

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE

I just have one brief question, and it is about the most recent article in the Times. I think it is coming out today or tomorrow. According to the report, what they say is that some EPA lawyers believe that Federal pollution laws are being violated in Pennsylvania. And I know that you are going up there tomorrow, and you 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
303 

will get some deep insight into this whole situation, and I deeply 

appreciate your spending the time up there. 

So they believe that the pollution laws are being violated in 

Pennsylvania; and, specifically, drilling waste is being discharged 

into rivers and streams with minimal treatment. According to one 

EPA lawyer that was cited in this most recent story in the Times, 

and this is a quote: ‘‘Treatment plants are not allowed under Federal law to process mystery liquids, regardless of what the State 

tells them. Mystery liquids is exactly what this drilling waste is, 

since its ingredient toxins aren’t known.’’ 

That was an interesting statement by him. Nevertheless, the 

agency has not intervened in Pennsylvania mostly because of resistance, as we understand it, resistance from upper-level staff 

within the EPA Region 3 office. And, of course, they oversee the operations of the State. 

This may be something that you might be interested in checking 

out in going up there. So I think that it would be interesting— 

maybe you know something about this already. A disagreement in 

Region 3, something about what is going on there, what about this 

disagreement, how this disagreement is taking place, what the contexts of it are. Maybe you will just find out about this and look into 

this tomorrow. 

And enforcement officers there believe the law is being violated. 

You have some enforcement officers there who believe that this law 

is being violated. So I wonder if you can give us some insight into 

why no action has been taken, despite calls to do so from enforcement personnel. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I will be in a better position after speaking 

directly to my staff tomorrow. 

What I want to also assure them from the highest level of the 

agency are those things I have said publicly, which is we are going 

to do a study. We are going to base our work on study. If at any 

time we find a situation that we believe violates the law, we need 

to be clear, and we need to either work with the State as the primary enforcer to take an action or to address it. 

I will say one other thing. When it comes to the water that comes 

back up and potentially goes into a treatment plant or surface 

water, that is regulated. That is absolutely regulated under the 

Clean Water Act. That is wastewater when it comes back up. 

Now, there are some places that reuse it. They call that recycling, and that may be an opportunity. But there are still 

wastewaters that are produced even in a recycling operation. 

So one of the things that I think is important is that as an agency we ensure that—for example, the New York office has made 

clear to New York State that EPA can at any time set additional 

standards for what we call pretreatment, for waste that may go to 

a treatment plant. So I need to speak to the professionals out in 

the Philly office and ensure that they hear from the top of this organization that there is no look-the-other-way standdown. We need 

to do our jobs, and we need to do that with respect for the fact that, 

when a State is doing the work, we are not there to simply poke 

them but to ensure that we are providing information. 

So I am happy to report back, but I cannot give you much more 

than that, Mr. Hinchey. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
304 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, Administrator Jackson, I just want to thank 

you very much. Thank you for everything that you are doing and 

thanks for everything that you have done here today. And I appreciate you going up to Pennsylvania tomorrow. Thanks. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the 

voice. 

First, I want to tell you that I had a good experience with the 

EPA out of the Denver office a number of years ago with regard 

to our requests that they work with my State’s DEQ on a compliance issue that was right next to my land, which is right next to 

an oil refinery; and I am not sure that we ever would have got it 

solved without the EPA. So I want you to know I am not a person 

who is anti-EPA. I saw it work in our instance, and a cleanup occurred that I really don’t believe ever would have happened but for 

the EPA. 

So please don’t view me as a detractor, but I do have some questions about the efforts to prioritize funding that I believe may be 

detracting from efforts that really work on the ground. I am concerned with the boots-on-the-ground dollars that EPA uses that 

really do help businesses comply and communities comply with 

EPA regulations. 

EPA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS BUDGET

This first question is about rural water systems. Does your fiscal 

year 2012 budget set aside money to assist small rural water systems to remain in compliance? 

Ms. JACKSON. Within the funding for the revolving funds is 

money for rural systems; and, of course, that is added to the money 

from USDA, who spends an awful lot of rural development money 

as well. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. In 2007, over 200 representatives and senators 

asked the EPA to fund technical assistance and training grants to 

small water systems; and I believe that the EPA chose, under your 

leadership, to go a different route. So I am going to write to you 

and work with you to encourage you to revisit what seems to be 

working well in my State of Wyoming with regard to training 

grants for small water systems, because these small communities 

just don’t have the expertise. 

You were in Pennsylvania, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. I was in New Jersey. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. There may be some communities in New Jersey 

that even are small enough—you know what I am talking about. 

They really do struggle to comply, and they want very much to provide clean water to their water users, but that technical assistance 

just really does seem to go a long way. So we will visit further 

about that. 

MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Another question I have is about MACT. Has EPA conducted or 

asked for an impact analysis of the proposed utility MACT rule on 

electric reliability jobs, consumer and business electrical prices? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
305 

Yes. The MACT—the toxic rules for utilities is what you are asking for on that. And the air toxics rule is not out, but it will include 

a benefits analysis. It will include in its proposal a jobs analysis 

as well. But that is not yet out for public comment. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And do you know when that is coming? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is required by a court order for, I believe, March 

16th. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And you anticipate being able to meet that deadline? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Did your agency consult with the SBA on the proposed rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we did a brief consultation, as required by 

law. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And did they comment and could you provide those 

comments or should I follow up with you? 

Ms. JACKSON. We will provide them. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. That would be great. I would be most interested. 

I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but my voice just 

isn’t cooperating. So I will submit them in writing. 

And I do want to thank you very much, Ms. Jackson and Ms. 

Bennett, for being here today. 

Ms. JACKSON. Gladly. 

And if you wouldn’t mind, I do want to compliment—I visited 

your State 2 years ago, or last year; and your drinking water program is wonderful. Water is obviously quite a commodity there. So 

thank you. And feel better. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

I served on the Board of Land Commissioners and the State 

Loan and Investment Board which administered the SRF, the State 

Revolving Fund for safe drinking water and the Clean Water Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you those programs in my State are 

hugely helpful at making safe drinking water available around the 

State of Wyoming. So it is a great program. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Administrator, I am all that stands between you 

and freedom, so I will attempt to be—oh, and—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Do we need another miracle? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You are in deep trouble. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Who knows? Mr. Moran is staying—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am glad that the distinguished ranking member is still here, because I don’t think I can let him call H.R. 1 a 

dump truck several times without making an observation. 

H.R. 1 I don’t think was a dump truck. The dump truck was a 

majority party that didn’t produce a budget, didn’t produce any appropriation bills of significance except on the defense side, and 

abandoned regular order. So I think what you saw in H.R. 1 was 

pent-up frustration. 

Someone mentioned to me that we had more recorded votes during the consideration of H.R. 1 than we had in the entire year of 

2010, the last year that Mrs. Pelosi was the Speaker of the House. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
306 

And the reason for that, quite frankly, was that we didn’t have any 

open rules. 

And I don’t want to embarrass Mrs. Lummis, but she actually at 

a meeting I was at said, what is this open rule thing? What is an 

amendment? How long do I get to talk? And I think it is a sin that 

somebody who had been here for 2 years didn’t know what an open 

rule was, but nobody did know what an open rule was. 

So I agree that a lot of stuff got piled onto H.R. 1, but it was 

4 years of frustration on both sides of the aisle in not having decent ideas brought to the forefront. So if there was a dump truck, 

the dump truck was the decision by the previous majority to not 

finish its business and basically dump this thing on our lap with 

an expiration date of March the 4th, which was no accident. 

I always say that the former chair of this committee, Mr. Obey, 

is a very, very bright man. He knew exactly what he was doing. 

And that was the dump truck. 

REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION

The question that I have for you, however—and I think it comes 

from Mr. Hinchey’s observation when he talks about District 3. I 

have District 5 out of Chicago. And so the EPA structure has the 

headquarters and then 10 regional offices and then guidance from 

the Department of Justice. 

And while I think we all appreciate flexibility and regional nuances, one of the things you see—it is a lot like the different appellate districts in the United States District Court system, where you 

get all of these conflicting interpretations. And while regionalism 

is great, I think that some uniformity across the country when it 

comes to enforcement and regulation would be welcomed. You 

shouldn’t have one set of rules for Mr. Hinchey in Pennsylvania 

and another set of rules for Ohio and Illinois, at least on the implementation. 

So I am just interested to see whether you think there is a variance between regions in terms of how different is a wetland in Ohio 

different from a wetland being interpreted by the regional office 

than in Wyoming and what are you doing to sort of strive that the 

agency speaks with one voice. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Certainly our goal is consistency and 

enforcement and a level playing field across the country. And our 

challenges in meeting that goal are that oftentimes the vast majority, if not all, of the enforcement action is taken or undertaken by 

the States. And so EPA plays a sort of dual role, and we try to do 

them both well. First work in partnership on training or capacity 

building or technical assistance or interpretation of the law and 

also in oversight for a State that might, for whatever reason, not 

be so inclined to implement the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act. 

Those are tough discussions. And the regional office, the district 

offices are on the front lines of trying to maintain those relationships over many, many elections. So those relationships are long 

standing. I worked for almost 12, 13 years in our office in New 

York City, and so I have a very strong belief and respect for the 

hard work of the on-the-ground work with the States. And usually 

those relationships are very good ones. So I think we play both 

those roles. I think we do have challenges. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
307 

Our head of enforcement work, Cynthia Giles, who worked in the 

region, now works in the office. What we try to do is give national 

enforcement priorities because we could enforce—we have so many 

laws, and so many are important. We try to go where the public 

health threats are the greatest. And we hope to succeed, but we 

certainly are constantly trying to improve. 

There is actually money in the budget for an initiative that Cynthia Giles came up with which is based on transparency of information. Because what we find is that communities and States love to 

know what is being emitted into their air or their water; and if you 

can get people information on what is in their drinking water, they 

will do a lot of our work for us, because no one wants contaminated 

water. And so that regaining ground, she calls it, initiative is really 

based, first and foremost, on using electronic information, reporting 

data, and getting that out to the public. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate that, and I would appreciate your 

further efforts in that. 

Some of the disconnect—when Mr. Cole talks about people getting upset, and Mrs. Lummis talks about the same thing, one of 

the things that the people in my part of the world and even further 

west, you have the east coast where they have paved all their wetlands and they have eaten all their endangered species and are 

now trying to impose a set of standards on—and it gets people 

upset. So we are just looking for evenhandedness, and I trust you 

to do that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. 

I am going to bring this to a close. You have been gracious to 

spend three hours with us this morning and address many concerns that, as you can tell, Members of Congress have that we hear 

these from our constituents and actually a couple of budget issues, 

also. 

I have a whole list of questions that go from everything that I 

will be submitting for the record. Again, some of them actually deal 

with the budget, and others are other issues that the EPA deals 

with. 

One of the things I do want to sit down with you—not right now, 

but at sometime either I will come down to your offices or you up 

to mine. But I would like to sit down and talk about how you come 

up with a cost-benefit analysis on the regulation, what goes into it, 

who makes those determinations, those type of things. 

And I use this example. We have talked many times about the 

arsenic rule and what it does to small communities trying to comply with this. Sometimes when they are trying to reduce their arsenic levels from 12 or 14 parts per billion down to 10 parts per 

billion, there is an incredible cost to getting those last few parts 

per billion down. Do you take into consideration—and these are the 

questions we will discuss, but do you take into consideration the 

fact that a city council sitting here of a town of 500 or 600 or 700 

people has to decide that their volunteer fire department is going 

to use buckets instead of using fire equipment because they can’t 

afford it anymore because they are putting all their resources 

there. And that affects human life, also. They can no longer have 

their police officer because they have to comply with these standVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
308 

ards. That affects human life, also. Do those types of things come 

into the consideration, the decisions that they have to make because of the imposition some of these rules have on them? 

The same would be true of businesses. They have to make tradeoffs and decisions as they try to comply with some of the rules and 

regulations that are coming down. 

Again, I do want to thank you for being here. I want to associate 

myself with the words that Mr. Cole had, that the concerns being 

expressed are real. 

And you are right. If you go out and ask the American people, 

do you want clean water? Do you want clean air? Everybody does. 

Every Republican in Congress, every Democrat in Congress wants 

clean air and clean water. 

We sometimes have differences of opinion about the impacts of 

some of the regulations and how we get there and the costs of some 

of those regulations. So it is not a matter of whether they are in 

favor of clean water and we are not or we are in favor of clean air 

and they are not. It is trying to achieve a common goal. 

And one of the things I have heard—and maybe the best description of all of the concern out there that I have heard—and I have 

mentioned it to you before. Whenever I go to a meeting, I don’t care 

whether it is with local city councilmen, whether it is with the 

chambers of commerce, whoever it is, once the word EPA comes up, 

that is the rest of the discussion. That is the concern that is being 

expressed out there. 

And when I talk about funding and reducing funding that we 

had to do in H.R. 1 and what we will have to do in the 2012 budget 

to get our budget back in balance, some will raise their hand and 

say, defund the EPA. And it is the only applause line during this 

whole thing. That is the kind of concern that the American people 

have. They don’t feel like the EPA is working in concert with them 

to try to clean up the air and water. They feel like the EPA is imposing on them, and sometimes for limited benefit. And if we don’t 

change that attitude around, I fear that the EPA is going to have 

more difficulty trying to do its job. 

But one person described it to me as if you look at some regulatory agencies like they use the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they set a standard, and then business will come in to 

them and say, okay, this is the standard we can meet. They don’t 

impose how you are going to meet the standard. They set the 

standard and let businesses develop the plans; and they will sit 

down and discuss, yes, this will do it; no, this won’t do it. 

They say the EPA is different. They set a standard, and then 

they tell you exactly what you have to do to meet that standard, 

and it prevents innovation and development of new technologies 

and new ideas of how to meet certain standards out in the real 

world. And that is a difference in attitude. 

So I want to work with you to try to hopefully solve some of the 

problems and hopefully address some of the concerns that I think 

a vast majority of American people have about the way that the 

EPA is moving and addressing some of the concerns that we have. 

So I appreciate it. Thank you very much for being here today. I 

know it has been a long time. Three hours sitting there is not always easy. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
309 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 66892A.199
310 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 66892A.200
311 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 66892A.201
312 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 66892A.202
313 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 66892A.203
314 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 66892A.204
315 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 66892A.205
316 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 66892A.206
317 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 66892A.207
318 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 66892A.208
319 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 66892A.209
320 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 66892A.210
321 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 66892A.211
322 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 66892A.212
323 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 66892A.213
324 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 66892A.214
325 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 66892A.215
326 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 66892A.216
327 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 66892A.217
328 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 66892A.218
329 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 66892A.219
330 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 66892A.220
331 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 66892A.221
332 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 66892A.222
333 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 66892A.223
334 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 66892A.224
335 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 66892A.225
336 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 66892A.226
337 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 66892A.227
338 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 66892A.228
339 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 66892A.229
340 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 66892A.230
341 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 66892A.231
342 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 66892A.232
343 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 66892A.233
344 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 66892A.234
345 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 66892A.235
346 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 66892A.236
347 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 66892A.237
348 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 66892A.238
349 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 66892A.239
350 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 66892A.240
351 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 66892A.241
352 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 66892A.242
353 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 66892A.243
354 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 66892A.244
355 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 66892A.245
356 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 66892A.246
357 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 66892A.247
358 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 66892A.248
359 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 66892A.249
360 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 66892A.250
361 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 66892A.251
362 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 66892A.252
363 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 66892A.253
364 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 66892A.254
365 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 66892A.255
366 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 66892A.256
367 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 66892A.257
368 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 66892A.258
369 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 66892A.259
370 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 66892A.260
371 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 66892A.261
372 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 66892A.262
373 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 66892A.263
374 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 66892A.264
375 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 66892A.265
376 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 66892A.266
377 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 66892A.267
378 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 66892A.268
379 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 66892A.269
380 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 66892A.270
381 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 66892A.271
382 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 66892A.272
383 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 66892A.273
384 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 66892A.274
385 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 66892A.275
386 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 66892A.276
387 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 66892A.277
388 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 66892A.278
389 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 66892A.279
390 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 66892A.280
391 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 66892A.281
392 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 66892A.282
393 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 66892A.283
394 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 66892A.284
395 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 66892A.285
396 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 66892A.286
397 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 66892A.287
398 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 66892A.288
399 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 66892A.289
400 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 66892A.290
401 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 66892A.291
402 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 66892A.292
403 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 66892A.293
404 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 66892A.294
405 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 66892A.295
406 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 66892A.296
407 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 66892A.297
408 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 66892A.298
409 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 66892A.299
410 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 66892A.300
411 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 66892A.301
412 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 66892A.302
413 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 66892A.303
414 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 66892A.304
415 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 66892A.305
416 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 66892A.306
417 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 66892A.307
418 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 66892A.308
419 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 66892A.309
420 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 66892A.310
421 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 66892A.311
422 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 66892A.312
423 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 66892A.313
424 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 66892A.314
425 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 66892A.315
426 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 66892A.316
427 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 66892A.317
428 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 66892A.318
429 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 66892A.319
430 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 66892A.320
431 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 66892A.321
432 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 66892A.322
433 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 66892A.323
434 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 66892A.324
435 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 66892A.325
436 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 66892A.326
437 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 66892A.327
438 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 66892A.328
439 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 66892A.329
440 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 66892A.330
441 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 66892A.331
442 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 66892A.332
443 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 66892A.333
444 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 66892A.334
445 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 66892A.335
446 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 66892A.336
447 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 66892A.337
448 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 66892A.338
449 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 66892A.339
450 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 66892A.340
451 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 66892A.341
452 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 66892A.342
453 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 66892A.343
454 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 66892A.344
455 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 66892A.345
456 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 66892A.346
457 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 66892A.347
458 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 66892A.348
459 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 66892A.349
460 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 66892A.350
461 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 66892A.351
462 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 66892A.352
463 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 66892A.353
464 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 66892A.354
465 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 66892A.355
466 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 66892A.356
467 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 66892A.357
468 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 66892A.358
469 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 66892A.359
470 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 66892A.360
471 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 66892A.361
472 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 66892A.362
473 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 66892A.363
474 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 66892A.364
475 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 66892A.365
476 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 66892A.366
477 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 66892A.367
478 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 66892A.368
479 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 66892A.369
480 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 66892A.370
481 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 66892A.371
482 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 66892A.372
483 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 66892A.373
484 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 66892A.374
485 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 66892A.375
486 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 66892A.376
487 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 66892A.377
488 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 66892A.378
489 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 66892A.379
490 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 66892A.380
491 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 66892A.381
492 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 66892A.382
493 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 66892A.383
494 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 66892A.384
495 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 66892A.385
496 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 66892A.386
497 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 66892A.387
498 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 66892A.388
499 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 66892A.389
500 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 66892A.390
501 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 66892A.391
502 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 66892A.392
503 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 66892A.393
504 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 66892A.394
505 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 66892A.395
506 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 66892A.396
507 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 66892A.397
508 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 66892A.398
509 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 66892A.399
510 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 66892A.400
511 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 66892A.401
512 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 66892A.402
513 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 66892A.403
514 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 66892A.404
515 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 66892A.405
516 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 66892A.406
517 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 66892A.407
518 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 66892A.408
519 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 66892A.409
520 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 66892A.410
521 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 66892A.411
522 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 66892A.412
523 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 66892A.413
524 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 66892A.414
525 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 66892A.415
526 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 66892A.416
527 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 66892A.417
528 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 66892A.418
529 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 66892A.419
530 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 66892A.420
531 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 66892A.421
532 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 66892A.422
533 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 66892A.423
534 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 66892A.424
535 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 66892A.425
536 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 66892A.426
537 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 66892A.427
538 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 66892A.428
539 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 66892A.429
540 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 66892A.430
541 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 66892A.431
542 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 66892A.432
543 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 66892A.433
544 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 66892A.434
545 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 66892A.435
546 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690/900 here 66892A.436
(547) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2012 BUDGET 

REQUEST 

WITNESSES 

HON. SALAZAR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

DAVID HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY—BUDGET, FINANCE, 

PERFORMANCE AND ACQUISITION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The committee will come to order. Mr. Secretary, 

I would like to welcome you along with David Hayes and our good 

friend, Pam Haze, to today’s subcommittee hearing addressing the 

fiscal year 2012 budget priorities for the Department of Interior. 

Let me begin by wishing you a belated happy birthday. I understand last week was your birthday. Happy birthday from all of us. 

My colleagues and I hope to cover a lot of ground with you today 

on energy production, grazing, land acquisition, climate change, 

and other issues. From our recent conversations I know that you 

are continuing to set an ambitious agenda for the Department on 

many fronts, and while I do not necessarily agree with every decision you have made, I appreciate the fact that we have had a productive conversation about these issues. It is in that spirit that we 

look forward to today’s hearing. 

I would like to begin by making several points on a few specific 

issues before we receive your testimony. First, it is no secret the 

western members of both parties, including myself, have some very 

strong objections to your Wild Lands Secretarial Order granting 

BLM the authority to identify and manage lands in the west as 

wilderness. We have talked about this, and I believe, frankly, it is 

a troubling precedent. I believe that only Congress has the authority to make new forms of land designations, and I can guarantee 

you that any bill emerging from this subcommittee this year will 

probably include a funding prohibition relating to Wild Lands policy. If not on the underlying bill that comes from the committee, 

then it will be offered on the floor certainly by some western member and will probably be adopted. 

Secondly, the second largest increase in the Department’s budget 

request falls within the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 

is fully funded at $900 million. My biggest concern is that the 

budget request proposes historic increases for land acquisition 

while also proposing dramatic reductions in other areas like maintenance of existing facilities, construction which is reduced by 46 

percent Department wide, and wild land fire. The DOI budget 

eliminates rural fire assistance and cuts hazardous fuels funding 

by $49 million. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
548 

A reasonable person could conclude the Department is increasing 

land acquisition too quickly and at the expense of other very important deserving priorities. 

The last issue I will mention is the most important, and that is 

energy. Oil prices have risen by more than 10 percent this year, 

and with the unrest in the Middle East and north Africa, we are 

already seeing $4 a gallon gas in some areas of the United States. 

According to a March 3 Raspis poll, 58 percent of the public is now 

convinced that they will be paying $5 for a gallon of gas by July. 

The survey also found that 76 percent believe the United States 

does not do enough to develop its own gas and oil resources. 

The moratorium put in place following the Deepwater Horizon 

accident was lifted last fall, but the Administration has issued just 

one Deep Water permit in the Gulf since that time, and that permit was issued just last week. A federal judge has called this de 

facto Deep Water drilling moratorium unreasonable, unacceptable, 

and unjustified. 

The public will have no patience and Congress will have no patience for more delays and more excuses as oil prices begin to rise, 

especially when we have untapped resources here in the United 

States not being utilized. We need to pursue a domestic energy production on the grand scale of the Manhattan Project or putting a 

man on a moon so that we can put people to work, boost the domestic energy production, and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 

In closing, Mr. Secretary, no hearing with you would be complete 

without expressing our thanks to your fine professional staff. The 

truth is that the committee could not do its work without the assistance of Pam Haze and the folks in your budget shop and other 

professionals who work every day to help find solutions to some 

very difficult challenges, and we welcome you here this morning. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And with that I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for an opening remark. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Simpson. Secretary Salazar, it is nice to see you, and thank you for your leadership and that of Mr. Hayes, our Deputy Secretary, and of course, 

Pamela Haze, our Deputy Assistant Secretary, for all things, fiscal 

management as well as the budget. 

The Interior Department, as we all know, is directly responsible 

for managing 20 percent of America’s land as well as all of its Indian trust responsibilities. It is a terribly important mission, generates millions of jobs, produces energy for our economy and to 

maintain our standard of living and is entrusted with protecting 

our natural heritage for future generations. 

As we all saw far too plainly after the BP Transocean Deepwater 

Horizon oil disaster, the way we manage these resources is terribly 

important and can have huge consequences if not done correctly. 

Last year I had a habit of quoting a great conservationist at the 

beginning of each hearing. I have one for us, and it is from one of 

my very favorable, most favorite Republican, actually he and Abraham Lincoln are two of my favorite presidents whether they be Republican or Democrat, this is Teddy Roosevelt’s quote. So let me 

quote this quote, and listen closely, Mr. Lewis, if you would not 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
549 

mind. I think this is terrific. ‘‘The greatest good for the greatest 

number includes the number within the womb of time compared to 

those which now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty 

to the whole, including unborn generations, bids us to restrain an 

unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of 

these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of 

wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all of our 

natural resources is essentially democratic in spirit, in purpose, 

and in method.’’ 

So for anyone that wants to read further, they can get it out of 

Roosevelt’s publication called, ‘‘A Book Lover’s Holidays in the 

Open.’’ 

Following a marathon of public listening sessions, the Secretary 

has moved forward with a responsive plan to increase funding for 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know you received an enormous amount of public support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and so you have raised it to a $900 million authorized 

level. 

But moving in the opposite direction the new House Majority re- duces the same account in the fiscal 2011 budget to less than $57 

million, just virtually wiping it out. My heart, of course, and I 

know in this respect I speak for the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, who I hope we will hear from also, but it 

is with the Secretary’s budget. That is the responsible budget. But, 

of course, the increase comes at the expense of other ongoing Interior Department programs. 

While we need to see that each and every federal dollar is wisely 

spent, we also do not want to abandon the opportunity to invest in 

the proper management of our priceless natural resources and ensure that essential habitat, scenic vistas, outdoor recreational opportunities that are now at risk of disappearing are not lost to future generations. The fragile nature of our current economic recovery and quite frankly, the fragile nature of much of our environment, means that the decisions we make in this room will have a 

profound long-term impact on the United States of America, especially in the west and the south, where changing climate is altering 

landscapes, forests, and fresh sources of water. 

Last week we heard from the GAO and the Interior Department’s 

Inspector General, and it was a very informative hearing, and I 

thank the chairman for holding it. One thing that we learned is 

that existing law and policy does not allow the American taxpayers 

to recoup a fair market price on the extensive fossil fuel and hard 

rock minerals that industry extracts from the publicly-owned lands 

in this country. The royalty rate is too low, which is clearly shown 

by the GAO testimony. States get a higher royalty rate when they 

manage similar natural resources on state-owned lands, not to 

mention what the private sector will charge. 

We also need to determine if the fees imposed on the oil and gas 

industry to drill in public waters and on public lands reflect the 

current value of that oil and gas. 

Now, one other thing in terms of the Wild Lands Policy, because 

this, I know, we are going to get into more discussion, I suspect you 

have the votes, Mr. Chairman, but the Wild Lands Policy is not 

something new. I am not sure why this change of Secretary NorVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00549 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
550 

ton’s, which was a recent policy change in the Bush Administration, why it is such a big deal for the Forest Service planning has 

considered wild values of land since the 1920s. So it is consistent 

with overall Federal policy. 

But we will have further discussion on that. I am glad we are 

having this hearing today, of course, and hearing from the Secretary, and I hope we can continue our commitment to America’s 

great natural resources, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Dicks. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing, and I want to welcome Secretary Salazar, Deputy Secretary Hayes, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Pam Haze, who we 

worked with for many years and appreciate greatly. 

I want to join those welcoming you to testify before the Interior 

and Environmental Appropriations Subcommittee, to hear your 

views on the ongoing effort to finalize the budget for fiscal year 

2011, and to hear about the Obama Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. I want to echo the sentiments of Mr. 

Moran in highlighting the difference between the Obama Administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2012, and the bill the 

House passed last month to fund the government the remainder of 

this fiscal year. 

I do not think that this is hyperbole to label H.R. 1 as one of the 

most short-sighted bills with regard to the environment that has 

ever been considered in the Congress. H.R. 1 cut more than $860 

million from the 2010 spending levels for the Department of Interior. In order to reach this level of cuts H.R. 1 eliminated the Fish 

and Wildlife Service State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, as 

well as the North American Wetlands Conservation Program. 

In addition, this legislation would cut climate-change-related activities in the Department of Interior by nearly 30 percent. If one 

of the definitions of conservatism is to preserve resources for future 

generations, then unfortunately this bill does not do that. 

And, again, I want to point out that cutting spending in the Department of Interior and across the federal budget is the wrong 

economic policy. I am joined by a large preponderance of economists in the belief that the Republican plan to cut and grow does 

not work in the real world. 

In contrast, the Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget 

request would provide modest growth to the Department of Interior, which is a much more responsible position. Before I list some 

of the budget highlights contained, I need to remind everyone that 

during the previous Bush Administration, spending for Interior 

programs were cut more than 16 percent in real terms. 

Highlights of the fiscal year 2012 budget request include full 

funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an actual increase in the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, and a small 

increase for the North American Wetlands Conservation Program, 

which, again, was eliminated in H.R. 1. The Administration’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request also increases the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Centers by $10 million to $25 

million. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
551 

I also look forward to hearing about the Administration’s proposal for its Great Outdoor Initiative and what the Interior Department is going to guarantee that energy extraction from public 

lands and off shore areas is done in a way that is environmentally 

sound and is a good deal to the taxpayer. 

And I agree with Mr. Moran. I think that we are not getting adequate royalties, and we should do something about that in this 

time of concern about the deficit. The royalties would help us reduce the deficit, and it would be a positive factor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, looking forward to your 

testimony. The floor is yours. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Simpson. 

May I ask Your Honor how long I have for my opening statement? 

Mr. LEWIS. An hour and a half. 

Secretary SALAZAR. An hour and a half? 

Mr. SIMPSON. We will generally give the Secretary 15 minutes or 

so. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We are not going to call you on time. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Okay. That is good. I just wanted to make 

sure that I was doing what the chairman or the ranking member 

would want me to do. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SECRETARY SALAZAR

Let me, first of all, say to you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 

leadership of this committee and Congressman Moran and the 

Ranking Member, thank you for your leadership as well. In the 

same spirit, Chairman Simpson, you and then Chairman Dicks and 

I had meetings about the future of Interior and the budget, I think 

this committee has long recognized the importance of how we husband the natural resources of America and American citizens. The 

bipartisan spirit which the two of you templated last year is hopefully something that can continue this year as we deal with some 

very difficult times across the country on many of the issues you 

addressed ranging from energy to what we do with respect with the 

conservation agenda for the country. Thank you for your service 

from all parts of the country and for all you do. I look forward to 

engaging in this communication this afternoon, as well as in additional communications moving forward in the months and perhaps 

years ahead. 

Let me also thank your staff because without the staff on both 

the majority and the minority sides we would not be able to have 

the kind of oversight and the continuity of the programs that we 

have had. I think on both sides we have seen great work on behalf 

of the staff working with Pam Haze, who has worked for multiple 

administrations, Democrats and Republicans. To my Deputy Secretary, David Hayes, I appreciate how hard he has worked at being 

a real problem solver for the American people on so many fronts 

over the last 4 years. 

We have tough problems ahead of us no doubt, both budgetary 

and policy issues that we need to address, but at the end of the 

day I do believe and have confidence that in working together we 

can resolve these issues in the best interest of the American people. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
552 

As Secretary of the Interior let me assure you as I have now 

begun my third year of service on behalf of the American people, 

I value the opportunity and it is a privilege to serve all of you and 

to serve the American people. My job, I think you have heard before, is one that I define very simply. It is to be the custodian of 

America’s natural resources and America’s natural heritage. 

I work on it every day. I am proud of the fact that in each of 

America’s 50 states and out into the oceans there are great responsibilities that I have on behalf of the American people. From the 

north slope of Alaska and down to the Everglades to the great national parks of Idaho and Virginia, to 553 wildlife refuges. We do 

a lot on behalf of the American people. We certainly could not do 

it without the help of this committee, and we need to continue to 

move forward on that agenda. 

2012 BUDGET

Let me say, at the bottom line as I look at this budget and other 

issues we will discuss here, it is a budget about the creation of jobs. 

It is a budget about the creation of jobs relative to a robust energy 

future for the United States of America, both onshore as well as 

offshore. It is about the creation of jobs as we look forward to the 

renewable energy future of America which affects many of your 

states. I would say, in fact, all of your states. It is about a robust 

conservation agenda because of the number of jobs associated with 

hunting and fishing and biking and the many aspects that really 

make tourism, both an economic generator as well as a conservation legacy we want to pass onto our children. 

Our budget for 2012 as presented to this committee and to the 

Congress by the President is essentially a freeze budget. It is a 

freeze budget. Inherent in this freeze budget we have done what 

the President instructed us to do, to go over the budget of the Department of Interior line by line and see where it is that we could 

make cuts and how we could find efficiencies which is something 

that this committee I am sure has wanted us and instructed us to 

do and that is to find savings where we can find savings. 

BUDGET CUTS

The cuts presented in this budget are a total of $1.1 billion. That 

is a significant amount of money given the size of this budget, and 

these are not just the kinds of cuts that are ordinary. These are 

significant cuts. When you look at what we did on the administrative side of the budget, which is a good place to always look for 

greater efficiencies, you have a $42 million cut in travel by the Department of the Interior. Even in these days of great need for information technology, we have been able to find savings in information technology that will save the taxpayers $36 million. We have 

reformed and are reforming the procurement practices of the Department of the Interior so when these procurement reforms are 

put into place, there will be an additional $53 million in savings 

for a total of $179 million. 

You can go through the cuts, and we can tell you we have tried 

to make some tough choices but also have made some reviews of 

the Department of Interior so we can be a more effective government on behalf of the American people. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
553 

ENERGY

I would like to speak briefly about energy because that is an 

issue which all of you are interested in and concerned about, and 

I am sure will be focused on in some of your questions. First, with 

respect to conventional energy, we have had a robust program on 

energy because we believe it is necessary for us to be able to power 

the economy of the United States. All of you have lived through the 

very difficult times in the last year where we have had the most 

difficult economic times that this country has seen probably since 

the Great Depression. We are coming back, and we recognize the 

importance of making sure that we are powering our economy, and 

that does include the importance of energy, both conventional as 

well as renewable. 

The oil and gas side of our program has, I think, been clear. To 

have a robust oil and gas program for the United States, both in 

America’s oceans as well as on America’s lands. With respect to 

America’s oceans and the production that we have in the Gulf of 

Mexico, which is about 30 percent of the oil that is produced domestically and about 11 percent of our natural gas, it is important 

we have the support of this committee and of the Congress if you 

want us to move forward with a robust energy program in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The Gulf is a huge and important resource for us, but 

you lived with me through the Deepwater Horizon nightmare, 

which was a national crisis that affected each and every one of you. 

I am sure that you agree that we ought to move forward in having 

a safe program that is safe to workers as well as protective of the 

environment. The funding request that we have here for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

will allow us to move forward in that regard. 

In addition, we will continue to move forward with a robust onshore program, leasing public lands through the Bureau of Land 

Management and the U.S. Forest Service. I can get into the specifics of the numbers of oil and gas permits and acreage that we 

have leased out. 

One statistic that sticks out in my mind because I think it paints 

a picture of what is happening on the public land in the west. In 

2010 alone we have issued over 5,000 permits for drilling on the 

public lands onshore. In 2011, the year that we are in, our hope 

is that we exceed 7,000 permits onshore. Those are statistics that 

I think illustrate the fact that the President’s program has included a robust oil and gas component to the energy portfolio of 

America. 

With respect to renewable energy, it has been a priority of mine 

since I became Secretary of Interior. It is a high priority of the 

President of the United States, and a high priority of the members 

of this committee as well. I am proud to report that in 2010, we 

were able to permit about 3,700 megawatts of renewable energy 

power, much of it solar energy in the southwest, particularly in the 

areas of Arizona, California, and Nevada, where there is a huge 

amount of interest and opportunity, as well as wind energy in 

places like Wyoming and all across the country as well as in the 

Atlantic offshore. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
554 

Our 2012 budget will continue to build on that renewable energy 

effort with the goal of having 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy power that has been authorized on the public lands of America and America’s oceans by the end of 2012. 

CONSERVATION

I would like to briefly move from energy to saying a word or two 

about conservation. I think, the conservation agenda for this country is the greatest precedent this country has recognized, and is a 

very important agenda for future generations. As Abraham Lincoln 

during the middle of the Civil War, which was the most difficult 

crisis that this Nation has ever gone through as a Nation whose 

future hung in the balance, set aside the lands of Yosemite because 

he thought those lands should be forever preserved for the American people. 

It was at the beginning of the last century when Teddy Roosevelt 

became the wilderness warrior on behalf of the American people 

when he saw the wasteland that was occurring as America continued to develop a sense of protecting the great lands for hunters and 

fishermen and others who enjoyed the Great Outdoors of America, 

and the same with Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. During those very difficult times they became the great conservation leaders of America. 

The investments that you see here with respect to conservation 

are continuing with that tradition, and let me say that at the end 

of the day this is about jobs. When you look at outdoor recreation, 

the outdoor recreation foundation itself has studied the number of 

jobs that come from outdoor recreation. It is about six and a half 

million jobs created just from outdoor recreation every year. That 

does not account for all the other jobs that come with heritage tourism in each one of your states. 

When we look at the jobs that are created through conservation 

investments and the investments that are made in this budget, it 

is part of making sure that we stand up the economy, again, because these are jobs that cannot be exported elsewhere. 

WATER

Finally, I want to make a comment with respect to water. For 

many of your states, Congressman Calvert and others, I know how 

carefully you watch the water issues of our country. We have 

moved forward with a WaterSMART Program with Reclamation 

where the investments that Congress has authorized are already 

paying significant savings. In 2010, 37 WaterSMART projects will 

enable us to save about 490,000 acre feet of water because of the 

efficiencies that are being put into place. We need to continue those 

kinds of investments in the water infrastructure and water programs of America. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Moran and 

all the members of the committee, we look forward to working with 

you on this budget as we address the very difficult issues both 

budgetary and policy, that the United States of America faces 

today. 

[The statement of Ken Salazar follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
555 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 66892B.001
556 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 66892B.002
557 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 66892B.003
558 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 66892B.004
559 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 66892B.005
560 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 66892B.006
561 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 66892B.007
562 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 66892B.008
563 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 66892B.009
564 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 66892B.010
565 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 66892B.011
566 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 66892B.012
567 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 66892B.013
568 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 66892B.014
569 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 66892B.015
570 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 66892B.016
571 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 66892B.017
572 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 66892B.018
573 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 66892B.019
574 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 66892B.020
575 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 66892B.021
576 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you being 

here again today. 

OIL SPILLS

First let me say thank you to the employees at DOI for the work 

they did during the Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred. 

Most people do not understand how much time you and DOI employees spent down there trying to deal with that mess, and there 

are always fingers to point, saying we could have done this or 

should have done that or whatever, but it is a difficult time reacting to a natural disaster like that. And I know I kept in close in 

contact with many of the agencies and stuff that were working 

down there, but I do want to thank you and the employees publicly 

for the work they did during that difficult time. 

BOEMRE REORGANIZATION

Having said that, you have proposed a reorganization and are reorganizing MMS to what is it now, BOEMRE. When we spoke with 

the IG when we had a hearing with the IG and the GAO, they said 

a couple of things. One was that we are uncertain about royalties 

that the Federal government is receiving, whether it is the correct 

amounts, because we do not have a way of making sure that what 

is being reported is the actual amounts. Not that anybody out there 

or any company is trying to falsify records, but sometimes it is just 

inaccurate. We have no way of checking that to make sure that we 

are getting the right amount of revenue. 

And secondly, that this organization is having a difficult time 

keeping the people onboard so that we have professional people onboard, experienced people, to oversee the oil and gas industry, particularly in the Gulf, you know, offshore. 

Could you go through the reorganization, what you plan to accomplish with this reorganization, how you think it might improve 

our oil and gas leases, and so forth? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I would be delighted to do so, Chairman 

Simpson. First, let me just say thank you for the comment on the 

Deepwater Horizon. It did occupy a significant amount of time of 

more than a thousand employees of the Department of Interior. We 

did it for the right reasons. We have over 40 national wildlife refuges and national parks in the Gulf, and it was important to protect the people and the environment of the Gulf. It was also important for us to make sure the production in the Gulf of Mexico continued, and as you know from the statistics I think have been 

shared with you, 2010 continued to be a time where we continued 

to produce a significant amount of oil and gas from the Gulf of 

Mexico. Even in the midst of crisis we were able to continue that 

effort and continue to do the kinds of changes that will assure us 

that we have safe development of our oil and gas in the Nation’s 

oceans in the future. 

With respect to your question on revenue and on the reorganization, let me take the revenue side first. We have been reforming 

the revenue side of what the Department of Interior does over the 

last several years and have as part of the reorganization created 

an Office of Natural Resources Revenue. As a Department with 

such an important mission, which is to collect more money for the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
577 

United States of America and its taxpayers than any other agency 

other than the Department of the Treasury, the Department’s mission, which we take very seriously, had difficult problems when I 

became Secretary of Interior. 

The elimination of the Royalty-in-Kind program as well as the 

implementation of the recommendations from the GAO and others 

have been those efforts that have helped us move forward to 

achieve the goal here, and that is to get a fair return to the American taxpayer. I will have David Hayes, my Deputy Secretary, comment on that in just a minute because we are conducting a study 

on returns, and I want him to comment on that if he will for a second. 

On the reorganization we are proposing to all of you, the essence 

of what we did there was to take a look at how other countries had 

organized themselves with respect to ensuring they had safe ocean 

energy exploration drilling, and production and looked at the models of Norway and the UK and other places as well as our own 

issues here internally in the United States. The result is we have 

de-conflicted the missions that existed with MMS for the last 30 

years, ever since it was set up by Secretary Watt back in the beginning of the 1980s. 

The missions we saw were first a mission of revenue collection 

on behalf of the American taxpayers, and that part of the agency 

was completely split off, and those are the revenue collectors. They 

have nothing to do with the permitting or with the environmental 

reviews. They simply are the money collectors. That mission is deconflicted from the other missions of the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and Enforcement. 

The second de-conflicting part of this effort has been to develop 

a program within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement that actually does the management of the 

leasing programs, and will go into the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management. 

The other part of the mission will be to make sure we have the 

safety and environmental enforcement. These are essentially the 

cops on the beat to make sure there is compliance with regulations 

and with the requirements of federal law. 

We are in the midst of the implementation of that reorganization, and part of it has been completed. We hope to be able to complete the rest of it in this fiscal year. 

I would like Deputy Secretary Hayes to respond as well. 

ROYALTIES

Mr. HAYES. Thank you. I will be very quick. On the royalties 

side, we are finishing a very substantial study to make sure our 

royalty rates onshore are competitive and fit with what private 

parties are getting as well. We are proposing a rule in the near future to consider raising the onshore royalty rates from the 12 percent that goes back to 1920, substantially lower than the offshore. 

That is in the offing, and we will have a public process in the near 

future on that. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
578 

EMPLOYEE RETENTION

The final point speaks to Chairman Simpson’s point that it is 

hard to keep folks on board because of the salary issues, these are 

serious issues. We were supporting the legislation proposed last 

year that would provide more flexibility in our hiring, and of 

course, there is a budgetary aspect of this. Because of the thin 

funding traditionally of MMS, we have not been able to be as aggressive as we would like to with hiring. Director Bromwich is very 

much involved in recruiting good folks, but we will need your help 

in order to get those folks onboard and keep them. 

PERMITTING

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Secretary, could you tell me what is the outlook for issuing permits in the future, the deep water permits and 

others in the Gulf? There has been criticism that there has only 

been one permit issued since the moratorium. That was last week, 

I guess. What is the outlook in the near-term future? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I think the outlook is good. In the shallow 

water part of the Gulf of Mexico we have issued 37 permits for 

those rigs so they can move forward to drilling. In the deep water 

we moved forward with the first one last week and expect there 

will be others that will be forthcoming, and they will be the templates for how we issue oil and gas drilling permits in the deep 

water. 

I think, Chairman Simpson, for you and the members of this 

committee, the last thing you would want us to do is to issue a permit that essentially creates another Macondo Well situation. In 

order for us to make sure that that does not happen, we needed 

to look at what the oil spill containment capabilities were within 

the oil and gas industry and the Gulf. 

Deputy Secretary Hayes, Director Bromwich, and I on Friday a 

week ago, were in Houston where we spent a whole day with the 

Marine Well Containment Corporation, as well as with the Helix 

Containment Program, where they gave us a preview of what it is 

they have manufactured to deal with another Macondo Well oil 

spill, and those mechanisms are just coming onboard now. I applaud the industry for having moved forward with it, and based on 

those programs we expect to be able to issue additional permits in 

the deep water. 

I will say this, we still have significant additional work to do. Industry has significant additional work to do so we can ensure the 

American people we do everything we humanly can do to prevent 

another Macondo Well Deepwater Horizon national crisis again. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Moran. 

HOUSE RESOLUTION 1

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Secretary, by now you have had a chance to look 

over the full-year continuing resolution, referred to as H.R. 1, 

passed the House. It includes a dump truck load of anti-environmental riders. Never before have so many bad provisions been discussed in so little time. Literally in the early hours of the morning 

when sane people were sleeping, I trust you have a sufficient life 

that you were asleep, Mr. Secretary, instead of watching us debate 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
579 

these things, but besides the objectionable environmental riders, 

H.R. 1 does real harm to essential Interior Department programs. 

So can you please tell us about some of the cuts that this bill 

contains? For example, which are worse, the elimination of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund or the elimination of State 

Wildlife Grants or many of the other reckless cuts? 

Would you identify some of the cuts that are of greatest concern 

in H.R. 1 today, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you, Ranking Member Moran. Let me 

just say, I think it is going in the wrong direction while the principle of trying to get Deficit Reduction is something which I think 

has bipartisan support. I think the cuts included in H.R. 1 as they 

affect the Department of Interior will be a part of what keeps our 

economy from moving forward. 

Let me be specific. When you think about the hunting heritage 

of America, the 87 million Americans who hunt and fish and the 

money they spend in hunting and fishing, and the fact that the 

conservation programs we have in this country have been built on 

the backs of hunters and anglers of America for over 100 years to 

date. The $48 million cut that is proposed in the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Fund will essentially keep us from protecting 400,000 acres of wetlands. 

To the duck hunters and to others who view the importance of 

these conservation lands as recreation but also to everybody who 

should view them as an important economic contributor to the Nation, I think that is one great example of a cut which is misplaced. 

Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. The anti-environmental riders beyond 

the program cuts that you mentioned, we tried to restore that, we 

lost overwhelmingly, of course, but we tried to take money from the 

Diesel Emission Program, which the Administration does not seem 

to support next year, but we failed in that. But it seems that many 

of our dirtiest industries have stepped forward to undo decades of 

bipartisan pro-environmental progress. 

Which parts of H.R. 1 do you think are the greatest problems for 

the Interior Department and our Nation’s environmental and public health? Is there anything that stands out in that regard in 

terms of the environmental riders? 

WILD LANDS

Secretary SALAZAR. Let me take the opportunity, Chairman 

Moran, maybe to answer a question which I know the chairman 

and others have asked, and it has to do with respect to wild lands 

and the concerns I have heard from some members of Congress. 

The fact of the matter is how we take care of our public lands 

is a very important responsibility which we at the Department of 

Interior have and which this Congress has. The Wild Lands Order 

which I issued in December is simply an effort to, one, honor what 

the law requires of us. The courts have said we have to do this in 

the BLM, and we have not been doing it. To create an inventory 

of these wild lands, and in addition to that, to make sure that we 

are doing it with the kind of public outreach that is required in the 

process of putting together these plans around the country, so 

there will be significant outreach to the governors and to affected 

communities before anything is put into place. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
580 

It does not at all infringe on the authority of the Congress. We 

recognize and I submit to all of you here it is only the Congress 

that can designate wilderness areas, and indeed, even in this Congress I have already seen legislation introduced by both Republicans and Democrats to designate certain areas as wilderness. 

Our approach on the Wild Lands policy has been to try to get it 

from the bottom up. What it is communities want us to do with 

these places that are special and should, in fact, be protected. I 

think there is good bipartisan support for that concept. You know, 

I believe the Wild Lands Order amendment in the CR gets in the 

way of executing that policy and the law. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other question for 

this round, if you do not mind. 

AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS

With regard to America’s Great Outdoors, you have talked about 

a substantial funding increase for the national parks, stateside 

park and recreation grants. You have got a pretty significant increase to a total of $200 million and 60 percent of it is going to be 

competitive. 

Some of my good friends on the other side have said that we 

should not be buying anymore land when we cannot afford to take 

care of what we have. That is the response we are going to get. 

But we are not really talking about buying new national parks 

and wildlife refuges, are we? Does not the Land Acquisition Program purchase in-holdings which can increase management efficiency and protect sensitive areas of high interest to the public? 

Would you just address that bit within the context of the Great 

Outdoors Program, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary SALAZAR. We will, Congressman Moran, move forward 

with land acquisition that I think is best exemplified by what the 

ranching community did in the Flint Hills of Kansas where I, along 

with former Senator Brownback and the Kansas Cattlemen’s Association and Livestock Growers and the Farm Bureau inaugurated 

a national conservation area of 1.1 million acres by having the 

ranchers themselves preserve these ranches in working order so 

they can pass it onto their fifth and sixth generations and preserve 

the last of the remaining tall grass prairie habitat in the United 

States of America. 

It is a good thing for conservation and for hunters and for anglers. It is also a good thing for the ranchers who care so much 

about the preservation of their heritage. That is the approach at 

the heart of these investments from America’s Great Outdoors. 

IN-HOLDINGS

With respect to in-holdings, there are crown jewels in our National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as the National Park System, which we need to make sure we are protecting. Part of what 

is in this budget is the preservation of the Grand Teton National 

Park in dealing with the in-holdings within Grand Teton. I do not 

think that Americans would want to see those in-holdings essentially become the trophy homes of people, because I think it is inherent in our concept of our national park systems that those national parks belong to the people of America for their enjoyment. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
581 

Mr. MORAN. Very good. Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Rogers. 

STREAM PROTECTION ZONE RULE

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Let me 

talk to you a bit about the Stream Protection Zone Rule at OSM. 

In December, ’08, OSM issued a clarification of the stream buffer 

zone rule after a 5-year process that included 40,000 public comments, two proposed rules, and 5,000 pages of environmental analysis from five different agencies. 

That final rule in ’08 provides coal operators with greater leeway 

with the 100-foot buffer provision if compliance is deemed impossible, but it requires mining companies to minimize the amount of 

debris they dump outside the mined area and to minimize the footprint of the disposal area. 

That clarified and codified surface mounting practices that had 

been in effect over 30 years. Now, despite finalizing that rule in 

just ’08, after all of that work, OSM is proposing to amend the rule 

already, which by its own admission is much broader in scope than 

the 2008 stream buffer zone rule. This proposed rule would result 

in significant changes to 15 major elements of its coal-mining regulatory program, representing the largest rewrite of surface mounting regulations in the past 30 years. 

And according to the Department’s own Environmental Impact 

Statement, which was inadvertently leaked, this proposed regulation could eliminate more than 29,000 coalmining and related jobs 

and wipe out a significant amount of coal production, more than 20 

percent of surface mining in the east and up to 50 percent of underground mining nationwide. 

What is your justification for such a significant rewrite of existing regulations when your own economic analysis indicates it will 

eliminate thousands of high-wage American jobs and jeopardize our 

domestic energy security? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Let me first 

say the rule that had been in place until 2008 had been in place 

since President Reagan was President, and the Department of Interior had put together a rule from OSM that essentially governed 

these kinds of activities. 

In our view the rule which was published in the last days of the 

Bush Administration essentially repealed what had been a good 

practice that had been in place since the days of Ronald Reagan 

being President of the United States. We have engaged a public 

process to do a rewrite of a stream protection rule. I will ask the 

Deputy Secretary to comment on where we are on that process, if 

I may. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. As you know, the final 

rule that came out the end of the prior Administration was challenged in court. There was a substantial legal challenge. We were 

not sure we could defend the rule based on the challenge. We 

thought the prudent thing to do would be to address the issues 

raised in the challenge through a public process, and we have 

started a new rulemaking. We have yet to come out with a proposed rule. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
582 

With regard to the Environmental Impact Statement you referenced, that was not a Department product. We had a contractor 

on board who did a draft, an early draft of an economic analysis 

that we disagreed with. It was leaked. It is not our work. We are 

looking at completely revamping it. We have no intention of going 

forward with a rule that will not be appropriate. We are looking 

forward to coming out with a reasonable rule with sound economics, and we will look forward to working with you as we proceed 

through the public process. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, there are thousands of jobs on the line, not 

to mention the supply of the Nation’s coal energy, which I remind 

you produces 52 percent of America’s electricity. So this is no insignificant thing we are talking about, and I am puzzled that you 

would take this effort after we had spent so much money and time 

and effort on addressing this issue in just ’08. This is not a political 

thing. This is important to the Nation’s wellbeing, and so I am puzzled. 

Now, will this new regulation if it is enacted comply with the 

President’s executive order to account for the accumulated costs of 

regulations? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It will comply with that order. 

Mr. ROGERS. And what will be the estimated cost of putting an 

impact statement in place? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Deputy Secretary Hayes, do you have that 

number? 

Mr. HAYES. No, sir. We are doing the economic analysis now. We 

thought that the economic analysis done by this contractor was inadequate. As soon as we have that information, we will share it 

with you, Congressman. 

Mr. ROGERS. Who was the company that you are referring to? 

Mr. HAYES. I do not recall the name of the company offhand. I 

would be happy to provide it to you. We were actually so unhappy 

with their work that we issued a demand that they provide us with 

a new version of the work, and if it is not adequate, our plan is 

to terminate them as a contractor. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, was that done before or after the ’08 rule was 

put in place? 

Mr. HAYES. That is part of the current rulemaking. We want to 

make sure we have sound economics. The numbers that you provided are not numbers that we agree with. We do not want to have 

that kind of impact. We do not think the proposal would, in fact, 

have that kind of impact. 

Mr. ROGERS. So the company you are referring to did their work 

after the ’08 rule was in place? 

Mr. HAYES. Yes. It is part of the current rulemaking because the 

prior rulemaking, as I mentioned, was challenged in court, and we 

did not feel it could be defended. 

Mr. ROGERS. And was this company involved in the ’08 rule? 

Mr. HAYES. I do not believe so. 

Mr. ROGERS. So after the ’08 rule was put in place after 5 years 

of work, you then hired a company to look at it. 

Mr. HAYES. No. 

Mr. ROGERS. What did you do? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
583 

Mr. HAYES. We hired a company to help us do the economic evaluation associated with the new rulemaking we were proceeding 

with. 

Mr. ROGERS. And you did not like what they came back and told 

you. 

Mr. HAYES. No. The work product they provided that was leaked 

was not adequate from our point of view. It was not a good work 

product. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you were not satisfied. 

Mr. HAYES. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. You did not like what they told you. 

Mr. HAYES. We did not believe it was a good work product, and 

we challenged them. It is a normal back and forth in terms of a 

contract, Congressman. We challenged them to improve it. We are 

not going to go public with an economic analysis that is not sound. 

Mr. ROGERS. So is this company still engaged? 

Mr. HAYES. As of a few days ago I believe so. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. You should know one way or the other. 

Mr. HAYES. Well, we are watching it very carefully, but we were 

unhappy with their work product. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, are they still involved? 

Mr. HAYES. As far as I know they are. We just asked them to 

provide us with a better work product, and I have not seen the 

evaluation yet. 

Mr. ROGERS. You told them what you wanted to hear. 

Mr. HAYES. No. To the contrary. We want a good work product. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I may, Chairman Rogers, I think that the 

important thing to note are first the policy and where we are. 

There are two important policies that I think members of this committee can agree on. 

One is that we need to protect the environment as coal mining 

continues, which means the protection of streams. Secondly, we 

need to continue to support the coal industry with rules that are 

reasonable. 

We will try to draft a rule that is reasonable, which is now still 

in process. There is no final rule that has been put on the table. 

The President’s energy package, which is something we try to implement, has coal as being a part of that energy package. We recognize the amount of coal that powers our economy today. It is not 

our desire here to put the coal industry out of business. 

We want to come up with a rule that achieves the policy objective 

here of protecting the streams. The rule which had been in place 

since President Reagan was President until 2008 is part of what 

we are considering along with other options as we go forward with 

this rulemaking process. 

REPROGRAMMING FROM STATE REGULATORY GRANTS

Mr. ROGERS. Well, is any of the monies that is being spent on 

this procedure, is any of that money reprogrammed from state regulatory grants? 

Secretary SALAZAR. You know, I am not sure of that answer, 

Chairman Rogers. We can get back to you on where exactly the 

money has come from. We will get back to you on that. We do not 

know the answer. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
584 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if it is reprogrammed from state regulatory 

grants, would you also supply us your authority with which to do 

that? Is that agreeable? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Chairman Rogers, we will get back to you on 

that. I do not know where the funding stream has come from for 

the contract that you were speaking about with Deputy Secretary 

Hayes. I will get that information to you. 

Mr. ROGERS. Would you also furnish to the committee the report 

of that company with which you disagree? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, has OSM worked with states to rectify their 

concerns over this procedure? 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer to that is Joe Pizarchik, the Director of the Office of Surface Mining, has had multiple meetings 

with state officials, including officials in Kentucky, and he continues to work on the rule, and as the Deputy Secretary said, the 

rule is still in process. There is no final rule. 

Mr. ROGERS. And finally what kind of time table do you see on 

that proposed rule? 

Secretary SALAZAR. David. 

Mr. HAYES. We are several months away yet, Congressman. We 

are looking for a draft rule perhaps in the summer to fall, so we 

are proceeding. There is a court-supervised schedule, because this 

was instigated through litigation. We are working with the court 

to make sure that we have adequate time so this rulemaking will 

be solid. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Dicks. 

COBELL

Mr. DICKS. I was very pleased that we were able to get a deal 

on the Cobell case. Could you tell us where we are on that? What 

has happened? 

Secretary SALAZAR. First of all, thank you for your leadership 

and the leadership of Congressman Cole and so many people on 

this committee who helped get that through. David Hayes, who led 

the negotiations on it, has been overseeing what is happening with 

Cobell implementation. I would like him to comment on that. 

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Congressman Dicks. 

We are in the phase of the case where the court has notified all 

of the class members as to whether they want to opt into the class 

or not. The court will have a fairness hearing likely mid-year at 

which time we hope that the court will approve the final settlement. 

Once approved, again, hopefully mid-year, we will move out with 

the implementation. There are two streams of implementation, of 

course. There are the payments out to the class members. That will 

be administered by essentially a bank that has been engaged by 

the plaintiffs under court supervision and then there is the Land 

Consolidation Program, which is a $1.9 billion program that we 

will administer to help buy back fractionated interest of Indian 

lands. 

We are not able to begin the public implementation of the effort 

until after the final settlement, which we hope will occur in midVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00584 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
585 

year. We are gearing up internally so as soon as the court approves 

the settlement, we will be able to go out to Indian Country, begin 

our government-to-government consultations, and move out with 

the Land Consolidation Program without delay. 

Mr. DICKS. Is there any indication that the court who was a big 

advocate—— 

Mr. HAYES. Right. 

Mr. DICKS. Is there any indication that there would be any problem in the court? 

Mr. HAYES. We do not believe so, Congressman. We are expecting 

the class action to be approved and the full settlement to be approved. 

Mr. COLE. Would the gentleman yield for a related question? 

Mr. DICKS. Yes. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. There is some discussion in the House 

about legislation to cap attorney fees. As I understand it, the court 

really would ultimately make the determination on attorneys’ fees. 

We set an upper limit, but we gave the court some latitude. 

I would like your opinion as to whether it would be wise for us 

to get back into this at the attorney fee level. I have serious questions that this is a very good idea. 

Mr. HAYES. Well, I agree with you, Congressman. The attorneys’ 

fees issue was part of the settlement. We did have an agreement 

with the plaintiffs to cap those fees. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have 

nonetheless asked the court for some approval to go beyond that 

cap. That is a live issue right now that is being briefed in front of 

Judge Hogan, and the Judge will apply ruling law. We expect the 

decision will come down relatively soon. 

I think it is in the hands of the court where it should be with 

the background of the back and forth that I think is well understood. 

Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman. 

DELISTING OF THE NORTHERN ROCKIES WOLVES

Mr. DICKS. Before I forget it I want to say how much we miss 

Tom Strickland and appreciate his good work, and he did a very 

good job and was very, you know, very responsive and so in his 

memory I am going to ask this next question about the delisting 

of the Northern Rockies wolves. This is an issue that affects Idaho, 

Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and Minnesota, too. Of course. 

But this particular decision, can you give us an update on kind 

of, you know, where you are on this, and what you think the best 

outcome is? Now, I understand this is very sensitive in Idaho, very 

sensitive in Montana and in Wyoming, but Idaho and Wyoming 

have moved further ahead in terms of their plans to protect the 

wolves. Wyoming still is resisting. Give us an update on this. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Dicks, and 

let me just say that I appreciate the work and the leadership of 

Chairman Simpson and the committee in coming up with language 

that would help us get beyond the issue, so let me talk just a little 

bit about wolves. 

First on Tom Strickland. Tom is a soldier, came and did his job 

for 2 years as he had committed, did an extraordinary job, and we 

have a great team at Interior that will continue to carry on the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
586 

great work we do on behalf of the country. We miss him, but he 

has finished his mission and I think he is getting ready for his second mission. 

On the wolf issue, it has been our view that the Northern Rocky 

Mountain wolf population has been recovered, and one of the requirements in order to de-list a species is we have recovery plans 

approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would comply with 

the law. 

In the case of Idaho and Montana, they have those kinds of plans 

in place. We attempted to issue a rule allowing for the de-listing 

of the wolf in those two states and allow the hunt to move forward 

as a management mechanism for the wolf populations in those 

states. 

We believed then, as we continue to believe today, the Wyoming 

recovery program needs some revision in order for it to come into 

compliance. The new governor of Wyoming, Governor Mead, has 

been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we are cautiously optimistic we will also be able to develop a program that 

is legally sufficient within the State of Wyoming. At that point we 

will be able to say the Endangered Species Act essentially has 

achieved a victory here, and the wolf in the Rocky Mountain range 

has been prevented from going into extinction. The states have a 

management program in place that will ensure that the wolf will 

not become extinct, and that is what we have been working on. 

I think through a combination of the legislative efforts going on 

here, and we will continue to see whether or not there are other 

administrative approaches we could take. We are hopeful that we 

will be able to get to a resolution on the issue. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield briefly? 

Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did approve 

Wyoming’s wolf management plan based on its sound science, it 

was subsequently a court, based not on that science but other matters not included in the legal criteria, that ruled the Wyoming plan 

was inadequate. Now that has been overturned by a federal district 

court in Wyoming. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I may just to complete the colloquy here, 

whenever you get involved in any of these issues, you are bound 

to get yourself in litigation. I do not know how many times the Department of Interior has been sued over these issues, and you have 

conflicting opinions relative to the legal adequacy of the wolf recovery plan, including the one in Wyoming. 

But we are practical people, as I said. Both Tom Strickland and 

David Hayes, I see them as problem fixers, and that is what we 

have been trying to do. We have agreement we have a recovered 

wolf population in the Rocky Mountain region. We just need to figure out a way of threading the needle to get to the result that will 

withstand those kinds of challenges within the court system, and 

that is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Lewis. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
587 

OPENING COMMENTS BY CONGRESSMAN LEWIS

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

It is a pleasure to be here with you. 

I have had the privilege of working with David Hayes for a lot 

of years, a very competent professional, but I have not had the 

privilege of working with the other Haze in our audience, but her 

reputation goes before her as a very talented and competent and 

serious public official. We do appreciate your work very much. 

Mr. Secretary, last week as has been indicated, the subcommittee 

met to talk with both GAO and the Office of Inspector General to 

discuss many of the matters and the challenges faced by the Interior Department. My line of questioning today will very much flow 

around those circumstances. 

STOVE PIPING

In our hearing last week I specifically described a parallel challenge that Norm Dicks and I faced together over a number of years 

in a Defense Subcommittee, where for many, many, many a year 

we struggled to get the, believe it or not, the Navy and the Marine 

Corps to be able to communicate with each other. Just could not 

seem to get their software to match each other, and it is a process 

that is maybe an extreme illustration of the propensity for bureaucracies to build these smokestacks or walls between each other in 

order to protect their own bailiwick. 

And, indeed, I believe some of those challenges faced by your Department that came to our attention last week involved questions 

like resources protection, financial management, and IT infrastructure, the problems that one has there could be greatly aided or improved or overcome by way of adopting one of the systems around 

that allow people to communicate with each other. 

David Hayes has had some exposure to a guy in my territory who 

develops GIS systems, probably has the most significant development of such systems anywhere in the world. He is a fellow who 

has been immensely successful across the government in terms of 

agencies using these systems, including the Department of Interior. 

But within your subcommittee-agencies they use these systems, 

many of them overlap, parallel, and otherwise and yet a fellow who 

is not worried about profits it would seem since he and his wife are 

going to leave all stuff to the environment eventually, he literally 

would urge you to develop an internal mechanism to coordinate between so that these sub-agencies of Interior are talking to each 

other. 

And I do not know whether you have examined that kind of prospect, but it is very clear that between your agencies talking to each 

other is going to be kind of basic making some of the progress that 

I think we should be making. 

I would be interested in your comment regarding that. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Lewis, I fully agree with you. 

I think you are right in terms of the analogy you made to the Department of Defense initiatives that you and Congressman Dicks 

have worked on in the past relative to Interior. Where you have 

had historically each one of the agencies upgrading in a silo, and 

one of the things that we have tried to do over the last 2 years is 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
588 

to try to break down those silos, and as you well know it is a very 

difficult thing to do. 

If you take, for example, one of the issues that was raised in the 

GAO report, information technology. When I became Secretary of 

Interior, frankly, it was impossible to use e-mail because of the fact 

that we had the overhang of the Cobell case and the protections 

that had been put into place. The technology at the Department of 

Interior was a very old technology, notwithstanding the fact that 

as I recall there was a billion dollars plus that was being invested 

in technology across different bureaus, but there was no coordination among the different silos. 

The Deputy Secretary working closely with the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget has taken on the information technology reform effort so the Department could operate 

more as a department and communicate across bureaus. In fact, 

what we have done is we have also said as we get better on information technology, we also have to find ways of doing it more efficiently. 

One of the significant reductions in dollars is to information technology, knowing that we are trying to cut down the silos of the Department and believe we can do a much better job than has been 

done in the past. 

WATER

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. When I first got to know 

Deputy Secretary Hayes, he was wallowing around in the waters 

of Colorado, and as you know in the southland and the west we 

particularly are concerned about water issues and problems. 

I cannot say that Secretary Hayes has done all that I might want 

to see him do or accomplish relative to our problems along the 

delta, but I will leave that to others to discuss perhaps today, because I want to raise a parallel challenge that is a very, very real 

challenge. 

One of the great successes we have had over the years in my 

judgment in the arena of flood control and water conservation has 

to do with the Santa Ana River Project, controlling the flooding impact along the Santa Ana River that impacts many, many a community and eventually it affects them, to the ocean. The very peak 

of that project is an operation known as the Seven Oaks Dam. 

Seven Oaks Dam initially was a major flood control effort that 

would be the beginning point of controlling flooding and damage 

and otherwise along the river line. 

We altered that Seven Oaks Dam project to the tune of several 

hundreds of millions of dollars to also have the project, Seven Oaks 

Dam, be one of conservation, providing significant conservation, 

and indeed, as a result of our recent flooding out there, there is almost a Lake Gregory behind the Seven Oaks Dam, kind of sitting 

there with much silt our people would suggest. 

SANTA ANA SUCKER

It is my concern that as we have dealt with the problems along 

the delta, that the Santa Ana sucker could have similar impacts in 

the Santa Ana River basin. A species about to be declared in a 

fashion that could have huge economic impacts within all of southVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00588 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
589 

ern California. We were talking about a study earlier that we were 

very concerned about making sure was carefully evaluated because 

it might be full of some holes. Some were suggesting even that it 

might not tell you what you want to hear. 

Well, the Santa Ana sucker study that was done to say the least 

is far from a professional piece of work. I hope you would look at 

that study with the same kind of careful analysis as you suggest 

we are doing with the other. The sucker along the Santa Ana River 

could literally have dramatic impact upon development, opportunity for living, the entire environment along the Santa Ana. 

And, indeed, it is not our business in the Interior or in the Federal Government at a regional level or local level to use, if you will, 

to use endangered species or potentially endangered species, as essentially a regional planning mechanism. And it is the concern of 

some that we are about to do that with that Santa Ana sucker, and 

thereby cut off not just the flood control flows or the impact of flood 

controls along the Santa Ana but cut off dramatically the potential 

for conservation, providing huge new water supply for a very important basin that could be very directly linked in the future to 

whether we have rationing or do not have rationing in southern 

California. 

I do not think this President or this Secretary or otherwise want 

to be anywhere closely tied to the eventuality of water rationing in 

the southland. Indeed, it could destroy federal policy directions in 

a manner that perhaps would undermine even your wildest dreams 

relative to the Interior. 

So with that I would be interested in comments about the Santa 

Ana sucker or otherwise. 

Secretary SALAZAR. I will ask David to comment if he knows anything at all on the Santa Ana River issues. I frankly spend a lot 

of time working on these water issues in California, as many of you 

on this committee know, including Congressman Calvert. Much of 

that has been spent up in the San Francisco Bay Delta and the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers where we have done a lot in 

the last 2 years under the leadership of Deputy Secretary David 

Hayes and Mike Connor from the Bureau of Reclamation. I think 

without knowing anything at all frankly about the Santa Ana 

Sucker because this is the first time that someone has raised it 

with me, Congressman. 

What I would say is it is important for us to be proactive and 

to get ahead of these issues so we avoid the kind of train wrecks 

we have seen in the San Francisco Bay Delta. We worked very 

closely with Governor Schwarzenegger and with the water users to 

try to move forward with a comprehensive plan on the San Francisco Bay Delta. We are doing that now with Governor Brown and 

his people and are hopeful we will be able to do something there 

that hopefully will deal with the issues for the long term. 

Getting ahead of these issues is important, and let me have 

David comment because he works on these issues and he may 

know something more on the Santa Ana Sucker than I do. 

Mr. HAYES. First I want to thank you for all your compliments 

sent my way. It is very energizing, and I really enjoyed working 

with you on the 4.4 plan and dealing with the issues on the ColoVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00589 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
590 

rado and have continued to enjoy working with you on the ongoing 

issues. 

I am not familiar with the Santa Ana sucker issue, but you can 

be sure after this hearing we will be making some calls as soon as 

we get back. 

Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, if we could kind of 

fill our record with some of those issues. It could become one of the 

major items over time here. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. Congresswoman McCollum. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, this 

Administration has taken great strides in rebuilding the trusted relationship with the 565 federally-recognized Tribal Nations, and 

the Administration with the Democratic caucus working together, 

we finally passed the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, which 

will not be tied to reauthorization time and time again. Bipartisan, 

we passed the Tribal Law and Order Act, and I want to thank you 

for making tribal issues a priority and for your commitment to tribal sovereignty. 

Now, since being elected to Congress, and even prior to Congress, 

I have worked with the Tribal Nations in Minnesota and have been 

aware of some of the pent-up needs that many Tribal Nations have. 

I could talk about healthcare facilities, but today I am going to 

focus on schools. 

I want to talk to you specifically about the Bureau of Indian Education School Construction. This is an issue where we still have a 

long way to go, and I am interested in learning more about the 

backlog and what we can do as a committee bipartisan to help you 

put an end to this, what I am going to describe is a tragic situation. 

I have visited schools across this country, but I am going to talk 

about two, one in Leech Lake, Minnesota, and one at the Pueblo 

Laguna, New Mexico. It should have been condemned. In fact, it 

is my understanding at one point, Pueblo Laguna, New Mexico, 

was condemned, but a coat of paint miraculously took it off the list. 

These schools still tend to serve Native American children. Now, 

the Buy-O-Nay-Ge-Shig High School in Leech Lake is ranked as 

number 42 in the IBE’s 50 worst schools list. Nearly 300 students 

go to the school. They have serious structural, mechanical, and 

electrical deficiencies, leaky roofs, poor lighting, sewer backups, 

mold, overcrowding. Well, I could go on and on. But bottom line is 

that they do pose an immediate life, health, and safety risk to students and faculty. 

Now, I want to work with this Administration to become more 

focused on the success of Native American children. High school 

students’ graduation rate for Native students hovers at 50 percent. 

We know that if we invest in educational needs, that we will ensure that we can increase that from 50, I believe working together, 

to 100. We do that by giving students a safe and appropriate place 

to learn, and these students know that their future is valued, and 

it is a priority not only for their parents, but for our country. 

My question to you, Secretary Salazar, is how do we work together, because I know there is bipartisan support in this area, 

how do we work together with the Administration to fix this? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
591 

Where can we help you discover more urgency to address this? 

These schools either need to be renovated or replaced, and I would 

like to hear how a priority list for school construction is being determined, how it will be updated, and how much funding it will 

take to fix up the necessary backlog. 

I want to point out the Laguna, which had suffered an earthquake that I was at, they have seismographic units taped to the 

wall where the cracks are. I was in one part of the building, which 

is totally condemned, and another part of the building is being 

used. 

Now, I am not an engineer, but commonsense would tell you that 

that is not a good environment for children. I know this is something you want to work on. I am asking you to tell all of us how 

we can work together to address this huge backlog of unmet needs 

for our Nation’s school children of the first Americans. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Congresswoman 

McCollum, for your leadership on these issues. I think sometimes 

in our history as a country, in fact, very often in our history as a 

country we have left Native American issues to a very low priority. 

The consequence is we have a huge backlog of issues that we have 

been addressing in the Native American world. 

Let me say first from the President’s point of view and my point 

of view this is an issue of urgent priority, and we have done a number of things over the last several years to demonstrate our commitment to the Native American communities of our country. They 

include some of the things that you reviewed, but in addition I will 

say for a long time before I became Secretary of Interior we did not 

have even the official positions filled within the Assistant Secretary 

of Indian Affairs and the related bureaus. 

I am proud to say at this time we have a Director of the Bureau 

of Indian Education in place who is serving with the great leadership of Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk. The rest of the entire team are able to now, for the first time, address many of the 

issues which are important for us to address, and they include economic development issues, energy issues on reservations, implementing the Cobell litigation, and the trust reform issues we are 

working on. 

With respect to education, we have put in a significant investment into the renovation of many of the schools. We recognize 

there are more than 40,000 Native Americans who attend these 

BIE schools all around the country, but even as we have made 

those investments with the help of the Congress over the last 2 

years, we recognize that there is still a long way to go. 

What we are doing is engaging in a consultation process with the 

Tribes to come up with a list of priority needs. Knowing there is 

a significant backlog and significant amount of money it would 

take to provide the kinds of upgrades to be the kinds of schools 

where any American should be happy to send their children to 

school. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Indian Country 

right now. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Secretary, are you in a position, because I 

know you have been working very, very hard on this issue, but are 

you in a position to give the chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee, not only a list of schools but, tenVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00591 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
592 

tatively, how much it would cost to just get up to standards? Some 

of these schools are going to have to be replaced so that when we 

are looking at the budget, Mr. Chairman, we are making cuts, we 

know whether or not we are adding to the backlog. We will not be 

able to solve the entire problem, but at least start moving in the 

right direction. 

Thank you, Secretary Salazar. Thank you for your work all of 

you. 

Secretary SALAZAR. We would be delighted to provide you with 

that list. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Calvert. 

ROYALTIES

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank 

you for coming today. I have just a quick comment before I get to 

questions. We have had these issues about oil and gas royalties. 

We had some testimony as you heard about recently, but it seems 

to me it is not so much the royalty fee, it is the collection that is 

the problem. 

In the private sector, you are going to make sure you collect 

every nickel and every dime in royalty. You are going to understand exactly what that lease states, the transparency of that 

lease, and get that information. 

So as a comment I wonder if you might look into a pilot program 

to use private collection contractors to collect those royalties and 

compare that success rate with your government collections along 

with your associated costs and see who does better. And if, in fact, 

private collections are a better way to go, and if you need legislative authority to do that, I do not know if you do or you do not, 

you know, let the chairman know. I am sure we can work that out, 

but it would seem to me based upon that testimony we had you 

had up to $50 billion left on the table. That is serious money. So 

we should not let that happen. 

GAS PRICES

So just as part of a comment. As you know, the price of gasoline today in southern California is $3.88 a gallon. In some areas it exceeds $4 a gallon. This is a short-term problem and a long-term 

problem. In California we have over 12 percent unemployment. I 

am hoping that we are getting through this recession, but something like this, if it goes for any period of time, will tank any recovery that may be going on. 

I am hopeful you have a short-term plan to modify these gasoline 

prices. Supply is the long-term issue. Scarcity is the problem. And 

a long-term plan to make sure that not every Gaddafi in the world 

comes along and brings this country to our knees, which it seems 

to be right now. 

So do you have a short-term plan and a long-term strategy to 

lower these energy costs? Especially in the short term. I think most 

folks back home want to hear what we are going to do to try to 

get these gasoline prices down. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Calvert, let me just say this is 

an issue of high priority which we are watching. I think with respect to the latter part of your comment I think this is an opporVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00592 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
593 

tunity where we might be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to 

put together a long-term framework for the energy independence of 

the United States. We should not be in the position where Gaddafi 

and Libya essentially are able to create these kinds of disruptions. 

I am hopeful that this is one area where we can be able to find 

some common ground where we have a robust energy portfolio that 

takes advantage of some of the energy opportunities we have here 

in this country, including oil and natural gas and the renewable 

energy portfolios we have spoken about. 

I hope we have that kind of an opportunity for collaboration. 

What we have done as I said at the beginning of the hearing is we 

have, in my view, what has been a robust oil and gas program. The 

critics sometimes say we do not, but I think when you look at the 

statistics and the numbers over the last several years, we have a 

program and a direction from the President that goes through the 

Secretary of Interior that says we look at oil and gas as a very important part of our economy. We have taken significant steps to 

make sure we are doing it in the right places and with the right 

kind of safety measures in place. That is where we need to work 

with the Congress and with this committee to make sure the funding we requested, to make sure activities in the Gulf of Mexico and 

elsewhere are able to continue are ones that can continue. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, and you might take a look at that royalty problem. 

WATER

Getting back to water, California has a population of over 40 million people. We have got a lot of demands on our water. As you 

know, water has been a big issue and continues to be a big issue 

even though we have had considerable rainfall and snow pack this 

year. No state has experienced a greater unemployment rate, and 

within any state has seen worse economic activity than the Central 

Valley in the State of California. Some areas are experiencing up 

to 50 percent unemployment. 

There is a lot of hope out there in the Central Valley. I guess, 

Secretary Hayes, you are going to make a decision here to increase 

those allocations again. Is there any word on what you are going 

to do as far as increasing water supply in the Central Valley? Or 

is that an answer for the Secretary. 

Secretary SALAZAR. I am going to have David comment on it because he has spent a huge amount of his time as Deputy Secretary 

attempting to resolve the issues both for the short term and the 

long term. I will say we have an action orientation to this, Congressman Calvert, and even the forecasts that we have made, unlike the last 20 years, knowing it is so important for farmers to be 

able to know what their water supply looks like in the months of 

January and February we are providing much more timely projections so farmers can then make their plans as they go to the bank 

and decide what they are going to plant or not. 

We have made a number of those changes as well as major investments in infrastructure. In terms of this year’s allocations I am 

going to have the Deputy Secretary speak to those. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, and per the Secretary’s comment we are now 

doing our projections and our allocations on an every-2-week basis 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
594 

instead of every month. The last projection had most water users 

at 100 percent. South of the Delta was at 50 percent, I believe. 

There are some constraints such as the San Luis Reservoir was 

full. It could not take more water. We are approaching the period 

now where there are some restrictions on some pumping because 

of the endangered species, although I am happy to report, as you 

know, that a couple of weeks ago all the parties, the water users, 

the conservation organizations, the state and federal regulators, 

reached an agreement to modify the current operational approach 

and to settle the litigation for this year to free up some additional 

water for delivery south of the delta. 

Of course, we are pleased, we are all fortunate with Mother Nature helping out so much in California this year. We will continue 

to monitor it, Congressman, and work with you and your office. 

There are structural problems as you well know in getting water 

south of the delta, and the good news here is all the parties are 

working very hard toward a long-term solution through the BayDelta Conservation Planning Effort, and Governor Brown and his 

new team are really engaged. We are excited to be working with 

them. We are working very closely with all the water users and the 

conservation interests, and that holds the hope of actually solving 

this problem long term, which we are all so anxious to do. 

MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I appreciate that. Do I have 1 minute left, 

Mr. Chairman? Just another comment on the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans. As you know, there are a few of them 

around the country, the largest is in my area of Southern California. And there is a comment that we do not see a lot of people 

in the Department of Interior that are trained on multi-species 

habitat conservation. They tend to look at these plans species by 

species, and they need to be a little more proactive in that. I do 

not know if there is a training program for these employees to deal 

with that or field managers that are experienced with Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans, but, a lot of time and effort went 

into creating them. 

This was Secretary Babbitt’s thing, to do, and we have put a lot 

of time and effort to put them together in southern California, and 

we need to get some more positive interaction with the Department 

of Interior. That is just a comment, so I would hope you can take 

a look at that constructively. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Before we go on with Mr. Hinchey I am going to 

take a 5-minute break and give people a chance to stand up, and 

then we will come back and hear about fracturing. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SIMPSON. We will be back in order. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This may 

not work. Oh yeah, it is working, all right. Secretary Salazar and 

Secretary Hayes, thank you very much and it is a pleasure to be 

with you. And it is a great pleasure to listen to you. I deeply appreciate everything that you are doing and I commend you for the way 

in which you have operated this department. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
595 

Over the last year we have seen very dramatic and very important reforms that will strengthen, preserve, and protect the country’s amazing array of natural resources as well as improve out 

economy. The reorganization of that en masse as we know and the 

Wild Lands Policy so much more welcome developments. For all of 

these things we must thank you very much and hopefully you will 

be able to continue to do the kinds of positive things that you have 

been doing over the last year or so. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

I wanted to ask a question about the hydraulic fracturing operation which is getting a lot of interesting attention now. The natural gas drilling has gotten a lot of attention; for example, in the 

New York Times over the last week or so some very interesting stories that they have produced. And I have been in touch with your 

department about this topic on a number of occasions over the past 

few years. 

Specifically I believe that the Department should require the 

drilling companies publicly disclose what chemicals, what materials 

they are injecting into the ground during this hydraulic fracturing 

process while still on public lands. I think it is just common sense, 

something that really should be done. Some states like Wyoming, 

very exemplary have strong public disclosure requirements, but a 

lot of other states do not. When it comes to public lands, the department has the authority to require disclosure. 

In late November the Department announced that it was developing a policy to address disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals for these leases on public lands. I wonder if you could speak 

to us and talk a little bit about the status of the initiative and 

what we can expect to see some form of a proposal in the context 

of this issue. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Congressman Hinchey, for raising this issue or putting it on the radar screen of this 

committee and this Congress. First, I think the future of natural 

gas is a very positive one. I think this is one area where perhaps 

as the Congress looks at the future of energy programs for the 

country this is an area where there may be some bipartisan support to craft energy legislation that does get us energy independence given the abundance of natural gas we have in the country 

at a very fractionated cost of what we are having to pay for a barrel of oil today. 

If we could figure out a way to use more of the natural gas we 

domestically produce, I think it is one of those great opportunities 

to help us power the economy of the United States as well as address the imperatives of energy independence. I am very hopeful 

we can have a robust natural gas feature and as the President has 

often said, natural gas is one of those key components of the energy 

portfolio needed for America. 

I will also say from my point of view I think one of the areas that 

can inhibit a robust natural gas program in the country is if we 

see the kind of backlash that we are seeing in places like New York 

and other states where citizens and certain groups have become 

very concerned about the injection of pollutants into the underground where they don’t know what is being injected into the unVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00595 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
596 

derground. I think in this committee, where the members of this 

committee are so familiar with the importance of preventing pollution because it is a lot less costly to prevent it than have to address 

it after it occurs. 

It seems to me this is an area we need to explore together. At 

the end of the day, disclosure is something that is important and 

something that not only states like Wyoming, but very responsible 

companies in the oil and gas industry have been advocates of disclosure of what is being injected into the underground. We will 

move forward with a policy that addresses hydraulic fracturing, but 

we are doing it in a way where we are reaching out to companies 

who have been participating in forums that we have held on disclosure. We hope in the next several months to be able to have a policy we can move forward with. I am hopeful the industry will be 

able to be supportive of the policy for disclosure because I think it 

is the Achilles heel that could essentially kill the future of natural 

gas as a significant part of our energy portfolio for the future. 

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank you very much for what you are saying 

and I agree with you completely. The energy situation that we are 

experiencing now is something that is very challenging; the price 

of oil going up so dramatically and if we could utilize this very significant organization of energy in our country as natural gas elements we could be a lot stronger on this whole issue. But we have 

to do it in a way that is not going to provide us with serious problems that are going to then occur as a result of the drilling. So I 

deeply appreciate your insight into this and the work that you are 

doing because this is something that really needs to be done. 

A lot of damage is being done in a lot of places across the country. And a lot of the damage that is being done is only a minimal 

exposure of the damage now. Over time it is going to be a lot more 

serious in this reckless way in which materials are being injected 

without any honest organization and revealment of what these materials are. So thanks, thanks very much. I appreciate this and this 

is something that we are going to have to continue to work on very 

closely and effectively. 

WILD LANDS

Let me ask you a question about Wild Lands Policy, if I may. 

Last week the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing 

on the Department’s recently announced Wild Lands Policy which 

incidentally was the subject of a rider in H.R. 1. There has been 

a lot of discussions about how this policy was developed and whether the Interior Department has the authority under the Federal 

Land Policy Management Act to take some steps to preserve lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

The Wild Lands Policy was developed to deal with the Norton 

Levitt Settlement which prohibited BLM from carrying out one of 

its core missions: identifying and administratively protecting public 

lands with wilderness characteristics. This legacy policy of the 

Bush Administration exposed some of our Nation’s most sensitive 

wild places to development activities that would have undoubtedly 

destroyed their special character. It needed to be reformed. So I 

wonder if you might be able to tell us, for example, can you compare for us the process that led to the Wild Lands Policy and how 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
597 

the Department intends to implement its going forward—how it is 

going to do that? With the process that the Department undertook 

in 2003 when it developed and implemented the Norton Levitt Policy and its Utah Resource Management Plans and also in addition 

does not the definition of multiple use set out at the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act specifically contemplate that BLM will 

not uniformly permit all uses on all places on public lands, meaning that in some areas oil and gas development will be prioritized 

when in other places wilderness will be prioritized? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you, Congressman Hinchey. You know 

it is an important question. Obviously it has drawn a lot of sparks 

from many different places, especially BLM states in the west. Let 

me say the following: first, we believe that conservation for the 243 

million acres or so that BLM manages is one of the multiple purposes for which we should manage those lands. When the Congress 

passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act, it clearly stated 

that BLM would manage its lands for multiple purposes. From our 

point of view, that includes conservation and the management of 

lands with wilderness characteristics. 

We believe and I believe, the issuance of a Secretarial Order was 

something I was required to do by the law as set forth in FLPMA 

and has had been set forth by circuit courts of appeal that had actually ruled on the question. Second, it is the right thing to do in 

terms of managing our public estate for multiple purposes, including more wilderness characteristics. I would make a few key points 

with regard to the policy, how we intend to go forward. First, it will 

be part of a BLM land use process and nothing will be done to designate these lands with wilderness characteristics without going 

through the process of receiving input from the states and affected 

local communities. 

Secondly, the Secretarial Order, if you read the language specifically in the order, recognizes the need for the protection of existing 

rights. Lastly, to the last point you made, it is a multiple use governance set out in the Secretarial Order so it may be that you do 

have oil and gas moving forward in areas that are sensitive, if that 

is seen as what is required in terms of the multiple use management of the BLM. I would hope as we continue to have conversations with the members of Congress and others we can find that 

the commonsense conclusion here is the conservation purposes of 

the BLM lands is one of the important purposes for which we 

should be managing these lands. 

OIL AND GAS ROYALTIES

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, absolutely, I agree. I thank you very much for 

what you are talking about. I think it is very important. One more 

brief question on oil and gas royalties. At a hearing this subcommittee held just last week, it was a consensus that we need to 

make sure the taxpayers are getting the best return possible when 

it comes to our oil and gas leasing program. Given that this House 

is considering drastic cuts to vitally important domestic investments along with record high oil prices and profits, I think these 

oil and gas companies can afford high royalties without it impacting the price at the pump. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
598 

The 2012 budget assumes that Interior will administratively implement oil and gas royalty rate reforms including adjustments to 

the standard onshore royalty rate. So I wonder what kind of benefits to the taxpayer will these reforms provide? Do we know that 

yet and when can we expect to see this policy be enacted? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Hinchey, our driving principle 

from day one has been to get a fair return to the American taxpayers. We have studies under way both with respect to the offshore as well as with respect to the onshore. Shortly before the 

Bush Administration left office, the offshore royalty rates were lifted to above 18 percent. On the onshore, the 12.5 percent royalty 

rate has been in place since the Mineral Leasing Act was passed 

in 1920. What we are looking at is to make a determination of 

what the appropriate royalty rate would be and the BLM and Interior have been working on a study so we can place the royalty rate 

at a position where we can ensure that the American taxpayer, the 

American citizen is getting a fair return on the property they own. 

It is always interesting to me to take a look at the places like 

Texas and others which have a much higher royalty rate than we 

do for any of our federal public lands concerning oil and gas. How 

we exactly will come out with the reform is something we have 

under way as part of our study. It may be if you are drilling an 

oil and gas well into areas where you already know there is all the 

geophysical information that you know you are going to hit the 

riches of the oil and gas, it may be there you need to have a different kind of royalty rate than where you are just doing wells. But 

that is something we are looking at—how we move forward with 

a royalty structure which at the end of the day will ensure a fair 

return to the American taxpayer. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Secretary, I thank you very, very much and 

I deeply appreciate everything that you have said to the questions 

asked of you. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 

thank you very much for being here. I did not mean to get into hydraulic fracturing, but we would have no hearing complete without 

it. I just want to make this point because I actually have a series 

of other things just for the record. As you know this is not a new 

technology. It has been used for over 50 years and we have many 

states that regulate this very well. Certainly Oklahoma does, Wyoming does as you mentioned in your remarks. I would be very careful about a national regulatory system when this is already done 

pretty well at the state level. So I agree with your remarks that 

this extraordinary natural gas find that we have has an enormous 

potential for the country and frankly great potential for bipartisan 

cooperation because it does work across the board for many constituency concerns. But I also worry that you can overregulate it 

and we have a lot of fear mongering going on, particularly in places 

that are not used to oil and gas protection. And frankly it may well 

be a problem in a sense that they do not have strong state regulatory traditions and expertise built up over decades. So I would 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
599 

just ask you look at this at the state level solution if you can. Let 

me—— 

Mr. MORAN. Would the gentleman yield to the Department? 

Mr. COLE. I would certainly yield. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Cole. There may be another factor 

and again that whereas Wyoming, Oklahoma, and so on have regulated it well, they have a different geology as I understand it than 

some of the areas in Pennsylvania and New York that are now getting into hydraulic fracturing. That may be one other factor that 

you know the geologic strata that they are fracturing is different 

in these—the Atlantic states than it is in Oklahoma and Wyoming. 

I am just throwing that out as one consideration. 

Mr. COLE. I am not sure that is actually the case. I think it has 

more to do with the timing of the oil and gas industry and when 

it was introduced. Pennsylvania is actually an old oil and gas state. 

And we have a lot of people that moved to Oklahoma 100 years ago 

from Pennsylvania to develop oil wells. But the technology has 

changed dramatically. But anyway, I would be happy to have that 

discussion with you because I do think it is an area we can find 

some common ground on. 

LAND INTO TRUST

I want to take you to another area, if I may. I have got three 

or four things that I want to talk to you about that are very different, one of which is that I really appreciate what you and the 

Administration have done in Indian Country. We talked about the 

Cobell Settlement. Frankly, this committee has done a lot on a bipartisan basis to raise funding levels where they needed to be, 

working with the Administration in the Law and Order Bill. But 

I know one of the things that you are most concerned about and 

I would like for you to address for this committee because again 

this committee tried to help you last year and I think did. We just 

were not able—one thing we can all agree on here is we all beat 

up on senators for a change. But the Carcieri issue I know has got 

to create enormous strains and burdens for you in Interior as to 

whether or not you can put land into trust and for whom. Could 

you tell us a little bit about what the consequences will be if we 

cannot get a clean fix for the Carcieri Supreme Court decision 

through Congress? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Congressman Cole, 

and thank you for your leadership on so many Native American 

issues over so many years and particularly your great work on 

Cobell along with Congressman Moran and many others who were 

involved on that particular issue. On the Carcieri fix, we need to 

have it in order to avoid the uncertainty that currently prevails 

with respect to Tribes that were recognized in the post-1934 timeframe. The consequence of not having it is it throws into question 

a whole set of initiatives as we try to make sure Indian Country 

has an opportunity to build the detention centers and schools and 

mental health facilities and anything else where rural property is 

involved. 

It is creating a tremendous amount of uncertainty with respect 

to a subset of the 564 Tribes that we recognize here in the United 

States. The Carcieri fix will be very helpful for us to move forward. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
600 

Mr. COLE. And just for the record, it is my understanding that 

most of the cases of Land and Trust, Carcieri or not, that you are 

dealing with have nothing to do with gaming. Is that your insight? 

The overwhelming majority really are economic development, housing, senior citizens, those type of things? 

Secretary SALAZAR. You are absolutely correct. Gaming is the 

issue that creates a tremendous amount of controversy, but the 

vast majority of all the applications have nothing at all to do with 

gaming. 

2012 FUNDING

Mr. COLE. Okay. Let me take you to another place. I know there 

is considerable disagreement over H.R. 1, but as I am sure you are 

probably aware right now you are operating of course under the 

2010 budget because we did not get a budget done last year. The 

BIA funding and the Indian Healthcare funding under H.R. 1 is actually higher than what you are operating under today thanks to 

Mr. Simpson. He actually plussed it up. And so those are two areas 

you would actually get more money in as opposed to less. I would 

ask you under your own budget are those gains preserved in 2012? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I will have the Director of the budget, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Haze answer that question. 

Ms. HAZE. Representative Cole, if we were to remain at the 2010 

level that is a higher level than was proposed in the 2011 President’s budget for a number of programs. 

Mr. COLE. So in other words the current H.R. if it were to become law would actually be higher than the President’s budget? 

Ms. HAZE. Correct. Correct in construction and— 

Mr. COLE. From an Indian standpoint the Republican budget is 

higher. I just want to make that point—it is usually lost in debates 

somehow. Let me ask you something very parochial and this is 

more an attitudinal question than one I would expect to be answered definitively. 

WATER RIGHTS

Oklahoma has probably the last undefined water rights west of 

the Mississippi and this is an area that is now becoming not necessarily contentious, but there are states around us that have legitimate water claims on the Red River. We have Texans that are 

interested in buying water from Oklahoma. Within our state most 

of the excess water is located in southeastern, south central Oklahoma. We have urban areas that are trying to buy up rights— 

Oklahoma City and what have you for their future growth. And we 

have obviously local people that are concerned that they will lose 

the quality of their environment through all of this. 

What I wanted to ask you, is there also an Indian component 

here as there always is in Oklahoma. The Chickasaws and the 

Choctaws have historic claims to these water rights as well. And 

it is my understanding that in any kind of negotiated settlement 

and that is where we would hope to be at some point, the Department of Interior, Department of Justice would have a trust responsibility to make sure that whatever the final settlement was, you 

know, the appropriate involvement, recognition of Indian rights 

would be part of that. Is that a fair statement? Will you be drawn 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
601 

in just by your trust responsibilities to be at least an overseer of 

any settlement that was ultimately reached? 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer to that, Congressman Cole, is 

yes. Since Deputy Secretary David Hayes is leading all of our Indian water rights negotiations I think it would be appropriate for 

him to remark on your question. I will say this at the outset I 

think you are so right in terms of focusing in on these water issues 

because I think as Chairman well knows in the west we always say 

that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. 

These are the kinds of cases which in many of the states which 

have gone on for 20, 30, 40, 50 years without any kind of resolution. They end up creating a cloud of uncertainty on water rights 

in a state and frankly provide a significant amount of money to 

lawyers and engineers for decades at a time. Frankly, if a semblance can be put together that is a tough way to follow Idaho and 

Montana and Colorado, and I think there is in Arizona. I think it 

is applicable as well to Oklahoma. 

Let me have David comment just a little bit on the capacity and 

our process. Thank you. 

Mr. HAYES. Yes, Congressman, we do feel that this is an important area of our trust responsibility to help tribes with their reserve water rights and typically we are involved. There are some 

capacity issues. We have negotiating teams, but we have budget 

constraints. At any one time we may have some constraints in our 

ability to work with tribes. Particularly when those issues are maturing we make every effort to put a team in the field to work with 

the tribal attorneys and with the state interests and ultimately 

with Congress to put a settlement together. 

Mr. COLE. I think we are reaching that point in Oklahoma that 

these issues are now very mature and I think the new governor 

wants to work on—there are a lot of different parties there. This 

does not have to be a contentious thing. Nobody has drawn their 

guns at one another yet, but I would—along the lines which was 

mentioned earlier when Mr. Lewis made his comment, ask that on 

this settlement—on Oklahoma that you start looking down the 

road because I have no doubt at some point in the next few years 

there will be some sort of effort for a grand settlement. And again 

if the tribes are not involved in it in some sort of equitable way 

I am sure you will start hearing from them at Interior and in Justice asking for your help. So this may be a case where your early 

involvement could be really valuable in preventing 30, 40, or 50 

year lawsuit and frankly letting us use the resource in a responsible manner that numerous parties can participate in. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Happy to help. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Flake. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me 

turn to Arizona and the border region in particular. As you know, 

in the 2,000 mile border with Mexico, there are about 820 miles or 

43 percent that are tribal, federal, or some form of public ownership. The Department of Interior manages most of that through the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
602 

National Park Service or the Bureau of Land Management or Fish 

and Wildlife Services or other agencies. 

In particular, the Tucson sector, which is central Arizona and 

eastern Arizona on the border, has a high concentration of this 

kind of diverse federal/private/state lands and it makes it difficult 

there. For example, the Tucson sector has to deal with two national 

wildlife refuges, two national parks, a national forest, and the 

Tohono O’odham Indian nation as well. 

GAO did a study late last year and noted that the majority of 

the 26 stations responsible for patrolling federal lands along the 

southwest border indicated that they have experienced delays and 

restrictions in patrolling and monitoring due to the public lands 

issues. And specifically they noted it has routinely taken several 

months for the Border Patrol to obtain permission from land managers to move mobile surveillance systems because of the need to 

perform the complete environmental historical assessments. Sometimes the Border Patrol notices that by the time they get permission it has been several months and the need has changed and the 

traffic has shifted. Are you aware of these kinds of delays? If so, 

what are we doing to mitigate the problem? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Flake, thank you for your question and let me say that the Department of the Interior recognizes 

the role that we play on the southern border where 41 percent of 

those lands are managed by Interior, either as wildlife refuges, national parks, BLM lands, or tribal lands. I personally have taken 

three trips as Secretary of the Interior to different parts of the border including, one to the Tucson sector which you discussed. We 

have a good working relationship with Homeland Security and the 

Border Patrol. We addressed the issues on border crossings and I 

believe the best thing that happened in the last several years is the 

relationship we now have is a very coordinated response. We have 

I think at least 100 law enforcement officers working very closely 

with the Border Patrol of Homeland Security to make sure we are 

doing the right things to secure the border. 

Mr. FLAKE. So taking several months in some cases to get permission for the mobile surveillance unit to change no longer occurs? 

Secretary SALAZAR. You know because I was at Tucson sector 

and I actually spoke with the officials both from Interior as well 

as from the other agencies involved. I can tell you as issues have 

arisen we have made sure we are addressing them as quickly and 

as effectively as we can. I think problems that were there historically are not problems, at least that was reported to me by the different federal agencies I met with when I was in Tucson sector. 

Mr. FLAKE. Specifically in the Oregon Pipe National Monument 

GAO reported that ‘‘when border patrol requested additional access, the monument’s land manager determined that additional 

border patrol access would not necessarily improve protection of 

natural resources.’’ Obviously that is something that has to be 

taken into account. But how do land managers factor into decision 

making the effect on border security? How are those decisions 

made and who is consulted? Is that a decision made locally? Does 

it go up the chain? Of course you would say, ‘‘yeah, it might have 

an effect on the environment if you put a mobile unit here but that 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
603 

is not our only consideration.’’ I would just like to have some sense 

of how those decisions are made. 

Secretary SALAZAR. The decisions made are intended to achieve 

the objective of securing the border. The task forces we have put 

together under the MOU which we have with Homeland Security 

are intended to do that. As issues arise we have a person who is 

in charge of coordination on these border security issues. To the extent, Congressman Flake, that you have specific examples, of issues 

of concern I would be happy to address those. When I was at the 

Tucson sector what I did was I pulled together all of the federal 

agencies who were involved on the border security issue. When I 

was informed by the lead from each one of the agencies within 

those Tucson sectors that the issues between the different agencies 

which caused historic problems, which I think were addressed in 

the GAO report, that we have addressed those issues effectively. If 

we have not I want to know. 

Mr. FLAKE. So you have an individual there that we can contact 

to address that issue? 

Secretary SALAZAR. We do in the Tucson sector as well as we 

have a person who is overall in charge of border security within the 

Department of Interior. 

Mr. FLAKE. I met with several of the ranchers when I was there 

and they have a lot of issues. They have issues with the border patrol sometimes not being actually on the border, but rather inland 

a little too far. They did note that they work well with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service on the preserves and I appreciate that. 

SOUTHWEST BORDER MITIGATION

Let me just talk for a second about mitigation efforts. In a letter 

to the Department of Homeland Security, Representative Bishop 

noted that between 2007 and 2009, Homeland Security provided 

about $10 million for mitigation projects. There is also an agreement that an additional $50 million in mitigation funds be transferred, if they have not already. Obviously the mitigation efforts 

Homeland Security undertakes are due to impacts to the environment in wilderness areas. But, if you take Oregon Pipe National 

Monument for example, everyone has noted the prevalence of trash 

and other things that come with illegal immigration. How is that 

factored in? Is not having greater control or monitoring, and not 

just allowing hot pursuits but allowing more effective monitoring, 

a benefit? Does that impact some of the mitigation, or lessen the 

need for some of the mitigation costs, because it is actually a help 

to the wilderness areas? If we stop illegal immigration through 

these areas, a lot of the problems that we see that are very detrimental to the environment there are helped out. And yet, it seems 

that the Department of Homeland Security is paying mitigation 

costs for simply doing the job that we need to do. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Let me say first, I think when anybody litters on our public lands whether they are here illegally or whether 

they are here legally, it is wrong. Frankly there is too much littering that happens in our public lands all across the country. The 

question on Oregon Pipe specifically—I have flown over it. I have 

visited it and I recognize the whole issue of border security has a 

consequence on the national park itself and on the ecological values 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
604 

associated with the national park. The mitigation monies were 

agreed upon as provisions of the law and the funding by the Congress to build a fence between Mexico and the United States. It 

was intended to mitigate against the ecological consequences of the 

fences being built. Frankly in many of those areas the kind of fencing that has gone in has been sensitive to some of the ecological 

concerns that we had. Notwithstanding, there are still these issues 

we are working through to make sure there is appropriate mitigation for areas where the environment is being impacted. We are 

working very closely with Homeland Security to make sure those 

measures are appropriate. 

Mr. FLAKE. All right, just in closing I just want to say that the 

nature of border crossings have changed substantially over the 

year. It used to be the exception to the rule that crossers would 

have ties to smuggling rings or drug cartels. Now, it is almost the 

exception that they are not. And the detrimental impacts on the 

environment, and more particularly in Arizona on the taxpayers 

with respect to healthcare, education, and criminal justice costs, 

are substantial. If we could have a better working relationship between the land managers on our federal lands near the border and 

our federal agents who are charged with protecting them, it would 

help us all. And so I look forward to working with you on that. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Appreciate that very much. Let me just say 

in closing, I spoke in my opening comments about importance of 

conservation. The national parks and refuges and BLM lands are 

part of the economic engine of America. As we look at the difficult 

economic times we are facing as a country, looking at places like 

Oregon Pipe and so many of the other natural resources, assets you 

have in Arizona I believe need to be looked at in that perspective 

as well. For me when I am in the border country as I was in Oregon Pipe, I recognize that there are parts of it which have been 

closed because of issues relating to criminality on narco-trafficking. 

It is an issue of great concern to me. I think there are ways in 

which we can continue to work together, Congressman Flake. I 

know that you have a particular interest in the area and I look forward to working with you to see how we can move forward. Secretary Napolitano spends a great amount of her time working on 

these issues and I think this is another place where there is a possibility we can put together a bipartisan way forward as we deal 

with these border security issues. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mrs. Lummis. 

COSTS OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, my first 

couple questions are about the implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act and its costs. What is your most recent report on how 

many Endangered Species Act listed species have recovered and 

been delisted and at what cost to the taxpayers? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Let me ask whether the Deputy Secretary or 

would the Budget Director have an answer to the question. If we 

do not we can try to get something back to you that will be the response. I will say this, Congresswoman, as you look at the issue of 

endangered species you know just over the last several years in our 

delisting of the whooping crane and other iconic species I think it 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
605 

is important to recognize that there have been major successes 

with respect to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. 

For our children and our grandchildren, I think it is important that 

they will be able to know a bald eagle or a golden eagle or a whooping crane still walks this planet. We do have significant successes 

in terms of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. 

Now it does not mean it is perfect. It does not mean it cannot 

be improved. I think Congressmen Calvert earlier was mentioning 

how we should be perhaps looking at multispecies conservation in 

a better way. A lot of what we are trying to do with the landscape 

conservation cooperatives is trying to look at how we can manage 

a habitat in a better way that is more effective. If there are ways 

in which we can improve it then we will be doing it. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Now I share your interest in conserving species 

and in species diversity in America. I am just curious about which 

ones really have been successfully recovered and delisted. 

Secretary SALAZAR. You know what we could do is I can get you 

a list, Congresswoman Lummis, on that exact question on which 

species happen to be covered and which ones have been delisted. 

We can get it to you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And are you able to assign costs to those programs? 

Secretary SALAZAR. We will get you information. I do not know 

how precise it will be but we will get you some information on cost. 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLVES

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Thanks very much. You may be aware that 

with regard to wolves in the Rocky Mountains, the original goal 

was 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves and that was going to be the 

initial recovery goal. Right now the official count is more than 

1,600 wolves and 113 breeding pairs and the real number is probably higher. That is just the latest official count. At the same time 

we have seen one herd of elk and another of moose just decimated. 

It is the moose in the Gros Ventre in Wyoming and the Lolo elk 

herd in Montana that have been the most decimated by wolf recovery. 

And so my question is about the cost of balancing the recovery 

of wolves with other species that are sacrificed in the process. At 

what point is the Department obligated to step in and prevent the 

complete destruction of the Gros Ventre moose herd which is declined by 90 percent in terms of survivability of the young moose 

calves and the same with the Lolo elk herd. It has been a 90 percent mortality of the calves in the elk herd at Lolo. When do you 

step in? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Well, I think the events of the last several 

years have indicated where we are very clearly. We believe the wolf 

population in the Northern Rocky Mountains has been recovered. 

I think the numbers tell us that. I think the numbers in Wyoming 

as well tell us that. The law requires us to make sure we have recovery programs in place. Idaho certainly has done that as has 

Montana. Wyoming, we believe, needs to improve on its recovery 

program and we are engaged in very constructive conversations 

right now with Governor Mead. Hopefully we will be able to move 

forward with a program that one, keeps the wolf from going extinct 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
606 

and is on the program where we can take it off of the endangered 

species list. And two, allows management of the population that 

will include the hunts which have been authorized in places like 

Idaho and Montana. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, you know I appreciate our different perspectives on this. I can tell you that this issue is the biggest source of 

frustration for not only people in Wyoming but for hunters who 

want to, and who have spent a lot of money to restore a very robust 

elk and moose population that is now being decimated by a predator who was introduced under the nonessential experimental population section of the ESA. 

WILD LANDS

Be that as it may, I will move on now and talk about wild lands 

which is also creating some interesting conversations in my State 

of Wyoming. I know you issued your wild lands initiative in December and last week issued further guidance on the wild lands program and the guidance indicates that the BLM field offices must 

inventory all its lands for wilderness characteristics, then during 

the RMP process the lands have to be protected so as not to foreclose on the option of designating them as wild lands in the final 

plan. The catch I see is that the authority to designate WSA’s 

ended in 1993. So my first question is what do you believe is the 

authority that you possess to prioritize wild lands above other designations? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Since the Deputy Secretary was involved in 

helping me draft the Secretarial Order, he can look at the law as 

well as I have. I will have him answer the question because I think 

I had answered it as well. 

Mr. HAYES. Congresswoman, the authority is Section 201 and 

202 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act. This is not Section 603 Wilderness Study Area Designation, that did expire. The 

general provisions in FLPMA per the Secretary’s previous comments give the BLM the authority, really the responsibility to determine which of the multiple uses make the most sense for a given 

area of public lands and at a certain time that can be managing 

for wilderness characteristics. That is not for all time. That is why 

the RMP process is so important, the planning process. 

This is a public process, there is essentially a two step process. 

One, identify the lands with wilderness characteristics. Then have 

a public process and decide during this period of the management 

plan—are we going to have leasing for oil and gas in those areas? 

What uses are we going to have or should we during the period of 

the RMP process keep those wilderness characteristics and keep 

them in conservation from hunting, angling, and other sorts of 

uses. Those decisions can be revisited with the next RMP. This is 

not a permanent designation. It is not a permanent protection. 

That is for Congress to do. Only Congress can make a permanent 

wilderness area designation. This is just common sense looking out 

and deciding what to do. 

The circumstance where we saw this need really, Congresswoman Lummis, was the situation in Utah where there is a huge 

amount of land that has wilderness characteristics that was recently inventoried in connection with the last RMP. There is no 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
607 

guidance provided to our BLM folks, industry folks, recreation folks 

as to how to manage that landscape, no guidance whatsoever. Decisions should be made as part of the RMP so folks will know whether those lands are going to continue to be managed with wilderness 

characteristics and identified as wild lands or perhaps some of 

them not because they are close to oil and gas and there are some 

resources there that should be developed. The idea is to have clear 

guidance. 

In the absence of guidance in Utah virtually 50 percent of every 

oil and gas lease is now protested because a lot of those are in 

these areas with wilderness characteristics. There is no guidance so 

they are protested. We want more clarity from all parties involved. 

We think the RMP process and public process is the right way to 

go to provide that clarity. 

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Deputy Secretary. I would also like to talk a little bit about some energy development issues. On May 10 of 2010, Interior issued a directive 

that state offices must reform their leasing procedures for oil and 

gas development. You have delayed approval of leases for an additional year to 14 months due to the additional process that is going 

to be required in my state, which of course delays the production 

and the jobs and the revenue. At the same time your budget request in the fiscal year 2012 touts your approval of 12 renewable 

projects on public land that when operable are worth 4,000 

megawatts of energy. There are budget increases proposed for 

funding solar and wind but decreases for conventional fuels. Of 

course you know in my state in the Green River Formation in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado as well there is enough oil shale to supply the entire U.S. with energy for somewhere in between 100 and 

400 years. And so I am curious about these 12 renewable projects 

on public land that are still not on line and how many taxpayer 

dollars were spent to approve those while we are not approving traditional sources that are sustainable over the next century and 

multiple centuries? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis. If I 

may, bottom line is we continue to approve permits for oil and gas 

drilling on public lands and I think the record will speak for itself. 

In 2010, we approved about 5,000 permits and in 2011 we expect 

we will approve 7,000 permits. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, maybe for purposes of the record I ought to review some of 

the energy information. I think it is important to you and to this 

committee to understand it. First, we have had a decrease in oil 

imports over the last several years. We are down from importing 

60 percent of foreign oil to 50 percent in 2010. That is an important 

thing to happen. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Secretary, is that because we are producing 

more energy in the United States? 

Secretary SALAZAR. We are as a matter of fact. In the last 2 

years the oil production from the Federal U.S. Outer Continental 

Shelf has increased by more than a third from 446 million barrels 

to 600 million barrels in 2010. On the lands you are concerned 

about, onshore public lands, the production increased by five perVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00607 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
608 

cent over the last year. The total U.S. natural gas production in 

2010 in the United States was a five percent increase over 2008 

and is at its highest level for more than 30 years. I could continue 

to review more statistics, but the point I want to emphasize here 

is we have had a program that has said oil and gas is essential to 

the energy economy of the United States of America and we have 

been implementing the program. 

The reform issues you raised are in part trying to address the 

uncertainty created with all the protests and all the litigation occurring when we came into office. By having a roadmap knowing 

where it is appropriate to develop oil and gas and where it is not 

will help us in the development of our oil and gas resources in the 

right places, and that is what those reforms are. 

URANIUM

Mrs. LUMMIS. I would like to switch, Mr. Secretary, to a question 

about uranium deposits in Arizona. You issued a draft EIS that 

has one alternative for a full withdrawal of an area carved out of 

the Arizona wilderness that would disallow extraction of high quality uranium that is near but not in Grand Canyon National Park. 

And producers of uranium in Wyoming tell me that that would be 

a real blow to domestic uranium production even if Wyoming’s resources came online. Because as you know, we import 90 percent 

of the uranium that we consume here in the United States in our 

own nuclear facilities. And so my question is does the draft EIS indicate a threat exists of irreparable environmental harm from the 

time of exploration to mining that has gone on that is significant 

enough to justify a withdrawal or even a partial withdrawal? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Let me say in the EIS there are, I believe, 

four alternatives from no action to the withdrawal of I think 1.1 

billion acres to numbers in between. I think it is important to say 

the Grand Canyon and its water resources and the importance of 

maintaining the quality of those water resources are important to 

the seven states sharing the water of the Colorado River and important to the economy of all of those states. 

In addition, we also recognize that nuclear energy is part of our 

energy future. It is a part of the President’s energy program and 

there are resources available within the United States. We will 

move forward with the process in the Grand Canyon to reach a decision, that is a best decision to protect national interests and will 

not prejudge the outcome of the EIS process which is underway at 

this point in time. I will suffice it to say it is an important enough 

issue that I have been involved in the issue for the last several 

years and will continue to be involved until we make the final decision. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Secretary, do you know whether the draft EIS 

indicated that the threat exists of irreparable environmental harm? 

Did it say that in the draft EIS anywhere? 

Secretary SALAZAR. In the draft EIS I will say this, the decisions 

I made on the temporary withdrawal were in fact based on the possibility of irreparable harm. When you look at the water issues and 

the other interests which we are protecting at the Grand Canyon 

National Park and that environment, my view is this is a serious 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
609 

issue that merited the kind of consideration it was getting through 

the EIS processes involved. 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLVES

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to just 

make a personal plea to the Secretary that in working with Governor Mead on the issue of wolves that you give it the most sincere 

effort you can muster. When I go home the wolf issue dominates 

discussions over things that should be higher priorities in Wyoming, and more important issues to our country in my opinion. It 

is because of the loss of hunting opportunities and the number of 

third and fourth generation outfitters that are going out of business in these areas—families that are looking for work elsewhere 

because their family outfitting business has gone under. 

In Wyoming those businesses go under because hunters cannot 

get elk permits. These little businesses are in the areas of Cody, 

Dubois, Jackson, Star Valley, those are all the areas where the 

wolves are reducing the number of animals that can be hunted, so 

of course, the Game and Fish issues fewer permits. 

So I will tell you there are cultural and jobs involved in the management of these issues. I would appreciate your most sincere and 

earnest intention in working with Governor Mead to try to develop 

a solution. And thank you for your testimony today. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

LITIGATION COSTS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Secretary Salazar for being here today. 

I would suggest before we close this hearing that as you know 

there are differences of opinion obviously on the Wild Land designation of this country—I think it is going to increase losses because I think every decision you make on Wild Lands, whether you 

are going to allow for oil and gas drilling or wind turbines or recreation or whatever, you will be sued over it. That is a concern to 

me and I would like at some point in time to get into a broader 

discussion how much of your budget is actually spent to try to defend your decisions in court. How much money have you spent in 

court rather on managing the lands? Between the Interior and the 

Forest Service, I think it is huge amounts of money. And yet on 

the other hand you do not want to take away people’s rights to 

have a say in how we manage our public lands. How do we do that? 

How do we find some compromise where we can maintain people’s 

rights to have a say in management of the lands but not spend so 

darn much money in court and instead spend it on the management of our public lands. 

So I will be happy to work with you on the Wild Lands issue. 

I know that there—I am tempted to ask since Mr. Moran, my good 

friend, came back, how many proposals or acres in Upstate New 

York or Alexandria is BLM looking at to designate as wild lands, 

but I am not going to ask that. There are many other questions 

that we have but most of them will be for the bureau heads, whether it is the wild horse program and the amount of money which we 

are spending on trying to maintain that herd and what we are 

doing there. I think the request this year is something like $78 million or something like that. Whether it is the Idaho bull trout—I 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
610 

will ask Fish and Wildlife Service about that, its impact on them. 

But I do appreciate you being here today and taking the time and 

answering the questions of the committee. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman would you yield for a moment since 

this came up—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Not if you are going to respond to what. 

Mr. MORAN. No, I am not now, that is—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. I know. 

Mr. MORAN. Since this has come up so much, the legal cost, 

maybe you could supply us with a figure on the percentage of the 

budget that is attributable to legal defense in the court system? I 

know Mrs. Lummis has raised that on many more than one occasion, so let’s just find out what it actually is costing in terms of the 

rest of the program. Whether it is—really is debilitating our ability 

to implement other programs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. If I could, it is not—and I do not know how you 

come up with this—It is not just the amount of money you are 

spending in court. It is the amount of money you are also spending 

trying to make a decision bulletproof so that it is not taken to 

court. I have asked a former chief of the Forest Service, I said how 

much money when you make a decision to do, say, a timber cut, 

how much of the money is spent actually making what is you consider a good, sound, scientific decision and how much trying to 

make it bulletproof in court because you know you are going to end 

up in court? And he said depending on the decision, probably somewhere between 25 and 50 percent is making what we believe to be 

a good, sound, scientific decision, between 50 and 75 percent trying 

to make it bulletproof. How much money are we spending that we 

should be spending on managing our public lands that end up in 

court in trying to prevent it from going to court that ultimately you 

are not going to preempt it? So it is a difficult issue. And if somebody has the answer to it I would be a happy camper and retire 

happy. 

Mr. COLE. The answer is loser pays, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MORAN. It would be good to get a sense of you know if you 

have any idea of what that is costing us and you know what the 

risk such as C–Y–A policy. You know if a risk adverse approach it 

would be good to know how much that is factoring in the decision 

making. Fifty percent seems a little high, but you know what I 

think both sides are going to go up in understanding. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Moran, we will get some information to you that will be responsive 

to your question. I have a personal view on this and I do think so 

much of the money that ends up being spent on litigation could be 

avoided if we were smart relative to what we do with respect to our 

planning for conservation. When you look at, for example, the 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, I think Congressman Calvert raised the question about how we manage more multispecies 

when we are appealing with issues in southern California. 

So much of it has to do with how we manage the habitat that 

will serve multiple species. Part of what we have right now in place 

is such a high level of fragmentation, we are not able to do that. 

Because of the silos some of you have addressed we are not able 

to do that very effectively across the public lands and with the priVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00610 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
611 

vate land owners as well on the willing, voluntary participation approach. As we move forward with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, that is an effort to try to manage these issues across 

a whole landscape as opposed to coming in and dealing with one 

species at a time and one issue at a time. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

I would submit to you that I know one of the major questions 

this committee has raised questions about today is the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund of $900 million in the President’s budget. 

I think when we look at the United States today in 2010 and have 

a population of 307 million people, but we know that by the year 

2040 our population is going to increase by more than 100 million, 

where are we going to shoehorn in those 100 million people in a 

way that allows us to make sure we still continue our conservation 

ethic? We hope to move a couple million of them into Wyoming, 

Congresswoman Lummis. Maybe a few into Oklahoma, but there is 

an urgency in my view to be proactive in terms of how we do conservation planning over the future. A way of doing it in a way like 

I illustrated with the Foothills National Conservation Area in Kansas where we can take care of these lands protect private property 

rights, protect the ranchers and farmers and at the same time 

make sure we are doing right by the way of protecting critical habitats. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I have you know—I agree with you. One of 

the reasons we have been working on some wilderness legislation 

in Idaho and other things is that I honestly think these lands that 

become wilderness designations are going to become more important in the future rather than less as we get more and more people. 

We are going to look for places we are not going to get away from 

people, you know. How can you go—how can you find solitude in 

this world? And I think those states that have those are going to 

be increasingly sought after. And that is why we have tried to resolve some of those issues and help. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would add that the acquisition, 

because of that very point, the acquisition of property by the federal government I do not believe is always the best answer. I think 

frequently the best answer is the acquisition of conservation easements on working landscapes. You get three times the bang for 

your buck if you have a conservation easement versus acquiring fee 

title to the property. In addition, the steward of the land comes 

with the land. So you do not have the same management issues of 

having either an absentee land owner or a semi-absentee land 

owner. There are so many advantages to conservation easements as 

a tool that we should be using more of rather than acquisition of 

these simple acts would. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I can understand the tax incentives and so on, 

too, but the only thing I was going to raise with regard to what 

the Secretary was saying, Mr. Chairman, is if we are going to expand our populations as has been done into the southwest Nevada, 

Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Wyoming is not really in the 

southwest, but in particularly in those southwest areas, the quantity and quality of our water supply is just so essential and a lot 

of this land acquisition is so we can maintain the water sources 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
612 

that—a lot of what Interior is doing is trying to maintain those 

water sources. And if you can go back into why we established the 

National Forest and the National Parks a lot of them was to try 

to—you know we had deluded these forests and we had to acquire 

the land to clean it up so we could get the water flowing smoothly 

and not allow it to become filled with sediment and contaminants. 

So anyway, I know there are probably are some areas where we 

can find agreement and I certainly appreciate your testimony and 

your leadership, Mr. Secretary. I know the Chairman does as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Again, thank you, Secretary Salazar. 

It has been a pleasure to work with you over the past years. I look 

forward to working with you to solve some of these problems. 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is my honor. Thank you, sir. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
613 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1028 here 66892B.022
614 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1029 here 66892B.023
615 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1030 here 66892B.024
616 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1031 here 66892B.025
617 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1032 here 66892B.026
618 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1033 here 66892B.027
619 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1034 here 66892B.028
620 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1035 here 66892B.029
621 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1036 here 66892B.030
622 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1037 here 66892B.031
623 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1038 here 66892B.032
624 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1039 here 66892B.033
625 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1040 here 66892B.034
626 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1041 here 66892B.035
627 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1042 here 66892B.036
628 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1043 here 66892B.037
629 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1044 here 66892B.038
630 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1045 here 66892B.039
631 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1046 here 66892B.040
632 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1047 here 66892B.041
633 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1048 here 66892B.042
634 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1049 here 66892B.043
635 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1050 here 66892B.044
636 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1051 here 66892B.045
637 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1052 here 66892B.046
638 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1053 here 66892B.047
639 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1054 here 66892B.048
640 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1055 here 66892B.049
641 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1056 here 66892B.050
642 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1057 here 66892B.051
643 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 66892B.052
644 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1059 here 66892B.053
645 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1060 here 66892B.054
646 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1061 here 66892B.055
647 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1062 here 66892B.056
648 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1063 here 66892B.057
649 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1064 here 66892B.058
650 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1065 here 66892B.059
651 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1066 here 66892B.060
652 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1067 here 66892B.061
653 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1068 here 66892B.062
654 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 66892B.063
655 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 66892B.064
656 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1071 here 66892B.065
657 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 66892B.066
658 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 66892B.067
659 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 66892B.068
660 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 66892B.069
661 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 66892B.070
662 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 66892B.071
663 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 66892B.072
664 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 66892B.073
665 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 66892B.074
666 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 66892B.075
667 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 66892B.076
668 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 66892B.077
669 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 66892B.078
670 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 66892B.079
671 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 66892B.080
672 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 66892B.081
673 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 66892B.082
674 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 66892B.083
675 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1090 here 66892B.084
676 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1091 here 66892B.085
677 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1092 here 66892B.086
678 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1093 here 66892B.087
679 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1094 here 66892B.088
680 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1095 here 66892B.089
681 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1096 here 66892B.090
682 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1097 here 66892B.091
683 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1098 here 66892B.092
684 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1099 here 66892B.093
685 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1100 here 66892B.094
686 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1101 here 66892B.095
687 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1102 here 66892B.096
688 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1103 here 66892B.097
689 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1104 here 66892B.098
690 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1105 here 66892B.099
691 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1106 here 66892B.100
692 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1107 here 66892B.101
693 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1108 here 66892B.102
694 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1109 here 66892B.103
695 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1110 here 66892B.104
696 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1111 here 66892B.105
697 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1112 here 66892B.106
698 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1113 here 66892B.107
699 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1114 here 66892B.108
700 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1115 here 66892B.109
701 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1116 here 66892B.110
702 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1117 here 66892B.111
703 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1118 here 66892B.112
704 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1119 here 66892B.113
705 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1120 here 66892B.114

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(707) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESSES 

JONATHAN JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

MARGARET ‘‘PEGGY’’ O’DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The committee will come to order. 

Director Jarvis, I want to thank you and your colleagues for 

being with us today to discuss the work of the Park Service and 

your priorities for the coming year. I am going to keep my comments brief so that we can hear from you and provide members the 

opportunity to ask questions before we attend this morning’s joint 

session with the prime minister of Australia. 

I want to make two observations. First, your budget request for 

next year makes some decisions that I find a little bit puzzling. On 

the one hand, the budget request for the Park Service land acquisition represents a $234 million increase over the enacted 2010 level. 

That is an unprecedented increase in just 2 years. On the other 

hand, the budget request cuts construction funding by $77 million. 

It seems to me that we ought to be addressing long-term maintenance and repair needs within our parks before acquiring additional acquisitions that will only add to the historic funding backlog. 

Secondly, I want to commend you and Bruce Sheaffer for the 

progress you have made over the last couple of years to address the 

issue of high unobligated balances within the Rec Fee program. We 

included report language in the fiscal year 2010 bill raising concerns over these high balances and directing the Park Service to 

take corrective action. When we first raised this issue, the carryover balance was approaching $300 million. Your written testimony 

suggests that this balance is now below $90 million. 

One of our subcommittee’s primary goals is oversight, and your 

work in the Rec Fee program demonstrates that we can work together to meet our common oversight goals. I look forward to focusing on these and other issues this morning. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. SIMPSON. But first let me yield to Mr. Moran for any opening 

remarks he might have. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have some great quotes here but I am not going to take the 

time. Do you want me to? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
708 

Mr. SIMPSON. If it will make you feel better. 

Mr. MORAN. Seriously? Okay. All right. If you want me, Mr. 

Chairman. He is the boss. As one of the prime movers of the national park movement, Chairman Simpson’s old friend John Muir 

wrote: ‘‘Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in 

and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and 

soul.’’ He also wrote: ‘‘Society speaks and all men listen’’—he meant 

to say all men and women listen—‘‘mountains speak and wise people listen.’’ So as the caretaker of so many wonderful places, some 

of the Nation’s preeminent mountains, you have to speak and represent the interests of the mountains, and you also have to lead 

25,000 employees, provide quality services for over 280 million visitors every year and provide all kinds of technical assistance and 

conservation education. 

The fact is with the exception of the Great Outdoors initiative, 

which I do support, this is a very tight budget, but given the importance of the parks to our Nation, I trust that there will be bipartisan support for most, if not all, of your budget requests because 

we need to continue to care for these priceless resources and make 

them safe for our visitors and make sure they last for our children 

and their children to enjoy. 

So we look forward to the hearing, and we will get on with it. 

I am sure we will be able to finish up by 11:00. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DIRECTOR JARVIS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thanks, Jim. As Tommy Smothers once said, I talk 

to the trees but they never listen to me. I do not know if any of 

you are old enough to remember that. 

Thank you. We look forward to hearing from you, Director. 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman and the members, thank you for this 

opportunity to appear before you and present our fiscal 2012 President’s budget request for the National Park Service. If I may, I 

would like to submit the written testimony for the record and just 

summarize here. 

We really appreciate this Committee’s support for the work that 

we do as stewards of our Nation’s most cherished natural and cultural resources. We look forward to continuing to work with you as 

the National Park Service prepares for its second century of stewardship beginning in 2016, this year being our 95th. 

As any resource manager can tell you, wise stewardship sometimes involves making very difficult choices. The National Park 

Service’s fiscal 2012 budget request reflects a careful and serious 

response to the need to reduce federal spending by supporting our 

highest priorities while proposing significant reductions to a number of worthy programs. 

In addition to the program reductions, the budget request includes substantial management savings and efficiencies. The National Park Service is making significant progress in reducing unobligated balances, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. The aim of 

these efforts is a more targeted and focused use of our existing 

funds limited to those strategic areas we have determined to be the 

highest priorities of the National Park Service. By focusing availVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00708 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
709 

able resources on the areas of greatest need, the NPS can maintain 

its existing responsibilities while supporting some new initiatives. 

The fiscal 2012 budget proposes total discretionary spending of $2.9 billion. That is a net increase of $137.8 million above the FY 

2010 appropriation. The budget request includes an increase of 

$39.5 million for park operations that will serve more than 100 

park units. This amount is intended to address operations in new 

parks, support other new responsibilities, improve mission-critical 

operations, engage youth in employment and educational opportunities, and protect historical assets at parks commemorating the 

Civil War sesquicentennial. 

Our operations budget is key to helping us continue to protect 

the critical natural and cultural resources we are entrusted with 

and to serve visitors who this past year numbered 285 million. 

We are supporting the America’s Great Outdoors initiative, 

which includes fully funding the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund programs at $900 million. The Park Service’s budget component of that includes $160 million to acquire around 98,000 acres 

of land within the authorized boundaries of units of the national 

park system. These proposed acquisitions were determined through 

a coordinated process within the Department of Interior among our 

bureaus as well as with the U.S. Forest Service in the Department 

of Agriculture. The criteria we used emphasize opportunities to 

jointly conserve important landscapes, especially river and riparian 

areas, wildlife habitat, urban areas that provide needed recreational and threshold experiences and those containing important 

cultural and historical assets. We also looked at the ability to leverage those funds with partners and with other agencies. Also included in the budget is $200 million for the State side of 

Land and Water Conservation Fund which would enable communities to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities. A portion of 

these funds would be allocated through a competitive component 

targeted at community parks, green spaces, landscape level conservation and recreational waterways. This is a new approach we 

are taking. These grants would address public concern about the 

lack of open space and outdoor recreation areas in certain urban 

and other areas. This was frequently conveyed to us in the listening sessions we held around the country for the America’s Great 

Outdoors Initiative. In conjunction with the State conservation 

grants, the request includes a $1.1 million increase for the NPS 

Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program to assist communities with technical assistance. 

The fiscal 2012 budget maintains funding of $9.9 million for the 

Secretary’s Cooperative Landscape Conservation initiative. This 

will bring together networks of resource professionals and promotes 

science-based understanding of the effects of climate change. This 

will produce practical applications that have broad benefits for resource managers seeking cost-effective approaches to conservation 

in the face of these economic times. 

In order to fulfill these stewardship responsibilities and these 

critical increases, they are offset by some cost savings and some 

program reductions. The proposed budget requests no funding for 

Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America grants programs 

or the Park Partnership Project Grants program. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
710 

The request also eliminates funding for Statutory Aid and proposes significant reductions in Construction and the National Heritage Areas program. It also includes budget efficiencies and savings totaling $46.2 million. 

I would like to speak to you, and we can discuss in the questions 

about the efforts we are taking to restrain spending, but I also 

would like to remind everyone of the economic value of parks. The 

national parks are drivers of economic growth, particularly in gateway and rural communities. They stimulate spending and job creation. Taxpayer investments in the national parks result in far 

more than the obvious recreational and educational dividends. In 

2009, park visitors spent $11.9 billion and supported 247,000 private sector jobs. So it is not just a matter of stewardship but it is 

also a great economic investment. 

In closing, I would just like to say how much we appreciate the 

support of this committee and of all the members here. It has been 

a great relationship and I am sure it will be in the future. 

That concludes my remarks, and I will be pleased to take any 

questions. 

[The statement of Jonathan Jarvis follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
711 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1131 66892B.115
712 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1132 66892B.116
713 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1133 66892B.117
714 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1134 66892B.118
715 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1135 66892B.119
716 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1136 66892B.120
717 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1137 66892B.121
718 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1138 66892B.122
719 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1139 66892B.123
720 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1140 66892B.124
721 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1141 66892B.125
722 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Let us start off with the backlog maintenance. What is the level of backlog maintenance that we currently have, and what would it take in each year to address it to 

get that amount coming down substantially? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, the current level of maintenance backlog—and 

let me just say right up front that the Park Service over the last 

10 years, particularly in the last Administration, put a lot of emphasis to really understand this number, and I think we have a 

better handle on the actual number with a fair amount of real 

quantitative analysis than we have ever had in the past. The number is about $10.8 billion in terms of our total maintenance backlog. The National Park Service has an extraordinary number of assets—buildings, roads, wastewater treatment facilities across the 

country—and it tends to be an old infrastructure, much of it built 

30, 40 years ago. So the maintenance backlog number is quite high. 

Within that subset, though, there are high-priority assets and 

then there are medium-priority assets. What we have been doing 

over the last few years is really beginning to shift our focus to the 

resources that we do have, on our high-priority assets, those that 

rank very high in the asset priority index system, those considered 

mission-critical assets. And then there are some assets that are 

still lumped within that $10.8 billion that are more low priority 

and in some cases we need to focus on actually getting rid of those 

assets and getting them off the books as well. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Assets like what? Do you have some examples? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. In some cases it may be an acquisition of a 

property that has a house on it and the house was acquired as a 

part of the acquisition process and although it is not needed for 

public use, it is still sitting on our books. It was assessed and 

added to our inventory. Those kind of places need to be removed. 

That is one of the priorities that I have set for our regional directors: to look at those and get them off the books and use whatever 

discretionary funding they have to get those down and then to 

focus our funding that we do have. 

I will say, though, I am concerned that the construction budget 

in this budget will not really help us keep up with that. There will 

be a growth in the maintenance backlog as a result of this level of 

funding in terms of the deferred maintenance. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Mr. SIMPSON. Is it wise to do additional land acquisition, to put 

the emphasis on additional land acquisition and decrease that emphasis on our backlog maintenance? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, it is a tradeoff. There is no question about that. 

The Administration put a priority on full funding of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund for this year at $900 million and I believe the Park Service got an appropriate allocation of that request 

both for State side and Federal side, but in these tough economic 

times, of course, it is a tradeoff. Keep in mind, these are inside of 

the boundaries. 

Mr. SIMPSON. All of the proposals are inside the boundaries 

of—— 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
723 

Mr. JARVIS. They are all inholdings, and in all cases there is a 

willing seller. In all cases, frankly, they create some efficiency of 

management in terms of consolidation of assets. So it might appear 

in many cases this is adding cost to us but in most cases it is actually creating a certain level of efficiency for park management. The 

other thing that we did is look at if we are acquiring lands that 

have structures on them that are non-historic that we will work to 

have those removed as a part of the acquisition process so we are 

not adding to the backlog by gaining non-critical assets in the process. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is one of those acquisitions going to solve the problem in Grand Teton? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is. It is going to solve a significant potential threat 

to the Grand Tetons through the acquisition that we recently negotiated with the State of Wyoming to acquire a highly developable 

set of properties right in the center of the Jackson Hole Valley. 

PROGRAM ELIMINATION

Mr. SIMPSON. Part of the funding that you ended was the Park 

Partnership program, Save America’s Treasures. What was the reasoning behind that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I will say up front both of those are good programs, and these were hard decisions we had to make in order to 

reach the bottom line. I think Save America’s Treasures had a positive effect on historic and cultural resources around this country 

and been quite popular within the historic preservation community 

as well. The Park Partnership program was originally the Centennial effort that Secretary Kempthorne and others built, and it was 

a great program for leveraging. It was a program set up to draw 

matching funds from non-Federal sources. But ultimately, in order 

to achieve this particular budget, we gave priority to preserve the 

operational budget of the National Park Service, which is the bread 

and butter, the park operations, the protection of resources, the 

providing of public services on the front line of our 394 units. It 

was certainly my priority to keep that functioning. That is where 

we provide great services to the American public and to communities. Then with the full funding of the LWCF we had to take the 

hits in other places, and those are the ones that were chosen. 

Mr. SIMPSON. In this limited budget year and probably for several years to come, we are going to have to prioritize as we appropriate money in this budget. Is park operations the highest priority 

that you have? 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. From my perspective, I believe park operations provides the primary benefit to the American 

public and to these resources so that is our priority. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Mr. SIMPSON. One other question back on backlog maintenance 

that I forgot to ask, what would it take in terms of an appropriation to start reducing that amount of backlog maintenance? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have been doing quite a bit of analysis on this. 

As a matter of fact, our leadership in the Park Service sat down 

recently to go through this in excruciating detail. We would need 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
724 

to be allocating about $677 million a year (currently allocating 

$590 million a year) to maintain the current level. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

LAND ACQUISITION AND STATE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Jarvis, the land and water conservation program does have 

the one increase that is significant that you mentioned. Would you 

get a bit into how the competitive part of the State side land and 

water conservation program would work? What kind of criteria 

might you follow and what types of projects do you think the States 

are most interested in pursuing? 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great question, 

because it is new. As you know, the State side of Land and Water 

Conservation Fund for many years has been relatively small and 

almost inconsequential but by increasing it, what we wanted to do 

and what we heard from the public in the 51 listening sessions 

around the country related to America’s Great Outdoors, was an interest in urban parks. There was an interest in blueways or waterways, and connectivity to rivers. Secretary Salazar has said many 

times for most of our history we turned our backs to the rivers and 

we are now turning our faces to the rivers and looking at them as 

a strong community asset, but in many cases there is no access. 

Also, there is interest in creating open space and recreational opportunities for young people, and looking for where we can connect 

communities and link up schools, state parks, city parks and those 

kinds of things. Those were the broad criteria that came out of the 

America’s Great Outdoors listening sessions. 

To get down to the next level of specific criteria, we are going to 

be engaging in a discussion with the states. We think that is an 

absolutely essential component. Next week, as a matter of fact, the 

National Recreation and Park Association, the National Association 

of State Park Directors and the National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers, who are the ones that really work 

on the state side, will all be in discussions with us about those criteria specifically because we think that this is a partnership with 

states and cities about how this should be allocated. Plus, there is 

a step or two in the way. The state side of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund allocation is based on each state’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, or SCORP, and so we are 

going to be working with the states over this coming year to amend 

their SCORP so that every state in the country will be competitive 

for this new process. Forty percent of the money will still be equally distributed to the States. Sixty percent of the $195 million will 

be for competitive grants; and, $5 million will be for administration. 

Mr. MORAN. Great. I think personally that is a terrific idea, the 

states participating partners in what you develop, and we get some 

real innovative approaches that can then be replicated in other 

comparable areas, so it is terrific. 

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES

Ms. O’Dell may want to address this. You have got a $39.5 million increase in the base park operations for more than 100 park 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
725 

sites but on the other hand, the budget has decreases for management efficiencies and there is no clarification of what specifically 

that is all about. So maybe you could better explain how the park 

base increase is going to be used and to what extent, though, that 

is offset by these other across-the-board cuts. 

Mr. JARVIS. I will take that. The total in terms of management 

efficiencies was $46 million, which is roughly a 2 percent reduction 

across our many programs, though in theory it is focused strategically on some areas. There are areas that we have already begun 

to apply some efficiencies: travel, for one. The Park Service has a 

travel ceiling that we have imposed administratively, much to the 

chagrin of many of our field folks, while looking to use technology, 

such as video conferencing and teleconferencing, to reduce our overall costs in travel. We have also consolidated some of our operations, particularly in the administrative fields, such as human resources and contracting, focusing them into servicing offices and 

consolidating those kinds of things. There is also a reduction in 

there in terms of supplies and materials. In some cases, that makes 

sense but, frankly, there is lack of a plan about how that is actually going to work. 

The challenge with the National Park Service is that we are geographically distributed across the country. We have parks from the 

Virgin Islands to America Samoa, and it is difficult for them to 

share the same pile of gravel. But at the same time, we are attempting to mine as many efficiencies in the organization as possible. 

Mr. MORAN. We have got this kind of stuff throughout the budget, these management efficiencies. So this is not a new concept. 

How successful have you been in the past roughly in achieving it, 

you know, whether it is waste, fraud and abuse, management efficiencies or whatever, across-the-board cuts? When I was a budget 

officer, we used to round things out that way, if we could not quite 

balance the budget. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, ultimately it comes down to in many cases as 

an across-the-board reduction, and so each park winds up with a 

1 or 2 percent reduction in their overall operating costs. So you get 

on one hand 100 or so parks get a base increase, $39 million distributed and then everybody takes a 1 or 2 percent reduction. Park 

superintendents are smart people and they figure out where they 

can find that efficiency. One of the things we have been doing 

around the service is, there are assets that can be shared between 

parks, there are positions that can be shared, there is equipment 

that can be shared when parks are in relative proximity. In Idaho, 

I know parks such as Craters of the Moon and Nez Perce and others share individuals such as safety officers and others. So instead 

of every park having one of everything, there can be those kinds 

of efficiencies that can be mined. 

NATIONAL MALL

Mr. MORAN. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have one other area of inquiry that I wanted to get into. Do you want to do a second round 

or do you want me to raise it now? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
726 

National Mall—I think it is a problem frankly. It needs to be 

cleaned up. It needs to look a little better and a lot of it is just because so many people use it. It is going to look frayed eventually. 

So I would like to know what is in this budget for the National 

Mall and the extent to which you think the nonprofit sector could 

be raising additional revenue to do some of the restoration that is 

needed, and I have a couple of follow-up suggestions on that. 

Mr. JARVIS. I am going to ask Deputy Director Peggy O’Dell to 

take that question as she served not only as the Superintendent of 

the Mall but also as the Regional Director for the National Capital 

Region. 

Ms. O’DELL. Thank you for that question, Mr. Moran. I know you 

have been a great supporter of the Mall for years, so I appreciate 

that. 

I will start with the second half of your question. The Trust for 

the National Mall has grown in the last 3 years to be a very viable 

nonprofit for us. They have completed a feasibility study that says 

they will be an effective fundraiser at a very high level at about 

the $350 million level over about 7 years. They are working hand 

in glove with the park staff to determine the best way to apply 

those private dollars that supplement the appropriation that we 

have for the National Mall going forward. The increases that we 

requested for the National Mall include a base increase for the operation of the new Martin Luther King Memorial that will be opening this August, which is a critical facility to staff, and we are requesting to continue to invest in the turf improvements for the 

grass on the Mall. We are making sure that our management practices will support keeping that turf in good condition. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I want to direct this to the chairman as 

well. There are going to be innumerable demands for more museums and memorial sites on the National Mall, and all of them have 

their political support base, and if you have a memorial for one ethnicity or cause, every other group is going to want something similar. 

Now, to accommodate them all without violating the intent of the 

Commemorative Works Act, which is authorized in the legislation, 

it would seem that we need to do what Congress did a century ago 

with regard to the Lincoln Memorial, and that is to expand or enlarge the mall on available nearby federal land. None of the current federal plans address this mall expansion or the larger future 

needs of the mall across jurisdiction, whether it be the Smithsonian, the Park Service, the National Gallery, Architect of the Capitol, Department of Agriculture and so on, so they all have jurisdiction over some federal land. But these are ad hoc expansion plans 

we are dealing with now. You know, they float around there, 

groups come to see us. We do not want to say no. And they want 

everything on the mall. We need more of a unifying concept, it 

would seem, but most of the land is under Interior’s jurisdiction 

designated by Congress for future memorials. 

Now, there is a private group of scholars, designers, academics 

that want a larger, more visionary planning effort to go forward. 

I think you are familiar with it. What do you think about that, a 

larger concept of the mall so we do not throw everything into this 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
727 

already crowded space trying to accommodate everybody’s interests? Have you given some thought to that? 

Ms. O’DELL. We have, Mr. Moran, and I would say that we largely have that already with the way that Congress has structured the 

Commemorative Works Act that protects what we know today as 

the Mall proper by having it designated as the reserve and then 

the land bordering that is Area One, and it takes a lot of Congressional support to get any future monuments or memorials in that 

area. In addition to that, we have a citywide plan that has been 

developed in concert with the District that designates memorial 

sites throughout the city, which in effect does what that group was 

calling for: to enlarge the space of the National Mall. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, they need to call it the Mall. For example, 

West Potomac Park, we have land there. I want to register this 

concern because it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our generation 

particularly thinks every iconic figure needs their own memorial 

and no generation is going to be as important as our generation, 

and we really ought to be doing a better job of preserving space for 

future generations. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Part of the problem with the Mall is that we love 

it to death. It is overused. There has been some contention about 

the Folk Life Festival that the Smithsonian puts on regarding the 

use and so forth and where the displays are located. Have you 

worked with them? Are we resolving the issue for the coming year? 

Mr. JARVIS. I will take a shot at that. Actually, let me just suggest that, frankly, for maybe the first time, we have very strong 

support in the Administration to really protect the Mall and invest 

in it. I think Solar Decathlon is a perfect example of where we 

were able to find a solution. Actually, Peggy was the lead on that. 

They are still holding the event, but in West Potomac Park not 

here on the main part of the Mall. It satisfies their desire to be in 

downtown Washington but not right in the center, and that was a 

fight. Frankly, there was a lot of interest and a lot of pressure on 

both sides. Secretary Salazar stood up for us and said no, we are 

not going to allow these large impactful events to occur on the 

Mall. That has been our position for a long time. We have been 

working very closely with the Smithsonian to still have the Festival 

of American Folk Life on the Mall but reduce its impact. And then 

part of the design of the Mall, the record of decision that we signed 

last year really begins to look at the Mall and to create these 

spaces that are hardened and protected and have the infrastructure that can manage these things and not have negative long-term 

impacts. I think we are on a good path with the Mall. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, I will tell you that most people who come to 

Washington from Idaho who have never been here before see pictures of the Mall and they see the aerial photographs and everything is green and beautiful, and the biggest complaint they have 

when I talk to them is how disappointed they were in how rundown the Mall is—not that we do not maintain it but that it is just 

rundown from overuse—and I think you will find great support 

among this subcommittee and Congress in general for bringing the 

mall up to the standards that I think we all expect it to be. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
728 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, the ARRA funding is a really great first investment, about $34 million. We are working on the reflecting pool 

right now and then we are taking the Mall piece by piece. 

I mean, it was never designed, like you would a sports field. The 

Mall has a thin layer of organic soil and clay and grass—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. We went out a couple years ago and tried to dig 

into it. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, it is hard as a rock. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I am still trying to fix my leg. 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, you are making me feel very guilty. I 

just ran a couple miles there this morning. Maybe I should stop 

running on it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is the problem. There are too many people 

running on it. 

Mr. JARVIS. You are compacting the soil out there, Congressman. 

SAVE AMERICA’S TREASURES GRANTS

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three things I 

want to touch on. First is more just a comment. 

Save America’s Treasures, I was very disappointed in the President’s decision to do that, and I understand that there is a limited 

amount of funds and we have to make tough choices, but it was 

a collaboration. It was a collaboration many times that connected 

the Park Service with urban core and small rural areas to save another story. The national parks tell one story but there is another 

story of the different cultures that came together to weave the fabric of our society. So I am struggling in this tough time. We are 

all making sacrifices on what to save and what to protect but 

America’s Treasures is something that also has another ripple effect to it too. In some of the inner cities where they are saving 

some of these historic buildings, they are saving them in older 

parts, the urban areas. The building gets saved. It looks attractive 

to the neighborhood. It has an impact on the economy that sometimes we did not even foresee and then it also is providing opportunities for tradespeople to keep crafts and artisanship going which 

we are close to losing them in this country. So there are many 

parts of Save America’s Treasures, and I just wanted to be on the 

record and I think I am going to try to figure out what I can do 

to be helpful. 

LAND ACQUISITION

The point also about backlog of maintenance and being careful 

about acquisition, Voyageurs National Park was a very contentious 

park when it was founded starting with Barb West. She did a fabulous job when she was the superintendent there. Our current superintendent is not here right now. He is fabulous. But we have a 

chance, and it is number 10 on holdings, to I think resolve, put to 

rest and give some ghosts of Voyageurs National Park a chance to 

move on to the other side. So I really hope as you go through that 

that we are mindful of creating that balance and once-in-a-lifetime 

opportunities. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
729 

So those are more comments to the chair on where my head is 

at on some of this budget process as it deals with the Park Service 

and Save America’s Treasures. 

ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER

All politics is local and so I am going to focus for a second on 

the Minnesota border with the St. Croix River. And by the way, 

just for people who are not familiar, Stillwater is an old river town 

and has an old lift bridge. You call it two lanes. It is basically one. 

Trucks do not belong on there. They get stuck on there. There is 

no weigh station, no one kicks them off. The bridge needs to be replaced. I am for replacing it. The Park Service has never objected 

to the bridge being replaced but just wants it done in a good way. 

So here I go, Mr. Director. In 1996, the Park Service evaluated 

a proposal for a four-lane freeway-style bridge over the lower St. 

Croix. This is in a historic river town. Ten miles down the river, 

there is, by bridge standards, a pretty good bridge called I-94 which 

the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin are looking at adding more 

lanes to. So having said that, they need a bridge. The Park Service 

looked at this in 1996 and concluded that the bridge would irreparably harm their river of scenic and recreational values. So then 

in 2005, when considering another proposal for a freeway-style 

bridge in approximately the same location, the Park Service issued 

a draft. It was a draft evaluation which found that the bridge 

would not adversely affect the river. It was a draft. It was still in 

a working stage. Then in October 2010, after a federal court struck 

down the 2005 evaluation, the Park Service conducted a more thorough evaluation and proposed that in fact the bridge’s scenic and 

recreational impacts would be impaired, so it concluded that this 

massive $700 million bridge could not be built under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. I would like you to talk about the history of how 

the Park Service comes to these conclusions. 

But more importantly, I am concerned about a piece of legislation 

that has been put forward and has been put forward by my colleague Congresswoman Bachmann, and it seeks to reverse the decision of the Park Service last October on the proposed bridge. Now, 

she claims that her bill is not an exemption for the bridge under 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act but I am going to read from the 

legislation. ‘‘Construction of a four-lane highway bridge over the 

lower St. Croix River in accordance with section 7 evaluated by the 

National Park Service October 2005 is hereby deemed to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.’’ Now, it seems to me 

that this is Congress telling the Park Service that it needs to create an exemption, and I am quoting from the legislation, ‘‘hereby 

deemed to be consistent.’’ Can Congress deem things to be consistent and then say it is not an exemption? I want to be really 

clear. A bridge does need to be built there. Stillwater does need relief, and there is a way we can do one with scope and scale and 

save the taxpayers a lot of money and be prudent and efficient with 

what we are doing on the 94 corridor, which also crosses this river. 

So can you tell me, this has got to be happening in other spots than 

just Minnesota, but I am really familiar with Minnesota here. Is 

this Congress telling the Park Service what it should do? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
730 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, these are all great questions and I know this 

issue quite well, and—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. That is why I said Voyageurs is done. We are 

moving on. I have been through Voyageurs and the boundary 

waters. I know you guys tackled the problem. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, we are not afraid of tough issues. And by the 

way, there is a request for land acquisition in Voyageurs in 2012 

for $1.5 million, so we are on track to do some good acquisition 

there. 

In terms of the Stillwater bridge, that particular area of the Wild 

and Scenic River, is an undeveloped section of the shoreline and 

the Park Service has its responsibilities there under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. In the first proposal for that bridge in the 1990s, 

the professional staff of the organization determined that it would 

have a significant impact on the outstanding, remarkable values of 

the Wild and Scenic River for which it was set aside by Congress. 

In 2005, a draft resolution, draft opinion, was built on some work 

around mitigation. There were a variety of design proposals, but a 

lot of it was offsite kinds of mitigation about what would be done. 

When challenged by the court, and that ruling was determined to 

be arbitrary and capricious, as I came on as Director and this issue 

was boiling up, we did a thorough review of the past opinions and 

the past analyses as well as the court’s ruling and determined that 

from a legal standpoint, you really cannot mitigate a direct adverse 

impact on the river with offsite mitigation. That is just not legal 

according to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. And so this was an 

important precedential issue for the National Park Service and our 

management of Wild and Scenic Rivers. We really had no choice 

because frankly, Congress had never given us that kind of authority to say you can mitigate this kind of impact on a Wild and Scenic River. 

So that is where we are. We have a very strong legal opinion on 

this. So then, if there is to be a bridge built, it will require some 

sort of legislative action on the part of Congress. I cannot speak in 

any detail as to Congresswoman Bachmann’s bill because we have 

not evaluated it, nor developed an official position at this point. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. It is eight lines. It probably will not take too 

long. I just want to stress again to the Park Service that Stillwater 

deserves to have the bridge replaced, but there is a way to do it, 

and I know, Mr. Chair, that this is not the Transportation Committee, but this decision could be impactful to rivers all across this 

country and other rulings of the Park Service, so I do not think it 

is one that this committee or the Policy Committee can take lightly. 

Mr. Chair, just also for the record, a four-lane, $700 million 

bridge which does not have a weigh station at the end of it, how 

are we going to pay for it? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not know, but I did notice that Congress did 

waive pretty much all the environmental laws and everything else 

to build the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We just said that we complied. 

Mr. Serrano. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
731 

NATIONAL MALL

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry my ranking 

member left because I usually do not disagree with him in public, 

and I was going to do that very diplomatically. It is not that our 

generation wants to honor everybody, it is that our generation has 

been very much involved in dealing with past injustices where a lot 

of people were not honored that should have been honored and so 

basically my generation just reminds people that there were 

women in our history that played a great role, that there were Native Americans, that there were African Americans, that there were 

Hispanics, that there were territories, and that is what that was 

about. It gets crowded but it is a national symbol. 

TERRITORIES

Speaking about territories, yesterday I left our hearing before I 

could show a little dismay at the fact that Secretary Salazar makes 

a very common mistake, which I noticed you did not make, and I 

congratulate you for it, that is, that they always refer to the 50 

states. Well, there are 50 states and there are territories, and you 

well know that the parks department plays a major role, a major 

role, perhaps more than a lot of other agencies because what you 

do with the rainforests in Puerto Rico and what you do with all the 

other parks is very noticeable and very much seen by tourists and 

very much a part of what stands out when you speak about the territories. So I congratulate you on that. 

SAVE AMERICA’S TREASURES GRANTS

On a personal note, you know, every so often I talk in subcommittee and in committee about the fact that the Bronx has a 

river, and a lot of people say ‘‘what?’’ and I say, yes, we have a 

river. We also have Poe Cottage, where Edgar Allan Poe did a lot 

of writing at the end of his life, and it stands there because the 

Save America’s Treasures has been involved in maintaining it and 

helping us, and because of what we did when we partnered our office with you folks. It inspired the city and the state to chip in and 

now they are opening up a visitors center and it is totally revived. 

The kids in the neighborhood had no clue that this person that 

they spoke about all the time wrote those eerie things right on the 

Grand Concourse. Ironically, and this is just a personal side note, 

he moved there because his wife was ill and he wanted her to 

breathe fresh air. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And he moved to New York. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, because at that point at Poe Cottage, you 

could see Long Island. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That was a long time ago. 

Mr. SERRANO. In the 1800s, you know, and now at the expense 

of getting in trouble with my fellow New Yorkers, you would maybe 

move your wife out of New York to some other district. 

But I know these are tough times, and you face a larger challenge, a stronger challenge than anybody else, I think, because 

when we begin to maybe come around to negotiate on these dramatic budget cuts, we probably will be able to make good arguments about some things that we all believe should not be cut as 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
732 

drastically as initially proposed. Unfortunately, parks may not fall 

in that category, and it is not just at the federal level, it is at the 

local level too. 

My son, like us, lost his majority so he is no longer chairman of 

the parks committee in the New York State Senate, but he is the 

ranking member of the parks committee, and it is a constant battle 

to get the governor and the legislature to understand that the 

parks are important to New York, the state parks, the city parks, 

the federal parks, the national parks. 

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

We will do the best we can to make sure that we give you the 

resources so that at least in these very difficult times you can survive and keep these treasures going for us. 

I am reminded, unfortunately, of something that happened during the last government shutdown. If you recall, Mr. Chairman, it 

would not be a shutdown like if we have one this time where we 

haven’t passed a bill. We had actually passed some bills, appropriations bills, so some agencies were open, others were not, and the 

number one complaint was that there were parks that were not 

open and people came to Washington to see the mall, to see the 

monuments, you know, things they take for granted. They would 

come to our offices and say it is closed. I would say yes, we know, 

and we are trying to get it reopened. So this is a very serious situation. 

But let me ask you a question, and I am sure it has been asked 

before. How much of a cut can you take and still maintain our 

parks and our facilities to the point where we will not destroy 

them? And I do not expect you to give us numbers perhaps but 

just, we all have to be ready to cut. I mean, we took a cut in our 

staff allocations. We are going to have to cut in many other areas 

in how we operate Congress. But at what point does it become a 

problem? And I am not asking you to do what all agencies do except one. All agencies come and say we want more money. Incidentally, there is only one agency in the history of Congress that actually said they needed less money, and that was before my subcommittee and that was the Securities and Exchange Commission, 

because they did not want to oversee anybody so they just did not 

want money, and we know about that story. At what point does it 

become a big problem? 

NATIONAL PARKS IN NEW YORK CITY AREA

Mr. JARVIS. Well, thank you, Congressman, for those questions 

and let me just say about New York, New York has an extraordinary array of national park units in and around New York City 

and it is an area of strong emphasis for us. There are 11 parks 

there. We own 23,000 acres within the city of New York, most of 

it at Jamaica Bay and Floyd Bennett Field, the Statue of Liberty 

and other places. We also have partnerships such as with Edgar 

Allan Poe Cottage and Lower East Side Tenement House and others where we work together with the city. So we are bringing those 

together to raise their prominence in the communities as well as 

all of our other programs where we assist with community conservation and historic preservation. This is a strong emphasis of 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
733 

mine and the Secretary’s as well. We have a meeting coming up 

with the mayor to talk about these things. 

PARK OPERATIONS

In terms of cuts to the Park Service and where they begin to 

have an impact, the majority of our budget is operational. That is 

the operational figure, ONPS. It is $2.3 billion out of $2.9 billion. 

So any significant reduction has a direct effect on park operations. 

Now, small parks, you know, the small units that might have 10 

to 15 employees and a historic home or a visitor center have limited abilities to absorb any type of significant cut and stay fully 

operational, to keep open seven days a week and meet the expectations of the American public. You really wind up reducing services. 

You begin to close during low-visitation seasons or midweek, etc. 

when you reduce the operational budget. Some of the larger parks 

have perhaps a little more discretion to shift things around, but 

you are moving money from one operation, such as maintenance or 

repair/rehab, to keep the doors open. 

You know, one of the great things about the National Park Service is, we are very proud to provide these places to the public. It 

hurts our pride to not be able to open to the American public and 

to protect these places, these extraordinary resources that have 

been given to us one at a time by either the President or the U.S. 

Congress, and so we will do just about anything to try to keep 

them operational—volunteers, docents, friends’ groups, cooperating 

associations and others. But as the budget is reduced, absolutely it 

will have some effects on those kinds of operations, because that 

is the bulk of our budget. 

TROPICAL FORESTS

Mr. SERRANO. On the issue of the territories, we have a 

rainforest in Puerto Rico, right? Where else do we have a rainforest 

that is a national—— 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is a territory as 

well. I was just there. And then in the Pacific I also have responsibilities in the territories of Guam, Saipan, America Samoa, and 

then we have freely associated states in Palau and Micronesia 

where we assist with conservation work. We have tropical forests 

in Puerto Rico as well as the Virgin Islands. 

Mr. SERRANO. Did you say one in Hawaii? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, absolutely in Hawaii. 

TERRITORIES

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. One last point. You know, a couple of years 

ago, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan fashion we inserted at my request language which allowed the territories to be included in the 

50 states quarters program. When that program ended, we added 

D.C. and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and it just ended. Because we did that, it was a no-brainer that the next set of quarters 

which are coming out which are the national park set of quarters 

will include the territories. It is too bad that that wasn’t a medal 

in a way that could be sold on behalf of the parks department beVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00733 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
734 

cause it is going to be a huge success having collectors, and the 

beauty of this is, people buy them just like the stamps. 

So I just hope that as these cuts come down that you become 

more innovative in servicing our parks and that you continue to be 

aware of the parks that are in the territories that are very much 

a part of who we are as a country, and I thank you for your service. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you. The territories are eligible for the state 

side of land and water conservation funds so they will be a part 

of that program. 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. Thank you. 

FORD’S THEATRE-PETERSON HOUSE

Mr. SIMPSON. I will ask you about becoming more innovative in 

just a minute but let me ask you first, I have always been and still 

am a big supporter of historic preservation. Peterson House, where 

are we with that? And I have also had a Member of Congress come 

to me, and we were voting on the Floor, and now I can’t remember 

who it was, but we talked about, I think it was the Surratt Boardinghouse, Mary Surratt, where part of the plan to assassinate Lincoln was—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. The Peterson House. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The Peterson House is where Lincoln died. Surratt 

Boardinghouse is where the plan was kind of hatched. We talked 

about the potential of buying that and adding that to the Park 

Service. Have you heard anything about that? Okay. What about 

the Peterson House? Where are we on that? 

Ms. O’DELL. The construction for Peterson House is moving forward as planned. We are working cooperatively with Ford’s Theater Society on construction. They are building it with the eventual 

push through of the wall so that we can have a connection between 

the two facilities. It is moving ahead as planned, sir. 

Mr. JARVIS. And Bruce indicated that it would be complete by 

June of this year. 

PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. SIMPSON. By June of this year? Good. 

About being more innovative. When the national parks started, 

they were sponsored by industries or companies. Yellowstone was 

the Union Pacific’s national park, not literally but all of their advertisements were to take visitors to Yellowstone National Park. 

Have we thought of a way to try to involve the private sector more 

in sponsoring our national parks and supporting our national 

parks? Is there a way to do that where they could actually be the 

primary sorts of sponsors and they could use it in their advertising? You know, they would be licensed to do that sort of thing? 

Have we thought outside the box in this period of reduced funding? 

I think we have to look at new things to do things. 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, and I appreciate that 

question very much because I think we are becoming a much more 

entrepreneurial organization than we ever were even in the early 

days when, as you indicated, there were great sponsors. I think the 

Burns film talked a lot about that, and you know, Steven Mather, 

the first director, was very much of a businessman and very entreVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00734 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
735 

preneurial. He had to build it from scratch. And I think in these 

economic times, we have to be that way. 

We have done some extraordinarily innovative projects with the 

private sector in the last 10 years. One that comes to mind is the 

Argonaut Hotel in San Francisco, which is a long-term lease of a 

historic building to Kimpton Hotels, a boutique hotel that took a 

historic structure of ours, turned it into a hotel and via the funding 

that they create through their program, they help fund our visitor 

center, which is on the first floor right off the lobby. You know, 

that would not have been thought of years ago, but we are now experimenting with those kinds of historic leases and partnerships. 

The National Park Foundation, which is our legislatively created 

partner, I think is really on a good path right now to develop these 

kinds of partnerships with the private sector. 

It is always a balance that the private business would like to rename the Washington Monument in their honor or something and 

we just say, well, you can’t do that. But you can do this instead. 

I think there are always negotiations for what the private sector 

would like to achieve. We have some great corporate sponsors out 

there that we are currently in discussions with. 

I was actively involved with the redevelopment of the visitor center at the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, and we had significant 

contributions from the private sector and it resulted in a great way 

to recognize them in such a manner that their contributions were 

not confused with those that contributed their lives in the attack 

on Pearl Harbor. Keeping that kind of appropriate recognition and 

balance is a core responsibility of the National Park Service, but 

I think that the brand of the NPS is a very, very powerful brand, 

and we want to both protect it, but also find partners with common 

values. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you. 

Any other questions, Mr. Serrano? 

Mr. SERRANO. Just a quick comment, and I am glad you mentioned it the way you did. I was going to ask you what possibilities 

there were of corporate America getting involved, but it has to be 

done so carefully, because in New York for a while, the New York 

Mets stadium, it was going to be the Robinson-Clemente Stadium, 

after Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente, who were pioneers for 

their respective communities, and it ended up being Citi Field. 

That is fine. The Yankees for all of their bad reputation as big corporate giants refused to advertise other than Yankee Stadium. 

So yes, we have this need but we have to be so careful. I would 

hate to see the Goya Foods of Puerto Rico Rainforest or the—— 

Mr. JARVIS. You won’t see that. 

Mr. SERRANO. I just got in deep trouble with Goya Foods. They 

make great food, by the way. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, you are absolutely right. It is a balance. I do 

not want to see Union Pacific Yellowstone National Park, but is 

there a way that you could use a corporate sponsor that could use 

what you are trying to protect, the National Park Service symbol, 

as ‘‘We are sponsors of Yellowstone’’ in their advertising? It is a 

careful line you have to walk. 

Mr. JARVIS. It is a careful line, right. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
736 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I worked in the private sector long ago, and 

Sears did that with Weather Beater paint when they were restoring some of the early founders’ homes, and it was not that Sears 

owned the home, it was the proud supplier, the proud sponsor. So 

there are models out there. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Energy efficiency—I know that there are some great things that 

have happened down in the Grand Canyon, I have never been to 

the Grand Canyon. I have heard that there are some great energy 

efficiency and solar things that are going on which not only reduce 

your energy costs but also gives a chance to kind of talk about 

America’s ingenuity to international visitors and to today’s children. Just a quick comment. Are you in this budget able to continue with those innovations? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, absolutely. We just developed what we call our 

Green Parks Plan, which is all about sustainability: the use of alternative energy and biofuels, reduced lighting and night sky, electric vehicles, and a wide range and use of solar. We just succeeded 

within this last week of accomplishing net metering agreements 

with major energy producers in southern California which will 

allow us to have relatively large solar arrays inside parks. You 

know, you are not going to put a big solar array in Yosemite Valley 

without having a visual impact, but there are places that you can, 

and right now Joshua Tree National Park is producing over 65 percent of its power with solar. We have Death Valley that has one 

of the largest solar arrays as well. So absolutely, and there are efficiencies. 

Recently, talking about working with corporations, Musco Lighting, they predominantly light stadiums, their president is a good 

friend of the National Park Service and he has been helping us 

relamp parks. Big Bend National Park, they came in with his 

team. We relit the entire developed area, reduced annual electric 

costs by $60,000 and completely preserved the night sky. At the 

same time we still safe lighting, so by going from a 60-watt incandescent to a quarter-watt LED bulb we still achieved the same objectives. We are doing a lot of that around the country. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Anything else? 

Mr. SERRANO. No, that is it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, listen, countries that have monarchies have 

the crown jewels, like England or other countries. You truly are the 

overseers of America’s crown jewels, so we appreciate the work you 

do and look forward to working with you. We will try to do our part 

to make sure that you can do your job. 

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
737 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1177 here 66892B.126
738 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1178 here 66892B.127
739 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1179 here 66892B.128
740 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1180 here 66892B.129
741 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1181 here 66892B.130
742 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1182 here 66892B.131
743 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1183 here 66892B.132
744 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1184 here 66892B.133
745 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1185 here 66892B.134
746 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1186 here 66892B.135
747 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1187 here 66892B.136
748 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1188 here 66892B.137
749 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1189 here 66892B.138
750 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1190 here 66892B.139
751 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1191 here 66892B.140
752 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1192 here 66892B.141
753 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1193 here 66892B.142
754 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1194 here 66892B.143
755 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1195 here 66892B.144
756 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1196 here 66892B.145
757 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1197 here 66892B.146
758 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1198 here 66892B.147
759 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1199 here 66892B.148
760 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1200 here 66892B.149
761 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1201 here 66892B.150
762 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1202 here 66892B.151
(763) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FY 2012 BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

ROBERT ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

KAREN MOURITSEN, BUDGET OFFICER, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Abbey, I would like to welcome you to today’s subcommittee 

hearing addressing the fiscal year 2012 budget priorities for the 

Bureau of Land Management. My colleagues and I hope to cover 

a lot of ground with you today on the new Wild Lands policy, grazing, wild horses and burros, energy and other issues. While I do 

not necessarily agree with all of BLM’s priorities in this budget, I 

appreciate the fact that we can have a productive conversation 

about these issues. 

I would like to begin by making several points on a few specific 

issues before we receive your testimony. First, as we have discussed, Western members including myself are very concerned with 

the new Wild Lands policy. I believe this is a troubling precedent, 

and as I told Secretary Salazar earlier this week, any bill that 

comes out of this subcommittee this year will most likely include 

language to defund the Wild Lands policy, whether it is included 

in the base bill or an amendment that is offered in the House. 

Secondly, it seems that this budget chooses the full funding of 

land acquisition and America’s Great Outdoors at the expense of 

other important programs like the operating account, Management 

of Lands and Resources, which actually supports private sector jobs 

in grazing, forestry, mining, and oil and gas development. As you 

know, I support the Land and Water Conservation Fund but it does 

not make sense to me that we would fully fund land acquisition by 

diverting money from land management accounts. With our current 

budget crisis, I find it puzzling that the BLM requests $50 million 

for land acquisition and $1 billion for America’s Great Outdoors 

when it has difficulty managing the lands it already holds and has 

significant problems with many of its current programs. 

I am deeply concerned about this proposal, that this proposal will 

exacerbate an already out-of-control problem facing the BLM, and 

that is the increasing costs of litigation. When you shift resources 

from land management to acquisitions you are unable to provide 

the land managers in your field offices with the resources they 

need to make environmentally sound decisions, leaving the door 

wide open to environmental groups looking for an opportunity to 

sue. I have said this before and it bears repeating, that there are 

certain things in life that are unavoidable. One is death, one is 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
764 

taxes and the other is the fact that the BLM will be sued on any 

decision that it makes. 

It does not take an expert accountant to figure out that a large 

amount of your budget is spent fighting lawsuits in court or attempting to bulletproof your decisions against an inevitable lawsuit. These dollars represent a tremendous amount of taxpayer 

funding that is being shifted away from on-the-ground management and spent instead in courtrooms. This is a bad deal for the 

public lands, a bad deal for your agency and a bad deal for the taxpayers. Even more troubling is the net result, that our public lands 

are increasingly managed by judges while your professional staff 

and their judgments are being undermined. I know you recognize 

this problem as do your employees, who are on the front lines of 

this battle every day in Idaho and other Western states, yet I am 

very concerned that this budget fails to adequately put resources 

on the ground to address this situation. 

On that note, I am also very concerned that the BLM in Idaho 

will not be able to hire the seasonal workers needed for grazing 

and recreation management. Many of the ranchers in my district 

have been told they will not be able to turn out their livestock until 

late June. This has a significant impact on the bottom line of the 

ranching operations and could mean the difference between finishing the year in the red or in the black. These basic important 

responsibilities of BLM need to be met before it considers other 

program increases. Mr. Abbey, I hope to work with you on this 

issue to solve this problem. 

The hardrock mining proposal in the budget is also problematic 

although I believe revising the General Mining Law of 1872 is long 

overdue. This should be carefully reviewed by the authorizing committees similar to the oil and gas legislative proposals. The budget 

would basically raise taxes on hardrock mining and use the proceeds to fund land acquisition. 

I also want to briefly mention the potential merging of the BLM 

forestry and range staff in an effort to improve efficiencies. This 

seems like a solution in search of a problem. Forestry and range 

programs have different authorizing statutes and different staff 

and expertise. Both programs are very important to the day-to-day 

operations of the BLM. I hope that you will reconsider merging 

these two programs. 

In closing, I look forward to working with you on many of these 

issues and thank you and your staff for the hard work and assistance that we have had in putting together this budget. 

Mr. SIMPSON. With that, I am happy to yield to the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Moran, for any opening statement he might 

have. 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Simpson. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning. 

Mr. MORAN. Welcome, Mr. Abbey. 

Mr. ABBEY. Nice to see you. 

Mr. MORAN. BLM is the largest manager of federal lands. Even 

though most of these lands are in the West, all Americans should 

appreciate the special places and habitats that are such an imporVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00764 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
765 

tant part of our Nation’s great heritage of public lands, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), especially. It includes 27 million of the most special acres under BLM jurisdiction. 

I do have concern for the wild horses and burros which primarily 

live on BLM-managed lands in the arid West. I am encouraged by 

new announcements which we can talk about today. The wild horse 

program I do think needs to change. 

BLM also manages vitally important watersheds and habitat as 

well as fossil energy resources that are important for our citizens 

but also for our economy. At our GAO hearing last week, we had 

real concerns about BLM’s ability to balance its energy development mission and its environmental stewardship mission. We do 

not want to develop the publicly owned fossil energy at the expense 

of our native lands and species. We need to ensure long-term sustainability. Too much of the fossil energy development has permanently and adversely impacted vast areas of public lands. I am encouraged by the direction in this BLM budget request. It is about 

time that the Congress instituted reasonable fees to help cover the 

cost of oversight of extraction industries. As the GAO and the IG 

pointed out, there is a great need for better oversight and for enhanced financial management of the many billions of dollars worth 

of fossil energy taken out of the public estate. 

I am also concerned that in our understandable haste to increase 

reliance on wind, solar and geothermal energy, we might be choosing in some cases expedient courses that we could later regret. We 

do owe it to future generations to get it right. 

I look forward to a constructive hearing, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Abbey, we look forward to your testimony. The 

floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ABBEY

Mr. ABBEY. Well, thank you, Chairman Simpson and members of 

the committee, and with me this morning is Karen Mouritsen, our 

budget officer from the Bureau of Land Management, and we both 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to talk about the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

As many of you know from the Western United States, the BLM 

manages more than 245 million acres of public lands, and approximately 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate nationwide. 

We believe the funding requested is a sound investment for America. Management of public land resources and protection of public 

land values results in extraordinary economic benefits to local communities and to this Nation. The BLM’s management of public 

lands contributes more than $100 billion annually to the national 

economy and supports more than 500,000 American jobs. Revenues 

generated from public lands make the BLM one of the top revenuegenerating federal agencies positively affecting the U.S. Treasury 

and directly benefiting the U.S. taxpayer. For example, if our budget request was fully funded, for every dollar that the United States 

Congress invests in the Bureau of Land Management, we anticipate bringing back $5 in fiscal year 2012. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
766 

The BLM’s fiscal year budget request is $1.1 billion, a decrease 

of $12 million from the 2010 enacted level. The proposed budget for 

the BLM makes strategic investments in support of important Administration and Secretarial initiatives including America’s Great 

Outdoors, the New Energy Frontier, Cooperative Landscape Conservation, and Youth in America’s Great Outdoors. Investment in 

these programs today will reap benefits for years to come. 

To enhance the conservation of BLM-managed lands and reconnect Americans to the outdoors, the budget calls for a $29.9 million 

increase in support of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative. This 

includes $15 million for the BLM’s 27-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System, which includes special areas such as 

wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, national monuments and national conservation areas. The budget also includes $8.6 million to 

support programs and partnerships that engage youth in the outdoors. 

The New Energy Frontier initiative recognizes the value of the 

environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development of both 

renewable and conventional energy resources on public land. President Obama and Secretary Salazar have stressed the critical importance of renewable energy to the future of the United States. 

Developing renewable energy creates jobs and promotes innovation 

in the United States while reducing the country’s reliance on fossil 

fuels. To encourage development on public lands, the BLM proposes 

a $3 million increase for renewable energy environmental studies. 

In the conventional energy arena, the BLM expects its onshore 

mineral leasing activities to contribute $4.3 billion to the Treasury 

in fiscal year 2012. We will focus on implementing our oil and gas 

program reforms that have placed a continued emphasis on oil and 

gas inspections, environmental enforcement and production verification. The budget proposes an increase of $13 million for processing oil and gas applications for permits to drill. Also, the budget 

proposes to shift a share of the cost of oil and gas inspection activities from discretionary appropriations to industry fees for a savings 

of $38 million. A fee for non-producing leases and an increase in 

the onshore oil and gas royalty rates are also included in our budget proposal. 

Another BLM priority in our fiscal year 2012 budget request is 

the Secretary’s Cooperative Landscape Conservation initiative, 

which calls for bringing better science to the management of BLMmanaged lands and includes a $2.5 million increase. Also, putting 

the BLM’s wild horse and burro program on a sustainable track 

while ensuring humane treatment is a top priority, and I look forward to discussing that particular program with you. The BLM 

budget proposes $75 million for this program in fiscal year 2012 

and places much greater emphasis on fertility control. Finally, the 

BLM’s budget for fiscal year 2012 assumes legislative proposals to 

reform hardrock mining on both public and private lands. 

Our budget request provides funding for the agency’s highest-priority initiatives, maximizes public benefits and reflects difficult 

choices for reductions. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
767 

Mr. Chairman, as always, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to talk about the public lands and the 

programs that we manage on behalf of the American public. 

[The statement of Robert Abbey follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
768 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1214 here 66892B.152
769 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1215 here 66892B.153
770 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1216 here 66892B.154
771 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1217 here 66892B.155
772 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1218 here 66892B.156
773 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1219 here 66892B.157
774 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1220 here 66892B.158
775 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1221 here 66892B.159
776 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1222 here 66892B.160
777 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1223 here 66892B.161
778 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1224 here 66892B.162
779 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Because other members have some 

committees, I am going to pass right now and allow Mr. Flake to 

take my time. 

SHIFTING INSPECTION COSTS

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, and thank you for the testimony. 

I have a question with regard to shifting some of the energy and 

mineral inspection costs. You say you have a reduction in budget 

by 1 percent but you have an increase in spending on select programs by $93.3 million, and that is achieved by shifting $42.4 million in inspection costs to the industry. Can you just explain a little 

more about where those shifts are and how they are picking up the 

slack there? 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you for the question, Congressman Flake. We 

had to make some difficult decisions relative to how we could reduce costs. One of the decisions that we did make as part of our 

budget request was to shift the inspection and enforcement expenditures to the industry that we were inspecting. In the case of the 

oil and gas industry, that reflects almost $38 million of inspection 

and enforcement (I&E) costs from the appropriations to the industry. We also are seeking I&E fees from the coal industry for the 

inspection and enforcement that we do on coal mines. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. FLAKE. With solar power, Arizona is moving ahead with 

siting a lot of facilities on some BLM-managed land or seeking to. 

I am not a fan of some of the subsidies provided here, but we do 

not want unnecessary delays with regard to BLM. You say that you 

have a streamlined procedure now. Can you tell a little more about 

that? There are some complaints that the process is too long and 

putting it on BLM-managed land is far more troublesome than 

elsewhere. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, last year we used the term ‘‘fast track’’, 

and as a result of that, I think there was a misunderstanding of 

exactly what ‘‘fast track’’ meant. That is not to shortcut the analysis process. You know, we were fortunate to move forward last 

year to approve the first commercial-scale solar project on public 

lands ever. At the end of calendar year 2010, we had approved nine 

commercial scale solar projects that will be built on public lands. 

As we go forward, we are selecting the applications that are before 

us. We have over 100 applications for solar projects on public 

lands. We have screened those applications to determine which 

ones we believe would have the least impact on sensitive resources 

that we manage on these public lands so that we could move forward more expeditiously to review and analyze the project proposals to make a determination of which of those projects should 

be approved to be built on these lands. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, and the name is Flake. 

Mr. ABBEY. I am sorry, Congressman. 

Mr. FLAKE. No, I realize nobody wants to call you a flake unless 

they are really sure that is the case. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But you give us so much flack. 

Mr. MORAN. I was going to say, if you give the witnesses a little 

less flack, maybe they would not confuse the pronunciation. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
780 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IMPACT OF H.R. 1

Besides the oil, gas and grazing responsibility, you have tremendous visitation and recreational activities that are a mainstay of 

local economies, particularly in rural areas, especially in the West. 

Given the substantial operational funding cuts that are in H.R. 1, 

the ongoing Continuing Resolution, can you give us a sense of how 

this might affect the hundreds of gateway communities all over the 

country that depend on tourism, hunting, fishing on public lands? 

Is there going to be any impact on rural jobs and in local jurisdictions’ ability to collect the revenue that they have become used to? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, that is an excellent question, Congressman 

Moran, and the impact as I determined from my review of the proposal would reflect primarily in construction projects and land acquisition projects. It would also reduce substantially the monies 

that we had anticipated for climate change projects including some 

of the ecoregional assessments that are underway today. Without 

that funding, we would have to shortcut that analysis and not do 

any more work relative to those ecoregional assessments which we 

believe provide us some valuable data that would allow us to move 

forward and do the appropriate analysis for some of the renewable 

projects and even conventional energy projects that are before us. 

So those would be where the primary impacts would occur. 

But you did raise the fact of the amount of recreational use that 

is taking place on these public lands, and we had 59 million visitors to public lands last year. That is fairly significant to those 

local communities that are adjacent to these public lands where 

people are visiting. We provide tremendous opportunities, not only 

for such activities as hiking and horseback riding and bird watching but also for hunting and fishing, which are very important to 

the constituencies in the West and to those who live throughout the 

United States who go out West to do that activity. 

WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, we have already mentioned 

how difficult the wild horse issue is, and I appreciate your effort 

to make changes. I know that BLM has announced a new approach, but with more than 40,000 horses in long-term holding facilities at a cost of $37 million a year and growing, we cannot afford to wait much longer to make some fundamental changes, it 

would seem. The Federal Government’s management of wild horses 

and burros should be based upon sound science, transparency and 

I would hope the input of all stakeholders. Can you briefly elaborate on what specific steps the BLM will be undertaking to achieve 

increased transparency and openness in this program? 

Mr. ABBEY. I would be happy to. You know, first and foremost, 

I believe the status quo is unacceptable as it relates to our wild 

horse and burro management. If we are to have any chance of reducing the expenditures related to this particular program, we are 

going to have to learn to do a better job of managing horses on the 

range versus rounding them up on an annual basis, gathering them 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
781 

and then shipping them to holding facilities for the rest of their 

lives. That is a great deal of the expense. It is a high percentage 

of our total cost of managing wild horses, going as far as holding 

and feeding horses for up to 30 years in some cases. 

So the changes that we are pursuing in concert with the public 

and many of the stakeholders that have provided input to our program is that we are moving toward a program to achieve greater 

fertility control of wild horses that are remaining on the public 

lands. To that end, our proposed action would increase the fertility 

control of mares on the public lands from approximately 800 this 

year to 2,000 next year. We believe fertility control is the primary 

tool that we should be using to control populations. In the meantime, we do have challenges that we face in that particular program. It is one of the more controversial programs that we manage 

in the Bureau of Land Management, and that is saying a lot given 

the controversial nature of our programs. There is a lot of passion, 

there is a lot of emotion attached to those wild horses, and rightly 

so. They are icons of our Nation’s heritage. 

So again, we have contracted with the National Academy of 

Sciences. They are conducting a two-year study to report back to 

us in 2013 with their findings to help us better understand how we 

could better use science to help manage wild horses and burros on 

the range, how we can better control populations on the range so 

that in the future we have less need to actually remove horses from 

the range and to hold them in these long-term holding facilities. 

Mr. MORAN. With regard to transparency, can the public observe 

roundups where they are done by BLM or contractors from a reasonable range? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, we certainly hope so. We certainly make that 

opportunity available to the people who wish to come and observe 

our gathers. We have had some criticism in some of our gathers 

relative to the locations of those public viewing areas. We have 

taken that criticism to heart. We are continuing to work with our 

contractors as well as our own personnel to make sure that we provide ample opportunity and appropriate opportunities for the public 

who wish to observe, to have a platform where they can actually 

observe all the actions that are taking place. 

We do need to take into account, as we always do, the safety, not 

only to the visitors who are out there observing the gather themselves but also safety to our contractors and our own employees. 

Mr. MORAN. When I was chairing the subcommittee last year, we 

included in the bill additional contracting authority to give the 

BLM the opportunity if you chose to enter into 10-year agreements 

with those nonprofits and others to care for wild horses. Do you 

think it would be useful to the BLM to have additional options for 

the care of horses that have had to be removed from the range? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman Moran, we would welcome that opportunity. You know, we will be soliciting proposals within the next 

two weeks from individuals who have an interest in working with 

us on proposing options for holding wild horses on private lands 

and also potentially in partnership to hold horses on private lands 

and working with us to hold horses on public lands, again, as part 

of our new strategy of trying to devote our financial resources to 

managing horses on the range rather than expending all the monVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00781 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
782 

ies that we are spending today on gathering and removing and 

then holding horses. 

OIL AND GAS ROYALTY RATE REFORM AND DISCLOSURE OF FRACKING

CHEMICALS

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have one further question on royalties if I could. This current budget assumes that Interior will administratively implement oil and gas royalty rate reforms including 

adjustments to the standard onshore royalty rate. At our hearing 

last week, and I noticed she has joined us now so I thought I would 

bring this up, our distinguished new member from Wyoming pointed out that the state receives a higher royalty on its lands than the 

BLM charges and that the state requires disclosure of fracking 

chemical composition, even though the BLM does not. Is there any 

reason the BLM—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Excuse me. Even in my state—— 

Mr. MORAN. I will yield to the gentlelady. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And I apologize for interrupting. 

Mr. MORAN. No, it is fine. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Drilling on BLM lands in Wyoming, they have to 

report to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission just 

like on private lands, so whether it is state, private or BLM lands, 

if a well is drilled in Wyoming and they are going to frack it, they 

have to disclose the contents of the fracking fluids to the Wyoming 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

Mr. MORAN. No, I understand that, and that is consistent with 

what I think I was saying. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Excuse me. I yield back. I apologize. 

Mr. MORAN. No, that is fine. I am glad you clarified because that 

is exactly the point I wanted to make. 

But I want to ask Mr. Abbey, is there any reason why the BLM 

cannot raise its royalty rates to at least, for example, match those 

of the state? Would there not be a considerable benefit to the 

American taxpayer and to the states since they get half of those 

royalties? 

Mr. ABBEY. We firmly believe that the American public deserves 

a fair return to the national Treasury from any resource that is developed from public assets. To that end, we are currently analyzing 

the rates that we have assessed over a number of years. I mean, 

the 121⁄2 percent has been in place for several decades. So we are 

reviewing that analysis. We have not only looked at what states 

are charging as far as royalty rates but we have also looked at 

what other countries are charging, in many cases the same companies, for operating in their countries. We are pursuing or will be 

pursuing a regulatory change based upon our analysis to reflect a 

fair return to the American public and that will likely include an 

increase in royalty rates that we would assign to development of 

oil and gas resources on public lands. 

Mr. MORAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Abbey, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
783 

I will be interested in watching the wild horse and burro pro- gram, $75 million proposal, and you said you want to put this on 

a sustainable path. How much do you think you are going to be 

spending on this at an annual rate once you have it on a sustainable path? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, over time the monies would come down, but 

initially the $75 million is going to be needed for at least the next 

three or four years and primarily because in order to apply fertility 

control, Mr. Chairman, we still have to gather horses. We still have 

to hold horses in order to apply the vaccinations before releasing 

them back to the range. So again, while we would save some funding from our holding costs, that savings would initially go back to 

rounding up horses and applying the vaccination. 

Mr. SIMPSON. As you know, there are private entities that have 

approached the BLM regarding taking upwards of 10,000 horses 

onto land that they have leased in Nevada and other places, and 

as I talk to them they say they have met with resistance from 

BLM. I am not saying they are right or anything else. Are you 

looking seriously at these types of proposals that are being offered? 

Mr. ABBEY. We are, and again, I think those proposals have 

merit. Again, it provides us greater flexibility than what we have 

applied in the past relative to our actions. We have been working 

very closely with one individual, Ms. Madeline Pickens, on a proposal that she has introduced to us that would use certain lands 

in the State of Nevada to hold horses. We do not believe that the 

lands that she has identified could hold 10,000 but nonetheless 

that is something we will work through. 

But there are some issues that we do need to work on with Ms. 

Pickens and other individuals who have also approached us with 

similar ideas and similar concepts. We have not received a detailed, 

specified plan from Ms. Pickens. We have asked for one so that we 

could do the appropriate analysis to make a determination based 

upon what that analysis reflects. You know, I admire Ms. Pickens’ 

passion. I admire her willingness to want to work with the Bureau 

of Land Management to help us find solutions to keeping additional horses on these public lands or on private lands. We are 

committed to continuing that dialogue and with anyone else who 

has similar ideas and willingness to work with us to try to find solutions to these challenges. 

GRAZING-JARBIDGE PERMITS

Mr. SIMPSON. I have an issue of particular concern to Idaho. As 

you may know, on February 28, 17 grazing permits managed by 

the Jarbidge field office were closed indefinitely as a result of a 

court order by Judge Winmill. In a 2005 settlement with Western 

watersheds, BLM had agreed to complete a resource management 

plan and conduct a more robust EIS on the allotments by 2011, allowing the permits to be reissued under an interim grazing management plan. The sunset date of the interim plan coincided with 

BLM’s own deadlines for completing this work’ yet the deadlines 

have passed and there is no plan in place. As a result, ranchers on 

those grazing allotments have to move thousands of cattle off the 

range. I am very concerned that the delay in completing the resource management plan is impairing the stability of activity and 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
784 

transactions that implicate public lands. It is now projected that 

there will be at least a three-year delay in completing the RMP, 

which is directly impacting management. I recognize that there are 

a number of excuses for the delay and that most of them come 

down to the lack of resources. What are you doing to ensure that 

field offices like Jarbidge have the resources they need to effectively manage the land in a complex and litigious environment? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is the first time I have 

heard about a three-year delay. I do know that our offices in Idaho 

have been working diligently to complete that resource management plan for that particular field office. We have completed a 

draft resource management plan. We have received quite a few 

comments regarding that proposed plan. There are a lot of complex 

issues that have been addressed as part of that draft resource management plan including such proposals like major wind farms in 

that part of the state, but we are moving forward diligently and expeditiously to complete that resource management plan, so again, 

I have not heard about a three-year delay, so if you have that information, I need to probably follow up with a phone call. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have an idea of when it will be completed? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, our hope was to get it completed this fiscal 

year. 

GRAZING-PERMIT BACKLOG

Mr. SIMPSON. Grazing in general—as you know, we have a backlog of grazing permits and BLM has been trying to address that. 

We put $1 million into the budget two years ago to address that 

backlog of grazing permits, and it seems like those in Idaho are the 

most backlogged. Could you tell how much of that $1 million actually went onto the ground to address the backlog and the problems 

that the backlog is causing and how you plan to address the backlog of grazing permits? As I said in my opening statement, you are 

going to get sued no matter what you do, but ultimately we have 

got to get these grazing permits done. 

Mr. ABBEY. You are absolutely right, and permit renewals is a 

high priority for us in our grazing management program. Idaho received from the $700,000 increase in the 2010 Appropriations Act 

approximately $105,000 based upon a chart that I have here. You 

know, we not only received an increase due to your being a primary 

proponent for that increase of $700,000 but we also redirected 

$300,000 from our base budget toward permit renewals. 

The backlog continues to increase, Mr. Chairman, and we are 

continuing to devote as many resources as possible because, as I 

mentioned earlier, this is a priority for us. We are making some 

progress but we are continuing to be dependent upon the general 

provisions language that you have been successful in including in 

our appropriations bills for the last several years so that we can 

move forward, and where there are no changes in the terms and 

conditions of the permits that will allow us to continue to issue 

those permits without going through an elaborate and time-consuming environmental assessment or even an EIS. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I mean, the backlog continues to grow. How do we 

address that and try to get it down to—I mean, because the reality 

is, there are people who want to get all cows off public lands and 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
785 

they are going to sue no matter what happens. How do we address 

that in a reasonable way? Instead of just putting money into it, is 

there something that needs to be done fundamentally in how we 

do grazing permits? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, I do think there are some aspects of our 

grazing program that we can streamline including transfers of 

grazing permits from one individual to another individual instead 

of having to go through an elaborate analysis to approve such 

transfers. I do think that there could be an administrative remedy 

but we may need some help from Congress to pursue that. 

At the same time, grazing is no different from any of the other 

programs that we manage. We have to apply our best efforts up 

front prior to moving forward and making authorizations so that 

we can defend those actions that we know are going to be scrutinized and likely litigated, and our hope is that, you know, over 

time that we will continue to have greater successes in the courts 

in being able to defend our actions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

OFF-ROAD RACING

I am going to shift around here and talk about something that 

is pretty different. Director Abbey, on August 14, 2010, as you are 

aware, an accident in off-road racing permitted on BLM at the 

Johnson Valley vehicle open area resulted in eight spectator deaths 

and 12 injuries. This is a senseless and I believe a totally needless 

tragedy. The report on the incident issued last November by BLM 

makes it obvious that BLM is incapable of monitoring events such 

as the California 200 event, during which the casualties occurred. 

The BLM report states that in the California Desert District, there 

are 51 law enforcement officers responsible for 11 million acres but 

only 38 law enforcement officer positions were filled. On the night 

of the race that resulted in the eight fatalities, the incident report 

states, and I am quoting from your incident report, ‘‘The BLM had 

one law enforcement officer and no special recreation permit compliance staff or any other personnel on duty on the Johnson Valley 

open area. The law enforcement officer was on established patrol 

in this sector covering roughly 500,000 acres.’’ And I am going to 

read from page 3 of your report: ‘‘Of the CDD LEOs, 10 are assigned to the Barstow Field Office, where the California 200 event 

was held. On August 14, 2010, seven of those positions were filled. 

However, one LEO was on medical leave, one was at basic law enforcement training, one was on vacation, one was temporarily detailed to another BLM office. Of the three available officers, two 

were originally assigned to work the permitted race but one called 

in sick.’’ One officer. 

So in other words, BLM turns over thousands or tens of thousands of acres of public land, taxpayer-owned land, to a private 

company—in this case called Mojave Desert Racing—willing to pay 

a completely insufficient permit price of $95. Not only does this organization make a profit to operate off-road vehicles, but they do 

it at night and they do it with 2,000 spectators in attendance without any official oversight from BLM on the monitoring, and that is 

pretty unbelievable. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
786 

Now, I have seen the news videos and I am sure you have and 

other members of the committee have. It shows hundreds of spectators standing a few feet away, literally the width of this table, 

from vehicles traveling on a dirt road at 50 to 70 miles per hour. 

Seeing that video, I could almost say certainly that there was no 

effort whatsoever to put in public safety, and in fact, BLM, executive’s summary of the Johnson Valley incident states, and I quote 

from that, ‘‘Public safety is always the BLM’s highest priority.’’ The 

facts of this incident would indicate that to be a false statement. 

Tragically, the facts appear to indicate gross negligence on the part 

of MDR in either the inability or disregard on the part of the Bureau of Land Management to ensure public safety. 

So my questions for you are based on what I have been reading 

in the report that has come out. This is a tragedy, and it highlighted the BLM’s permitting process and lack of staffing, and by 

that, you secede your obligation to protect public safety at these 

events. In light of the fact that the BLM obviously does not have 

the resources, the personnel or the permitting process to ensure 

public safety when racing companies seek to use taxpayer-owned 

land, one of my questions is, how can the BLM guarantee that it 

will be responsible for ensuring public safety on federal lands and 

doing event oversight rather than ceding that to event organizers? 

Why is there not a permitting process in place where event organizers are sufficiently financially responsible to ensure an acceptable level of BLM law enforcement staffing presence to monitor 

permit compliance and public safety? Should that not be a financial 

obligation of the event organizers in seeking permits? You addressed some of that in your report, which I will refer to here as 

I close. 

In regard to taxpayer exposure, I would like your office to provide me and the committee with an event-by-event breakdown of 

2010 of how much race organizers paid the BLM in the permitted 

event and what was the benefit to taxpayers of allowing companies 

to use public lands for their events? And I hope it is more than just 

$95. 

So with that, this is from your office. It is the special recreation 

permit. It goes on to say, and I quote again from this, ‘‘Proper administration of the SRP requires numerous steps and the full engagement of the BLM staff and managers. The authorized officer 

may issue an SRP’’—which is a type of permit they had—‘‘only 

after it has been determined that the BLM has the capacity to 

properly administer the permit. If the field office cannot fulfill or 

complete all the necessary steps, then no SRP shall be issued,’’ and 

then you go on to talk about cost recovery. Can you let us know 

what steps you are taking? Because if you do not have the staff to 

manage this, then we should not be doing it. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, it definitely was a tragedy that occurred and 

it happened on my watch and I take that seriously. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I know you do, sir. 

Mr. ABBEY. And there is nothing wrong with our permitting system. There is a capacity issue, and the statement that you just 

read, the paragraph you just read relative to our new expectations 

of our own employees, if we do not have the capacity, if we do not 

have the resources to properly manage those events, then those 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
787 

events should not be permitted. That is the way that we are conducting business today. It has not always been the case. There has 

been some fear on the part of our employees that if they said no 

to a promoter at one of these events that they would be chastised 

for saying no. But we have an obligation to the safety not only of 

the event competitors but also to the spectators who are out there 

on the land observing these events. 

Now, that having been said, nationwide, we average about one 

law enforcement personnel per 1 million acres that we manage. We 

are putting our law enforcement personnel in really an awesome, 

I guess, task or assign them awesome tasks of monitoring and patrolling these public lands, and the only way that we can be successful is in partnerships with local sheriffs departments and with 

other federal agencies and state agencies out there, and we have 

done a good job of developing those partnerships. 

But as it relates to the competitive event that you made reference to in Johnson Valley, there were errors made on the part 

of the Bureau of Land Management. We acknowledge those errors 

in our own investigation, in our report and in our determination of 

what the facts are. We have taken actions to correct those deficiencies and our hope is that that type of event will never occur 

again through any activity that we permit through our recreation 

program. That is also another reason why we have requested some 

additional funding through our recreation program in the 2012 

budget request. It is to try to help us provide some additional oversight through the hiring of additional law enforcement personnel to 

monitor these type of activities but generally speaking just monitoring all activities that are occurring on public lands because with 

one law enforcement officer per 1 million acres, we cannot do a 

very good job. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, and I think that what we have 

asked the law enforcement to do is very dangerous. They are out 

there alone, single patrol, and I notice that you said that you have 

asked for increased revenue. Part of that increased revenue, the 

balance side of it, what I saw here on the fee permit, could you address that a little more. 

I do not want to put you on the spot but I am going to put you 

on the spot. I hear clearly what you are saying about not wanting 

to say no, not wanting to say no because of what the chairman was 

just talking about with the leasing and the reputation that, you are 

environmentally driven and everything like that, and environmental issues come up in these kinds of races too. But that is not 

what I am talking about, and if you do not have the capacity to 

make sure that sufficient oversight is taking place and there is 

compliance taking place, then I think that you can hold your head 

up high and come to this committee and say this is why we said 

no, it is public safety, and we are not going to fall under political 

pressure in this arena from other groups because that is not what 

this is about. I would be very supportive of you saying no and I 

think the Committee would as well talk a little more about what 

you are going to do, because taxpayers should not be footing the 

bill for for-profit companies on this. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, the—— 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
788 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Do you need legislation or any help from us in 

order for you to capture those dollars to let these events go forward? I am not trying to stop them. They just need to be done 

properly. 

Mr. ABBEY. No, I fully understand that, and we do not need additional legislative authority to conduct business the way it should 

be conducted. These type of events come under our cost recovery 

process. That means the proponent is supposed to be covering the 

full cost of the Bureau of Land Management employees on the 

ground providing the oversight and management of those events. It 

happens throughout our recreation program. The OHV communities have been very good about paying the majority of those recovery costs. In this particular case, I cannot give you any excuses 

for why that proponent was not assessed the full recovery of what 

it cost the Bureau of Land Management to staff that event appropriately. I am not saying even if we had the staff out there on that 

day, the two, three or four employees that should have been there 

that the event would not have happened, but I think it would certainly have lessened the risk if we had had the appropriate people 

there on site and doing the necessary patrols to ensure that the 

spectators were not getting within 15 feet of the actual route that 

the race competitors were using. 

So we have gone back, we have looked in great detail at our permitting process. We have found there is nothing wrong with the 

permitting system. It is just that we need to implement what we 

say we are going to do. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, I stand ready to help 

you but I am also going to hold you accountable. 

Mr. ABBEY. You should. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So if there is help that you need, please ask for 

it. 

Mr. Chair, I am going to go to my fourth niece’s wedding. My 

brother was blessed with four daughters. And there will be a police 

officer there at the wedding. They are paying for it, not the city. 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being 

here today, Mr. Abbey. I am of the opinion that the Federal Government owns more land than we can afford to manage or that we 

can manage, and so the fact that you are spread very thin and your 

staff is spread very thin is understandable and I appreciate the job 

you are trying to do with the resources you have been given, the 

vast amount that you are trying to juggle and all the many demands on that land. 

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

I have several questions. I am going to start with APDs. Why is 

that you anticipate a $13 million shortfall in APD application fees? 

Mr. ABBEY. It was based upon a projection that we will have less 

numbers of applications being filed in our offices and therefore we 

would not be collecting the fees necessary in order to continue to 

keep all the individuals that have been part of the oil and gas program fully funded through that fee. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
789 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And is that because they are moving out of frustration to drill on private lands because everything gets appealed? I 

know, and I think I have told you, in Wyoming in 2009 100 percent 

of lease applications on public lands were contested by environmental groups, 100 percent, every single one. You know, after a 

while people just throw up their hands and go to private land. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, I cannot speak for what rationale the industry may be using to move their resources around. I do know 

that there is still a great deal of demand for developing oil and gas 

on public lands that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. We anticipate upwards of around 5,000-plus APDs being 

filed with the BLM offices this fiscal year. Given the price of oil, 

we anticipate a slight increase actually above what we included in 

our budget request in fiscal year 2012. We have leased 41.2 million 

acres of public lands for oil and gas. We have about 12.2 million 

acres under production today. Last year we approved almost 5,000 

applications for permits to drill. We had about 1,500 wells actually 

spudded on public lands. So the industry, again, it is reflective of 

the market. Given today’s market, we are starting to see increasing 

actions and interest on the part of the industry and we are trying 

our best to address that demand. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you know what dollar per barrel oil sparks that 

tipping point between when people are less interested and when 

they are more interested? Is it 100? Is it 80? Any clue? 

Mr. ABBEY. I certainly do not know. I do know that when it gets 

to be $100 a barrel, it gets people’s interest whether it is the industry or the American public paying high gasoline prices. 

FEE ON NON-PRODUCING LEASES

Mrs. LUMMIS. That leads into my next question, which is about 

the fees that I understand you are going to be charging or propose 

to charge for non-active leases as an incentive to surrender the 

lease so someone else can pick it up or so it can just go dormant. 

Does your proposal exempt producers from paying those fees on 

leases they cannot develop because of either bureaucratic delays or 

environmental lawsuits? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congresswoman, it would certainly have to address 

that. You know, we cannot hold anyone accountable or responsible 

for an action that they have no control over. So we have not crafted 

our final rules relative to how that fee would be applied but no 

doubt that would have to be taken into account. If an industry has 

a lease, and for some reason is not able to move forward expeditiously and develop that lease for reasons beyond their control, 

then that would certainly be something that we would take into account as part of how we would assess any new $4-per-acre fee. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And will that fee apply to renewable projects as 

well? I know wind developers tend to aggregate land and sit on it 

for a long time too. 

Mr. ABBEY. We are not proposing any kind of per-acre fee for diligence but we do have as part of our rights-of-way stipulations in 

the records of decisions that we are issuing to approve solar and 

wind a diligence factor that within a certain timeframe they have 

to make progress in developing their projects. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
790 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And you chose to make the distinction between renewables and non-renewables because? 

Mr. ABBEY. Because of the different authorities that we are using 

to authorize those uses. For example, we use our rights-of-way authority to authorize wind and solar projects on public lands. Therefore, we incorporate a diligence stipulation or a diligence factor into 

those approvals that are issued under rights-of-ways. For oil and 

gas, it is a leasing function. We have not incorporated that language as part of the lease so now we are proposing to implement 

a $4-per-acre diligence fee for any lease that is not being developed. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. That helps. Thank you. 

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

Next question is about EAJA, one of my favorite subjects. Have 

you begun keeping records on payments distributed under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act? 

Mr. ABBEY. No, ma’am, we have not. We are not tracking the 

EAJA payments from the Bureau of Land Management. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And why is that? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, it is difficult first and foremost to track. Those 

fees are paid by our local offices, and we have constantly gone out 

to other land-management agencies to see what accounting system 

they have in place that would account for such fees. And Karen, 

correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that we found any of 

the other land-management agencies with such a tracking system 

that we could adopt. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And are those paid out of your budget? 

Mr. ABBEY. They are paid out of our budget. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So it is taxpayer money that is going to pay these 

environmental groups that sue you. And is it typically for something—what is a typical environmental lawsuit against you? Does 

it have to do more with grazing or is it more oil and gas, or is there 

a pattern? 

Mr. ABBEY. There is a pattern, and the pattern is that most of 

the lawsuits really focus on the NEPA analysis, and the trend is 

that a plaintiff will file a lawsuit alleging several deficiencies as 

part of that lawsuit, and unfortunately, all they have to do is find 

one that a court will sustain in order to win their case and then 

seek payments for their attorneys. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Do you pay on settlement agreements as well as 

attorney’s fees? 

Mr. ABBEY. Attorney fees are routinely negotiated as part of the 

settlement agreements, and if they are part of the settlement 

agreements, they are paid. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. And why would you pay if it was a settlement agreement? 

Mr. ABBEY. Again, during settlement agreements we assess the 

risk to the American taxpayer of what the cost would be if that 

lawsuit continued down the path of going through the courts and 

what the likely cost would be should we lose that lawsuit, and the 

reason and purposes for settlement agreements is to right a wrong, 

if there is a wrong that needs to be righted. It is also to move forward with the proposed action that people can agree to in a more 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
791 

timely manner than wait two, three or four years for a court to 

make a determination. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. I am going to move to uranium, Mr. 

Chairman. Are we okay? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I was just wondering if you would yield for just a 

second. I find it incredible that these fees come out of your budget 

and that it is too difficult to track them. This does not seem like 

rocket science. We can put a man on the moon but we cannot find 

out how much we are paying out in these fees? How can you budget for anything if you have no clue what you are paying out in 

these fees? It would seem that we could write our field offices and 

say hey, how much are we paying out in fees? This seems rather 

simple to me. Whether other agencies have a tracking program or 

not, I guarantee I can come down and put one together for you in 

short order, and there will be language within this appropriation 

bill as there was in last year’s bill that never became law which 

directed the DOI to track these EAJA fees so that we would at 

least have some idea of what we are paying out in fees. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, we did not incorporate into our budget 

request litigation costs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But it is incorporated because it comes out of your 

budget. 

Mr. ABBEY. We pay it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You pay it. 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But you have no idea how much of it is being paid 

in attorney’s fees rather than being spent on the ground in management? 

Mr. ABBEY. Not right now. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I find that just rather stunning. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

URANIUM PRODUCTION

It used to be prior to 2008 the BLM participated in the NEPA 

process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a routine 

basis. You signed on as a cooperating agency so you had that status, and there was one NEPA process. Now I understand that arrangement has changed so now licensees are going through two 

NEPA processes, and of course, the expense is enormous and it 

takes a very long time. My question is, why is the BLM duplicating 

the EIS process with respect to uranium production? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congresswoman, I am not sure of the reason. It does 

not make sense if that is the case. Let me follow up with a response back to you and let us look at the current process to see 

why we cannot consolidate that analysis and save everybody some 

time. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. A couple things on wild 

horses. 

WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

Mr. ABBEY. I am open to all thoughts. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I was approached by some folks, veterinarians that 

had developed fertility control for stallions, and I know you are 

concentrating on fertility control for mares. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
792 

Are you willing to try perhaps as a pilot project some fertility 

control for equine stallions? 

Mr. ABBEY. The challenge that we have with fertility control on 

stallions is that you have to be sure that you gather every stallion 

versus mares. You do not necessarily have to gather all the mares 

in order to apply fertility control that would actually make a difference. But with stallions, if you miss one or you miss half a 

dozen, they can raise havoc. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, among the culture of wild horses 

is the tendency for the alpha stallion to run younger stallions off 

and to protect his harem of the mares. 

Mr. ABBEY. Now, having said that, again, we are open to any 

suggestions or ideas or recommendations from any source, especially the source that you cited, as far as incorporating such actions 

into our strategy. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I have one more question on wild horses. Does BLM intend to 

honor the consent decree with the State of Wyoming regarding wild 

horse AMLs? 

Mr. ABBEY. To the best of our ability. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I note that you intend to reduce the amount of 

horses gathered and removed from the rangeland from 10,000 to 

7,600, and I would alert you that we have a serious overgrazing 

problem in certain parts of our state that is directly attributable 

to wild horses, and the romance that the American people have 

with these magnificent animals is helping to destroy the range and 

leaving those animals in some cases shameful condition because 

they are starving. They do not have enough to eat in certain areas. 

So I know the American people have this love affair and the romance, and they are beautiful. I am not denying it. The Pryor 

Mountain unit is genetically unique and it is a tremendously regarded prized resource in the State of Wyoming. They are tremendous animals. But elevating them above all other species in the 

way that we regard them is in fact deleterious to the rangeland resource. 

SODA ASH

And now I am switching to soda ash. May I, Mr. Chairman, just 

ask a question on soda ash? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Very quickly. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

What is the status of BLM’s report to Congress on the current 

royalty rate for soda ash? 

Mr. ABBEY. We have drafted a report that is undergoing review 

right now. We fully anticipate to be able to meet that October deadline that we have to provide that report to Members of Congress. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously you are a big deal in my state. You are tremendously 

important, and I could go on and on but I will submit some other 

questions in writing and look forward to working with you, and 

thank for you for indulging my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ABBEY. The agency is a big deal. I am not sure I am a big 

deal. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
793 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hinchey. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks very much. 

And Director Abbey, thank you very much. Thanks very much for 

the complicated job that you have and the way that you are dealing 

with it in what seems to be very effective ways. It is certainly challenging, no question about it. We know that you have done a couple 

of—there have been a number of positive things that have been 

happening, particularly over the course of the last couple of years, 

for example, the Wild Lands policy which was announced just a few 

months ago, oil and gas reforms the department initiated last year. 

Those two things are very, very important and a lot of other things 

that you have been dealing with, they are also very significant. 

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

The call for drilling on more public lands is also something that 

we are deeply interested in and we want to make sure as much as 

possible, and I am sure that you do too, that it takes place when 

it does in the most effective, safe and secure way. I understood that 

oil companies currently held 80 million acres under lease but you 

said now 40 million. 

Mr. ABBEY. On public lands that are administered by the Bureau 

of Land Management, there are 41.2 million acres that the BLM 

has leased. That is not to say that BOEMRE has not leased other 

offshore acres. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Other offshore acres, which is probably up to double that, maybe in the area of 80 million. That is interesting. And 

oil producing on 20 million of those acres, right? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, on public lands managed by BLM it is 12.2 million. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Twelve point two million? Okay. Good. So the Bureau of Land Management last year, as we understand it, issued 

4,090 permits to drill but operations began on only about 1,480 of 

those permits. Is that accurate? 

Mr. ABBEY. That is true. 

FEE ON NON-PRODUCING LEASES

Mr. HINCHEY. Okay. So you have got a deep interest in drilling 

on this public land and some of it is beginning to take place. Your 

budget proposes a $4-per-acre fee on non-producing oil and gas 

leases to incentivize current leaseholders to utilize existing permits. Is that going to take legislation here? Is this Congress going 

to have to do it before you can actively get engaged in it? 

Mr. ABBEY. Yes, you would through authorizing legislation. 

Mr. HINCHEY. So you are currently working on that, and I think 

this is something that we should be working on also. Thank you 

very much. I think that is a very important thing. I understand the 

$4-per-acre fee that you proposed would require that legislation. 

This is something that we have to do. 

Mr. ABBEY. That is true. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. HINCHEY. So the hydraulic fracturing situation is also something that we are deeply concerned about. The topic of natural gas 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
794 

drilling has gotten an awful lot of attention recently in a variety 

of ways. One of the most significant ways that it has gotten a lot 

of attention publicly is in the New York Times. The New York 

Times ran a series of articles, I think four articles, which were very 

interesting and in great detail on this issue, and it is very appropriate and helpful that that kind of thing is getting out there so 

more and more people can understand this situation. EPA is investigating, as I understand it, a groundwater contamination incident 

related to fracking in Pinedale, Wyoming, and we know that Wyoming is doing a lot of very positive things on this. So this fracking 

in Pinedale, Wyoming, where high levels of benzene, which of 

course is a known carcinogen, have been found in 88 separate samples in areas where natural gas operations are more concentrated. 

Federal air quality standards are being violated. We know that, 

and that is something that has to be overcome. 

A House Energy and Commerce investigation recently revealed 

that drilling service companies had been using diesel fuel in 

fracking fluid despite the fact that a 2003 pledge not to do so had 

been put forward. That was a few years ago. Nevertheless, it is 

being done. 

So I know that you are aware, and I saw the nod particularly. 

I know that you are aware of all the difficult situations that you 

have to contend with. I was wondering if in the context of this information and given this information basically, do you recognize 

that there are legitimate concerns about the risks that accessing 

this resource, specifically hydraulic fracturing, poses to public 

health and the environment? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, Congressman, again, I appreciate your leadership on this particular issue because it is a concern to this Nation 

as we look to natural gas more and more as part of a major component of our Nation’s energy portfolio. As I mentioned earlier this 

week to another committee, you know, hydraulic fracturing is a 

technology that has been used for a number of years. Most of the 

wells that are being drilled on public lands today use a component 

of hydraulic fracturing technology as part of their development. 

That does not mean that we should not be cautious about that use. 

In fact, we need to again continue to be vigilant in all the approvals that we grant to the companies for drilling on public lands to 

make sure that the public health and safety is being protected. And 

in our efforts to date we have not seen evidence from any operations on public lands that have led us to believe that there is a 

human health issue at this point. Our efforts also have been targeted to ensure the integrity of the well casings to make sure that 

there is little chance of any leakage from any of the fluids that are 

being used as part of that hydraulic fracturing technology of leaking into the water table. 

As we look across the Nation, though, with some of the new formations that are being drilled, we have to be very, very cautious 

because in many of these formations, they are right next to community water sources, and as part of that we need to ensure that 

every stipulation that is attached is a meaningful stipulation, there 

is appropriate monitoring and that we continue to work across all 

administrative boundaries, for example, with the studies that are 

being performed by the Environmental Protection Agency. If their 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
795 

studies indicate to us that there is something that we need to be 

doing differently or taking into account as part of our permitting 

authorization process, then we would welcome that information. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thanks very much. I deeply appreciate that, 

and I know that this is a very challenging situation and something 

that has to be dealt with. We need more energy. The energy situation in this country, basically on this planet, is getting more complicated and deeply more expensive, so a lot of these things have 

to be done in the best possible way. I mean, the problem that you 

have now overseeing this is something that did not exist. There 

was good legislation passed in 1974 but that was repealed in 2005. 

That complicated the whole set of circumstances that you have to 

engage in. So we appreciate the way in which you are doing that. 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, Congressman, if I could, the finding that companies are using diesel is certainly problematic to us. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Absolutely. That is absolutely a problem, and that 

is something that has to be examined and made sure that it does 

not happen. 

Earlier this year, Secretary Salazar stated that fracturing was— 

and this is a quote of his—‘‘the Achilles heel that could essentially 

kill natural gas.’’ That was his quote. He was referring to the 

public’s concern about this process, especially the fact that many 

companies do not disclose what chemicals they are using and what 

we are just talking about. The Secretary indicated that the department was working on regulations that would require disclosure and 

we should see something with regard to this sometime in the next 

few months. I know as you work on this, I would recommend that 

we all look at what Wyoming’s new disclosure requirements are as 

a model. In that state, they require pre-drilling and post-drilling 

disclosure along with specifics about the chemicals and their volumes. So our member here, I want to express my appreciation to 

your state for what they are doing in a leadership way on this particular important issue. 

So let me ask you this. Will BLM look at Wyoming as a model 

for the rules your agency develops on disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid chemicals? 

Mr. ABBEY. Congressman, we have looked very closely at the Wyoming system for possibly adopting it on public lands. We have also 

looked at other processes that other states have adopted, Arkansas 

being another example of recently passed legislation, and then 

there are other states too that have either passed legislation or entertaining legislation on this particular subject matter. 

We are also scheduled to go out and host several public forums 

over the course of the next month or two to get input from the public relative to what concerns they may have, some ideas and recommendations that they would pass along to us relative to if we 

adopt new regulations requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals 

that we take all that into account so that we can have the best regulations as possible. In the meantime, the Secretary certainly has 

been very open and public in his encouragement to the industry to 

voluntarily disclose the chemicals that are used as part of their 

fracturing. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
796 

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank you very much. Thank you very much for 

everything you are doing and for everything that you have said 

here today. 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Will the gentleman yield? May I add something? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Please. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I do not know if you have in your permits to drill 

or leases a provision that would require the companies to do baseline tests on the water before they drill but I think that is also advisable, because if they drill, test the water and require that that 

data be submitted to you, you have got that in the record, and then 

if there is subsequent question, you have already got the baseline. 

Mr. ABBEY. That is a great idea. Thank you for sharing. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

WILD LANDS POLICY

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me ask about another subject that I am 

sure you have attended several hearings on, Secretarial Order 

3310, Wild Lands. 

Mr. ABBEY. I was hoping to get through one without having to 

address that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. As you know, there was language in H.R. 1 which 

would have prevented use of funding to institute the Wild Lands 

policy. And you are talking to one of the Republicans who is probably most friendly to preserving wildlands and wilderness and 

other things. As you know, I have worked on several pieces of wilderness legislation over the years that I have been here. I actually 

think those lands are going to become more valuable as time goes 

on and the population grows and people are going to seek solitude 

in places that we have preserved for future generations that they 

can decide what they want to do with it. 

Let me tell you the concern I have with the Wild Lands policy 

and where I think you should have gone. The reason we did this 

is because the authority expired for the BLM to do wilderness 

study areas in their management plans, right? 

Mr. ABBEY. Under 603 of FLPMA. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And it expired, and an agreement between Secretary Norton and the State of Utah said you would not do any wilderness study areas on BLM land. Why did you just not go for reauthorization of that section of FLPMA? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, again, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act is a very complex and complicated piece of legislation, and I think it is one of the most fantastic pieces of legislation that was passed by Congress, but it also 

provides us a great deal of flexibility and I think we need that as 

far as managing 245 million acres of land for multiple uses. Under 

603 of FLPMA, it provided a certain deadline for the Bureau of 

Land Management to conduct a national inventory of public lands 

to identify those lands with wilderness characteristics and to designate those lands as part of that inventory as wilderness study 

areas, and then within a certain time frame make recommendations to Congress on which of those wilderness study areas we believe as the managing agency are deserving of wilderness designaVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00796 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
797 

tion and which of those wilderness study areas should be released 

for other uses. 

The reason why we did not pursue reauthorization is because 

there are other authorities within the Federal Land Policy Management Act including section 201, which directs the Bureau of Land 

Management to conduct routine inventories of all public lands including for purposes of identifying lands with wilderness characteristics. Section 202 and also sections 102, 103 and 302—I am getting 

to be an expert on this now—of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act also directs the Bureau of Land Management as part 

of our land-use planning process to use that inventory information 

that we routinely conduct as part of our land-use planning. So we 

did not see a need to have to go back and ask for reauthorization. 

We felt like we already had all the authorities necessary as part 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to move forward 

and using a very public process if through an inventory effort, because it is a two-phase approach under the Secretarial Order, we 

would conduct inventories of public lands to determine which of 

those public lands we have found to possess mandatory wilderness 

characteristics, and that includes size, naturalness and outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Those are the 

three characteristics in the Wilderness Act of 1964. So when we 

find lands with wilderness characteristics, then the Secretarial 

Order directs the Bureau of Land Management to take that information and through a land-use planning process, which is a very 

public process, as many of you know, to make a determination on 

whether or not the decision that is reached in that land-use planning process would be to protect those wilderness characteristics 

but limiting certain uses or make a determination to allow uses 

that could impact those wilderness characteristics. But if we decide 

through that land-use planning process to protect those wilderness 

characteristics that we would do so through a Wild Land designation. So that is a long way to address your question but we just 

felt like we had sufficient flexibility and authorities under FLPMA 

to go forward with the approach that we are taking. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that I think points out one of the problems. 

I think you have just infinitely increased the number of lawsuits 

that you are going to have because once you go through and you 

decide that something has wilderness characteristics and you decide that we are going to allow for, even though it has wilderness 

characteristics, outdoor recreation, we are going to allow for oil and 

gas leasing or we are going to allow for wind turbines or whatever 

on that land, I will guarantee you there is a lawsuit. And once you 

have allowed that, you have taken away the wilderness characteristics so why have a Wild Land once you have allowed oil and gas 

leasing on there? 

The other thing you have done, and this is what concerns me 

more than anything, is that you have made it infinitely more difficult to resolve wilderness debates that currently exist, and I will 

use a case I have been working on. Most wilderness debates come 

down to a compromise. You decide what area is going to be wilderness, what area you are going to release for multiple use, what you 

are going to release for wilderness study area. Once that compromise is made, you know, people come to the table for different 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
798 

reasons. Some of them because of the area you have released. Some 

of them come because of the area you have designated as wilderness. Some of them come because of the other things you have done 

in the area as you try to reach this compromise, bringing groups 

with different visions together, and that is very, very difficult to do, 

as you well know. All of a sudden you pass a law or you pass a 

wilderness bill that releases 130,000 acres of wilderness study area 

for multiple use and now the BLM can go in and say well, that obviously has wilderness characteristics because it was a wilderness 

study area and we will designate it as a Wild Land. Guess what? 

I have just lost that group of people that came to the table because 

of the release of the 130,000 acres. 

So I think you are going to make it more and more difficult to 

actually resolve some of the things I think Congress should be 

doing, and that is deciding what areas should be wilderness, what 

areas should be released. And those are some of the concerns I 

have that I do not think they have fully understood when they— 

I take the Secretary at his word. They were doing this with I think 

the best of intentions. But I think the outcome is going to be far 

different than what they intend, and consequently I think Congress 

is going to be very concerned about it as you well know they are 

because we have already held hearings in the Resources Committee 

and other committees and we have heard from many Westerners 

about the concerns on this, because, frankly, I do not see many 

Wild Lands being designated by the BLM east of the Mississippi. 

Most of them are going to be west. 

Mr. ABBEY. That is true. And I was just teasing about not wanting to address this issue because I appreciate the opportunity to 

address it, because you have valid concerns as do others that have 

raised similar concerns. Let me do my best to address some of 

those concerns. 

First and foremost, litigation was already being filed against the 

Bureau of Land Management prior to the Secretarial Order based 

upon us not fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In fact, we have several 

court rulings that have directed the Bureau of Land Management 

to go back to do inventories and then to take that information into 

account in making those decisions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. How many agencies or how many of your bureaus 

out there have completed their land management plans or nearing 

completion and now have to go back and do them again? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, we are not asking anyone to go back and do 

them again because what we are asking them to do is go back to 

their land-use plans that are in place today and to determine 

whether or not they are in full compliance with the Secretarial 

Order. That work is going on right now—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. But none of them will be, will they? 

Mr. ABBEY. Well, I think we will see several of—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Because they did not look at Wild Land characteristics when they did it originally. How could they be in compliance 

with the new Secretarial Order? 

Mr. ABBEY. In many of the new resource management plans that 

have been done, especially in the 9th Circuit because of previous 

court rulings that directed us to do the inventories, some of those 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
799 

inventories have been completed and that information was used in 

developing their land-use plans. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that 

you will see most of our more recent land-use plans being consistent with the Secretarial Order. That is not to say that all will 

be consistent, and based upon the review that is being conducted 

now by the field offices, they will report back to us by June or July 

or shortly thereafter what their findings are relative to if there are 

any inconsistencies within their land-use plans and the Secretarial 

Order. 

Let me also say something about your concerns about the Congressional process and the authority. Only Congress can designate 

an area as wilderness. We respect that. We understand that and 

that is the way it ought to be and that is the way it will continue 

to be. We also respect that as you go through a very, very difficult 

time of collaborating with many, many different stakeholders and 

coming up with proposed legislation and ultimately debate that legislation through the Congressional process and make a determination of which lands should be designated and which lands that 

were considered and discussed through the collaborative process 

should not be designated and released for other purposes, the Bureau of Land Management will defer to the language in that legislation on how to treat those lands in the future. 

I met with a group of stakeholders from Washington County in 

Utah just earlier this week, and they had similar concerns. They 

had passed the Washington County lands bill just two years ago, 

a very complicated process. Everybody came to the table. They 

reached a compromise. They designated certain areas as wilderness. They released the others. The concern is, will the Bureau of 

Land Management then go back and say these areas, just as you 

have, possess wilderness characteristics and therefore they are 

going to be designated as Wild Lands. The truth of the matter is, 

likely not because as we go forward, we will defer—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Likely not? 

Mr. ABBEY. Likely not, we will defer back to the Congressional 

actions that have taken place, recent Congressional actions. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So would you support language in the wilderness 

bill that we are working on that said the land, the 132,000 acres 

released for multiple use, can never be considered for wilderness 

designation or Wild Lands designation? 

Mr. ABBEY. I am not sure we would go that far, and I say that 

because—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Hence the problem. 

Mr. ABBEY. And I say that because circumstances can change 

over time, and an example of that is that we had wilderness legislation passed in Arizona back in 1986 or so. Well, that is 30 years 

ago. Over time some of those areas that were dropped from wilderness consideration are still in a natural state. There is public support for protecting those wilderness characteristics and therefore if 

we go back and through a land-use planning process and determine 

that those lands that have been previously considered by Congress 

30 years ago and not designated as wilderness are deserving of 

Wild Land protection, then we would consider making a decision to 

protect those wilderness characteristics through a Wild Land designation. But that is legislation that took place 30 years ago. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
800 

Mr. SIMPSON. But the problem is, I am talking about getting people to collaborate and come together. 

Mr. ABBEY. I know. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And you know that there is a mistrust of the Federal government and that while the BLM today says well, we 

would not go back and essentially override Congress or consider 

those for Wild Lands if Congress had released them, we do not 

trust the next BLM director or the next Administration four years 

from now because we do not know who is going to get elected, and 

that changes dramatically over time, and what they want is some 

certainty, and when these people come to the table, what they want 

is some finality. That is why we are trying to decide what is wilderness and what is going to be released, to create some finality, and 

all we have done is created more uncertainty in that well, okay, we 

have released it for now, and that is—— 

Mr. ABBEY. No, I understand the difficult situation we all face, 

but getting back to your other question, we would be happy to sit 

down with you and your staff on any wilderness legislation that 

you are entertaining and try to resolve your concerns through release language. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. Any other questions? 

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, we have the next hearing at 11:00. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let’s take a five-minute break. 

Mr. Abbey, thank you. I know that you have a difficult job because, as I said in my opening statement, no matter what decision 

you make, you are going to get sued. That is just the reality. We 

would like to find a way that we could reduce lawsuits by both 

sides—I do not want to just blame environmental groups by both 

sides—and actually put that money into managing the public 

lands, and I know you, as I said, have a difficult job and do your 

best and we appreciate what you do and I appreciate what you do 

in Idaho and the other states that are public lands states and I 

look forward to working with you on this. 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Abbey, I was going to say this privately, but I 

should say it publicly. You do an excellent job on behalf of not only 

BLM but the Department of Interior. Thank you. 

Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And we will come back in five minutes. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
801 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1276 here 66892B.163
802 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1277 here 66892B.164
803 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1278 here 66892B.165
804 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1279 here 66892B.166
805 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1280 here 66892B.167
806 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1281 here 66892B.168
807 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1282 here 66892B.169
808 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1283 here 66892B.170
809 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1284 here 66892B.171
810 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1285 here 66892B.172
811 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1286 here 66892B.173
812 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1287 here 66892B.174
813 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1288 here 66892B.175
814 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1289 here 66892B.176
815 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1290 here 66892B.177
816 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1291 here 66892B.178
817 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1292 here 66892B.179
818 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1293 here 66892B.180
819 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1294 here 66892B.181
820 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1295 here 66892B.182
821 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1296 here 66892B.183
822 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1297 here 66892B.184
823 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1298 here 66892B.185
824 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1299 here 66892B.186
825 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1300 here 66892B.187
826 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1301 here 66892B.188
827 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1302 here 66892B.189
828 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1303 here 66892B.190
829 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1304 here 66892B.191
830 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1305 here 66892B.192
831 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1306 here 66892B.193
832 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1307 here 66892B.194
833 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1308 here 66892B.195
834 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1309 here 66892B.196
835 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1310 here 66892B.197
836 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1311 here 66892B.198
837 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1312 here 66892B.199
838 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1313 here 66892B.200
839 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1314 here 66892B.201
840 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1315 here 66892B.202
841 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1316 here 66892B.203
842 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1317 here 66892B.204
843 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1318 here 66892B.205
844 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1319 here 66892B.206
845 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1320 here 66892B.207
846 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1321 here 66892B.208
847 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1322 here 66892B.209
848 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1323 here 66892B.210
849 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1324 here 66892B.211
850 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1325 here 66892B.212
851 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1326 here 66892B.213
852 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1327 here 66892B.214
853 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1328 here 66892B.215

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
(855) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011. 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND 

ENFORCEMENT 2012 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESSES 

JOSEPH PIZARCHIK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 

GLENDA H. OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 

RUTH E. STOKES, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 

OPENING STATEMENT CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning, and welcome, Director Pizarchik— 

say it for me. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Pizarchik. 

Mr. SIMPSON. See I could—that just does not flow. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Just say Joe P. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Joe P, okay. Thank you for being here today to discuss the 2012 Budget Request for the Office of Surface Mining. In 

conjunction with the states, the Office of Surface Mining oversees 

and regulates existing coal mining practices and seeks to reclaim 

abandoned mine lands which are the legacy of 150 years of coal 

mining. These are two different but complementary roles for the 

OSM and the states. 

For the fiscal year of 2012, the Office of Surface Mining is proposing a tighter discretionary budget of $145.9 million, a $17 million reduction below the 2010 enacted level. It was one year ago to 

the day that we were discussing your 2011 request. I see that a few 

2011 proposals have carried forward into 2012, such as the reductions to state regulatory grants while encouraging state fee increases. And I see that you have offered some new proposals including increased federal oversight inspections and reductions to 

the abandoned mine reclamation program. 

The budget also proposes new approaches to the mandatory 

spending that compromises the bulk of your budget. While those 

proposals may not fall into the jurisdiction of this committee and 

rather to the authorizers, we are certainly interested in the impacts as they would have substantive changes on how programs are 

managed. 

We will explore many of these areas further during our questions. I would like to yield now to our ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Moran. 

OPENING STATEMENT CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. 

Pizarchik, thank you very much for your leadership. You have tremendous experience in coal mining, and I know that Ms. Owens 

and Ms. Stokes are also very well qualified. So we have good leadVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00855 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
856 

ership at the top of the Office of Surface Mining. We appreciate 

that. 

The hearing today gives us a chance to look at a particular couple of very important policy issues. The stream buffer rule and the 

proposal to enhance the abandoned mine land program by focusing 

on the areas that have the greatest need. 

Some of our colleagues keep speaking of overage, and I do think 

it is an appropriate term to use when explaining how members of 

Congress have found it necessary to stop environmental regulations 

even before they are issued. A year ago, OSM published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to conduct an EIS for the stream 

protection rule, which will replace the 2008 stream buffer zone rule 

that was done in the waning hours of the Bush administration. 

Even though there is still no final rule, that, of course, has not 

stopped members from blocking OSM from completing its environmental review. This past month, during the floor debate on H.R. 

1, the House unfortunately voted to block OSM from developing, 

carrying out, implementing, or otherwise enforcing proposed regulations by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that some of the rhetoric from the coal 

industry has been deliberately misleading. So I am looking forward 

to the expert testimony of the Director of the OSM because he has 

such solid experience in surface coal mining. 

I am also anxious to hear about the Administration’s future proposal to alter the way that the abandoned mine land fund is used. 

I do think that AML needs to focus their substantial fee revenue 

on the places that have the greatest health and safety needs. There 

are thousands of sites, especially in Kentucky, West Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania and in Virginia, which show the scars of historic coal 

mining. They are substantial. They need to be addressed. Seems to 

me we should fix these areas rather than returning coal mining 

fees to states that no longer have abandoned mines. 

The purpose of the fee was to clean up abandoned coal mines, 

but instead, and I am sorry that Mrs. Lummis is not here because 

I wanted to address this comment to her directly. But a state like 

Wyoming is getting over $1 billion a year from the Interior Department for royalties and not using the coal fees portion of the revenues that they get for the purpose for which those coal fees were 

intended. 

Now, finally I do look forward to hearing about how OSM thinks 

the states will be able to take up more of the cost of running the 

coal mine regulatory programs. The states may have a different 

opinion about that funding issue, of course. But these are important issues. I am glad we have an opportunity to discuss them, and 

we appreciate the hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

TESTIMONY OF DIRECTOR PIZARCHIK

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Joe P., it is you. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and members of 

the subcommittee. I appreciate you inviting me here today to testify on behalf of the fiscal year 2012 Budget Request for the Office 

of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
857 

In 1977, Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and also created the Office of Surface Mining for two 

basic purposes. First, was to assure that the Nation’s coal mines 

were operated in a manner that protected the citizens and the environment during mining and that the land was restored to a productive use after mining. And second, to implement an abandoned 

mine lands program to address the hazards of environmental degradation that remain from the pre-Surface Mining Act days. 

Then, as today, coal remains a large source and important fuel 

for our country and provides today about half of our Nation’s electricity. When Congress enacted the Surface Mining Act, it recognized the need to strike a balance between the protection of the society, and protection of the environment, while also helping to ensure we had enough coal to meet America’s energy needs. OSM was 

charged with striking that balance. 

The 2012 budget is a focused budget. It is a budget that reflects 

some tough choices that we have had to make in these difficult economic times. The 2012 budget request for OSM totals $145.9 million in discretionary funding, which is a decrease of $16.9 million 

from the 2010 enacted and so far the 2011 continuing resolution 

level funding. For OSM, it supports the equivalent of 528 full-time 

employees nationwide. 

Some of the discretionary budget highlights include the increased funding and staffing of about $3.9 million for 25 FTEs to continue 

to fulfill this Administration’s emphasis and commitment to significantly reduce the adverse impacts of coal mining in Appalachia and 

across the country. But those are not 25 new employees. 18 of those 

are employees, or positions, that we will transfer from our AML 

emergency program, and the federal emergency program. 

The budget proposal also provides for, as I mentioned, the elimination of funding to state and federal emergency projects. That is 

a reduction of $3.5 million, of which $2.3 million is associated with 

the related federal reclamation staff of about 18 FTEs transferring 

from the emergency program into the Title V Program. So there 

would be a net increase of actually seven people in the oversight 

portion under the Title V Program. 

The reason for reduction and the elimination of the federal emergency program is due to the significant increases in the mandatory 

funding provided to the states over the recent years. In 2011, there 

was $395.6 million made available to the states for dealing with 

abandoned mine issues. 

The Administration’s proposal for OSM also provides for a reduction in the regulatory grants of $11 million to the states, and we 

have been encouraging the states to recover those costs from the 

regulated community. 

The proposal also provides for elimination of funding of federal 

high priority projects. It is about $1 million, and it proposes to 

cover future funding under the mandatory funding provisions. 

There is also a proposal for eliminating funding of technical studies 

and funds that we have been using to preserve maps for old, abandoned underground mines. Again, these are part of our tough decisions looking to where we could make some cuts to maintain our 

core principles but still help address the deficit issue that this 

country is facing. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
858 

Also, there is a reduction of outcrop fire projects of $160,000, and 

we are not just proposing cuts to the states and others. We are also 

proposing cuts to OSM. We are proposing to reduce our budget and 

our expenditures for administrative costs by $573,000, and that 

would come through reductions in travel, information technology 

and strategic sourcing, that is acquisition of goods and services nationwide. 

We are also proposing to eliminate a half million dollars that has 

been provided in the past for auditing resources associated with the 

coal export litigation. We no longer need it. Our fixed costs are 

fully funded as well. 

Regarding the reference you made, Mr. Chairman, to some of the 

legislative changes, the budget proposal of the Administration is to 

overhaul the abandoned mine land program to reduce some of the 

unnecessary spending and to ensure that the most dangerous abandoned mine land issues are addressed. 

Revisions fall into a number of major categories. The first, which 

is a repeat from previous proposals, is to eliminate funding to the 

certified states and tribes—those are the states and tribes that 

have certified that they have completed all the reclamation of their 

abandoned coal mines. And that would be a reduction of about 

$184.2 million for fiscal year 2012. The four states involved are 

Wyoming, Louisiana, Montana, and Texas. The three Tribes are 

the Navajo Nation, Hopi, and Crow. That substantive change in the 

statute was projected to save the treasury $1.2 billion over 10 

years. 

One of the other changes proposed is the allocation of the grants 

for AML reclamation. The existing process, where it is distributed 

based on a production formula, will change to a competitive process 

with an advisory council. And, in addition to those changes, there 

would be funds made available to address emergency projects in all 

states, to administer the state AML programs in all states and 

tribes, and to support the advisory council. 

As a final change, the administration is proposing the creation 

of a similar program for abandoned hard rock mines. It would involve a new reclamation fee on the current hard rock production. 

That fee would be developed and established by the Bureau of 

Land Management, I believe, who testified earlier today. And BLM 

would be the agency with an advisory council to distribute those 

funds on a competitive basis to address the most dangerous sites 

first, the most dangerous environmental and safety hazards on 

abandoned hard rock sites. 

Because of our experience over the past decades in collecting the 

AML reclamation fee for coal mining, OSM would provide that 

service to the BLM for the hard rock mining. This would avoid any 

duplication of efforts and achieve efficiencies using OSM’s expertise 

to collect those funds from the hard rock mining companies. 

The budget also proposes to continue with the payments to the 

United Mine Workers of America health benefit funds, estimated to 

be about $225.3 million in fiscal year 2012. 

Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today to testify, and 

I do want to remind everybody that due to my past employment in 

Pennsylvania, there are some matters which I had participated in 

from which I have recused myself to avoid any appearance of imVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00858 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
859 

propriety or any conflict of interest. If any question of that nature 

comes up today, my deputy, Glenda Owens, will handle those questions. Thank you, and I am available for questions. 

[The statement of Joseph Pizarchik follows:] 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
860 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1341 here 66892B.216
861 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1342 here 66892B.217
862 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1343 here 66892B.218
863 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1344 here 66892B.219
864 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1345 here 66892B.220
865 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1346 here 66892B.221
866 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1347 here 66892B.222
867 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1348 here 66892B.223
868 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1349 here 66892B.224
869 

COAL MINING PERMIT PROCESS

Mr. SIMPSON. So you are just going to shovel all the tough questions off to her? Is that right? I am just kidding. First, many of my 

colleagues from coal-producing states including the chairman of the 

full Appropriations Committee believe that the coal industry is 

paying a heavy price because of the demanding and often drawnout permitting reviews now imposed by the EPA, the Corp of Engineers, and the Office of Surface Mining. 

The enhanced coordination procedures agreed to in a 2009 memorandum of understanding were supposed to expedite the review of 

79 mining permits that had been stuck in the queue. With only six 

permits granted since the 2009 MOU and 39 permits withdrawn, 

withdrawn likely because the companies did not want or could not 

afford to jump through the additional EPA requirements for a permit, we see that the enhanced coordination procedures have only 

been a front really to delay or discourage additional mining in Appalachia. 

How would you characterize the permitting process that now governs coal mining in our country and more specifically in Appalachia? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Generally speaking, the permitting process in 

this country as a whole is handled mostly by the state regulatory 

authorities in states that have primary responsibility for the regulation of coal mining, and OSM is not involved and does not make 

those permitting decisions. We do provide technical assistance to 

the states on a requested basis. On federal lands, typically permitting decisions are handled, again, by the state where the federal 

land is associated. On tribal lands, we do handle the permitting for 

the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation and Crow Tribe as appropriate. 

Over the years, we have been working with the Indian Tribes, in 

order to develop regulatory programs to achieve primacy. We are 

very supportive of that. 

PERMIT COORDINATION IN TENNESSEE

In Appalachia, we recognize that there have been some issues, 

and OSM has been working with the Environmental Protection 

Agency and with the Army Corps of Engineers in Tennessee, where 

OSM is the primary regulatory authority. And in December, those 

efforts that we spent the last year working on culminated in the 

signing of a memorandum of understanding with those three agencies as well as with the Tennessee Department of Environment 

Compliance, TDEC, who handles the water aspects of permitting in 

Tennessee. OSM handles the coal mining permit. 

That process was developed to improve how we do permit coordination within the federal family and with the state regulatory authorities. We also have identified a number of standard operating 

procedures. We recognized that there were opportunities to improve 

the timeliness and the efficiency of the permitting. If you need to 

do water monitoring for your surface coal mining permit, water 

monitoring for your 404 permit that you get from the Corps, or 

water monitoring for the NPDES permit that you would get from 

the state water authority, then it made a lot of sense for agencies 

to get together to agree on where those monitoring points were loVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00869 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
870 

cated. This provides for a unified system of review that everyone 

could agree on, which would reduce the costs for the applicant as 

well as provide for more consistency and more timeliness. 

Under those operating procedures, we made efforts to get everybody educated on what is required under the different statutory 

and regulatory permitting requirements for the various regulatory 

authorities, for them to cooperate. 

We have not stopped there. We are exploring the use of the Tennessee model with some of the other states in Appalachia. OSM is 

not a permitting authority in those states but is working with the 

state regulatory authorities who do the permitting and also with 

the Corps and EPA to try to get similar improvements made to the 

process. 

This is something that is not necessarily just a problem in Appalachia. There have been some experiences where the multi-permitting of the mine site does not run as smoothly as we think it could, 

so we are continuing to work to try to make some improvements 

on those areas. 

We wanted to do it first where we are the permitting authority 

so that we could set the example of what could be accomplished. 

We are not telling the states that this is the way they have to do 

it. We are just laying it out as an example of what worked in Tennessee. We recognize that the state laws, and some of the processes, vary across the country. We are trying to facilitate with state 

regulatory authorities, the EPA and the Corps, a process where 

they can look at what we accomplished in Tennessee and maybe 

use that as a template, or a model, to make improvements to their 

permitting process and coordination. 

We have some more work to do. There is progress being made. 

We know there is interest, I believe, in West Virginia, Alabama, 

Kentucky. 

2010 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Mr. SIMPSON. When was this MOU signed? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. December of 2010. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Of 2010? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So this is a different MOU than the one signed between the Army Corps and Office of Surface Mining and the EPA 

in 2009? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It was meant to coordinate things? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. The 2009 MOU was a much broader overview. 

The 2010 MOU is much different. It is actually on the ground. The 

one that was signed in 2009 was signed by the leadership of the 

various agencies. The one that we executed in 2010, in December, 

is actually implemented at the field level, where the staff are making the permitting decisions, and doing the reviews; those are the 

people who are involved and committed to this new process. 

In order to be effective on implementing improvements and permit coordination, it is our view that you cannot mandate it from 

on high. You have to have the buy-in of the people who are actually 

making the permitting decision in the field. That includes the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
871 

state, and the field folks for the Army Corps, and EPA, et cetera. 

And that is how we approached it in Tennessee. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It seems to make sense, and I hope it is successful. 

We will be watching it closely. The more we can coordinate the requirements of all of the different agencies, state and federal, so 

that companies know what they have to do, it seems to make a lot 

of sense in streamlining, I guess, is the best word, the permitting 

process. 

But we will be watching that to make sure because the 2009 

agreement, when you look at, was kind of the general intent, but 

when you have—what was it—what did I say—six permits granted 

out of the 79 permits that were originally meant to—this was 

meant to address, that did not seem to do the trick very well. But 

I understand what you are doing. 

CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Mr. PIZARCHIK. If I may, there is one other aspect on which the 

Federal agencies are still working. Under the Surface Mining Act, 

before a permit is issued, the statute requires the regulatory authority to make a determination of the cumulative, hydrologic impact assessment of the proposed mining, and any likely future mining, on the streams in the particular area. 

There is a similar type of cumulative impact assessment that is 

required by the Clean Water Act to be performed by the Army 

Corps of Engineers when they issue fill permits. The agencies are 

working together to see if we can develop some processes to improve how the assessment is completed because the Surface Mining 

Act looks at a different area than does the Clean Water Act. There 

is some overlap, but there are some distinct differences between 

the two. And so the agencies are working to see if we can develop 

some tools that will help streamline that process and provide more 

clarity, more consistency, and more predictability for all the parties 

involved because it is something that has not been done in the 

past. 

MATERIAL DAMAGE OUTSIDE PERMIT AREA

And related to the cumulative hydrologic impact assessment that 

is required under the Surface Mining Act, the law specifically provides for the coal mines to be designed in a manner that they do 

not cause material damage outside of the permit area. That term 

has never been defined in the 33 years of this agency. That is one 

of the things that we intend to fix to provide some clarity and understanding and consistency to the regulated community, to the 

regulators, and to the environmentalists and citizens. So everybody 

knows what the standard is to judge a surface coal mining operation. 

2008 STREAM BUFFER RULE

Mr. SIMPSON. Under the 2009 memorandum, OSM committed to 

take another look at the 2008 Stream Buffer Rule. That rule required that fill be placed at least 100 feet from streams if the disposal of such fill would negatively impact water quality or quantity. This was finalized. It took five years to complete and promulVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:41 Jun 29, 2011 Jkt 066892 PO 00000 Frm 00871 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A892P2.XXX A892P2

tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
872 

gated after considering 400,000 comments. What concerns did OSM 

and not the courts have with the rule it had just published leading 

to an administrative stay and reconsideration of the rule? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. There are a 

number of reasons why we are looking at making improvements to 

our regulations. One, there was an error that was made in the 

2008 process, and the courts advised the Department of the Interior and OSM that instead of vacating it, that we would need to 

go through a new rule-making process. So that is what we are 

doing. 

Plus, the existing 2008 rule focused mainly on the valley fills and 

mountaintop mining in the area, and there are a lot of other things 

that it did not address in the effort to do a better job of minimizing 

the adverse impacts on streams and protecting streams. 

So we sought public input, and received over 32,000 comments 

and suggestions on how we could do a better job of protecting 

streams and improving our regulations. We took that information 

and we are looking at it. One of the things we realized is that we 

know a lot more scientifically about the adverse effects of mining 

today than we knew 30 years ago. A lot of that new information 

was not utilized in preparing the 2008 rule. 

We also know that there are new technologies available that can 

help the operators, the state regulators, and OSM all do a better 

job. So we believe that it is appropriate to also update our rules 

to provide more clarity, more specificity to everybody involved, and 

to take advantage of all the things that we have learned over these 

past 30 years, or so, to do a better job of protecting streams. 

STREAM PROTECTION RULE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)

Mr. SIMPSON. In Tuesday’s hearing with Secretary Salazar, we 

had many questions about the genesis for the revisions to the 

stream buffer rule and the associated environmental impact statement. Last July, OSM requested and received the authority to reprogram $7 million from state regulatory grants in order to fund 

the EIS. What is the estimated cost of the EIS, and how much has 

OSM spent or paid to the contractor for work on the EIS, and how 

much remains? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Well, first off, out of the $7 million, that was not 

all from the Title V or regulatory grants. Some of it came out of 

OSM’s other funds that we had available. On the contract amount, 

we used a competitive process, and we awarded a contract that was 

a little bit under $5 million to the contractor. $3.5 million of that 

has been spent as of March 7, 2011. That goes up through the January 2011 billing, and that leaves about $2 million remaining for 

additional work, staff travel, and contract work. 

EIS CONTRACT

Mr. SIMPSON. At Tuesday’s hearing, Deputy Secretary David 

Hayes indicated that the OSM was unhappy with the work the contractor had conducted to date on the EIS and found the contractor’s 

work to be inadequate. He also indicated that the department was 

looking at completely revamping that work. If OSM is unhappy 

with the work, does OSM anticipate the need to request additional 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
873 

funds to complete the EIS? And will this push back the anticipated 

delivery scheduled for the EIS? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. It was correct that we were unhappy with the 

quality of the work. We had hired the contractor to prepare an environmental impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations implementing 

that Act. It was not just OSM that had concerns with the quality 

of the work. We had been sharing drafts of the work product with 

cooperating agencies. Many of the states have been involved in this 

effort. They too shared concerns with the quality of work as to 

whether it met the legal requirements of NEPA. 

We issued a correction letter to the contractor in advance of the 

work product that was due on February 23, 2011. That work product has been received. We are taking our time to very thoroughly, 

closely and thoughtfully review those documents to make a determination as to whether they satisfy the contract requirements. 

Once we have that review completed, we will use that information 

to determine how we are going to proceed from that particular 

point. 

If the product is contract compliant, we will be able to proceed. 

If it is not contract compliant, then we will have to evaluate and 

determine how we proceed. That would add some additional time 

to the timeframe necessary to complete the rule making. 

Mr. SIMPSON. After Tuesday’s hearing with the Secretary and 

Deputy Secretary Hayes, it was—I do not want to say said, but implied and then an article came out in the paper that they may be 

looking at cancelling the contract with this company that was doing 

the EIS. Are you currently considering cancelling the contract with 

that company? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. We had some very strong concerns about the 

quality of the work. We have very high expectations that the work 

would meet the quality required by the contract and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. We are assessing the work product that 

we received after we notified the contractor of all of our concerns, 

and all options are definitely on the table. If we have a quality 

product, or if we do not have a quality product, we will consider 

what is the best way to proceed forward for the government and 

the public. 

STREAM PROTECTION RULE SCHEDULE

Mr. SIMPSON. Since the EIS will inform the stream buffer rule, 

the OSM needs the EIS before promulgating a rule. What is OSM’s 

timeline for promulgating the final rule? And will this happen in 

2012? And will the potential firing of this contractor and having to 

rehire another one, if that were to happen, would that delay this 

rule? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Where we are right now is that we still have to 

complete our assessment of the preliminary EIS and make a determination. And if we are unable to proceed with the current contractor due to contract compliance issues, that could extend the 

time period on the rule. We do need the information in the EIS— 

you are correct—in order to be able to continue with the development and complete the preparation of our proposed rule. We cannot 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
874 

proceed with the proposed rule or draft the EIS without having a 

quality preliminary draft EIS. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Will you need additional resources to do that? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. At this point in time, it is too early to make a 

determination on additional resources. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Moran. 

STREAM PROTECTION RULE: NEED

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As you are so well aware, 

one of the blessings of our natural world is the way that we get 

fresh, clean water. The skies open up. The water comes down, flows 

down mountains into mountain valleys, and the mountain streams 

flow into the river and so on, and thus we continue to provide adequate, fresh, healthy water and the process continues to regenerate 

itself. 

The problem is when mining firms come in and top off mountains 

and level the land by filling the stream valleys, it not only reduces 

the quantity of water that is available for individuals and industry, 

but perhaps even more importantly, it adversely affects the quality 

of that water largely because of the toxins that are often occluded 

in these mountains where coal is ultimately contained. And that is 

the reason for the stream buffer rule because the mountain top 

mining became so pervasive, particularly in the Appalachia, that 

we were seeing a very substantial threat to the public health as 

well as a reduction of the water supply that was available. 

But I wanted to clarify some things. This rule, this stream buffer 

rule that was negated during the debate on H.R. 1. I think there 

were four different amendments on mountaintop mining. They 

were all successful, and so basically you cannot even go forward 

with the introductory process of putting together this rule. But this 

initial rule did not come out during the Reagan administration and 

it is basically product of the Bush administration, 2008, is it not? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. The existing rule, the 2008 rule that came out 

under the previous administration, replaced a rule that had been 

enacted or adopted by the Reagan administration. That is correct. 

That was back in 1983. 

STREAM PROTECTION RULE: IMPACT OF H.R. 1

Mr. MORAN. Yeah, so neither administration had at least the reputation for being environmental extremists. That would be a fair 

statement. Tell us how you are going to deal with what H.R. 1 does 

if it were to be passed. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. If H.R. 1 were to be enacted and passed, we obviously would have to comply with the law. We would follow the law 

and we would not be able, as I understand it, to expend any funds 

on the development or implementation of the stream protection 

rule making. So at that point, all efforts would stop. All the efforts 

to eliminate the pollution problems that you mentioned, as far as 

polluting the streams and causing pollution, would still continue. 

Those efforts would be impeded. There would not be opportunities 

to take advantage of the modern technologies that we know to do 

a better job of making sure the amount of excess spoil is minimized 

and the spoil is put back where it should have been. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
875 

The extra efforts and refinements that we have in the process of 

developing and trying to do more source management to prevent 

the pollutants from being released from mining and going into the 

streams would still continue. That raises the specter that the companies who are generating those discharges and those contaminants, whether they are going to at some point in the future, have 

to begin treating those discharges. One recently occurred in a court 

case in West Virginia where selenium levels were being discharged 

and the court ordered the mining company to build a selenium 

treatment plant, a very, very expensive process. 

We will, in essence, be limited from taking proactive measures 

and refinements under our regulations to prevent discharges from 

happening. In some instances, for those operators who do not take 

proactive steps on their own and generate polluting discharges, 

those operators could be held liable. This could jeopardize their economic future as well, if discharges happen and they are not able 

to mine enough coal, to provide funds to pay for all those treatment 

costs in perpetuity. 

We could experience what happened in the context of acid mine 

drainage a decade or so ago. A lot of these companies went out of 

business and the cost of treating those perpetual discharges fell to 

the public and the government. So we would have to look at what 

we have in existing rules and see what tools are available. But I 

think our ability to do an effective job of striking a balance between 

protecting the public and society from the adverse effects of mining, 

while also making sure we have a viable coal industry to meet our 

country’s energy needs, would be hindered. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I want to fully understand this. The law remains in place, the Clean Water Act, and so on. You want to issue 

a regulation that would govern where the mountaintops can be 

placed and how to keep the water clean. This is kind of preemptive, 

I guess, of what otherwise would be policy that would be determined in the judicial system, that people ultimately would sue and 

the courts would make these decisions, some of them nationally oriented, but many of them ad hoc. 

And the companies would pay to correct the problems if they that 

could. Many of them would find ways to go out of business, and 

then the public pays for the cleanup after the fact. So we are talking about an effort that was successful this month to take this 

proactive initiative out of the process and leave it to the courts to 

determine how to restore the quality of our water, drinking water. 

It is interesting, I think a bit ironic. 

STREAM PROTECTION RULE: IMPACT ON JOBS AND PRODUCTION

Now, one of the arguments that was made, I recall, as we were 

in this debate, was that there were about 7,000 jobs that were 

going to be lost as a result of the stream buffer rule. But in looking 

at the ledger, even though that is what the coal mining companies 

say, it seems as though the production is not necessarily going 

down, and that it is possible that production can go up while jobs 

go down because of improved technology and so on, the mechanization of some of the processes. 

Is it possible that the coal companies are using the loss of jobs 

to achieve their efforts to eliminate regulation, to deregulate the 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
876 

process, but much of the loss of jobs is really due to the more modern processes of extraction? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Your question really touches on the point of advances in production. If you look at the trends in the number of 

jobs in the coal mining industry over the last decade or two decades, the number of people employed in mining coal has significantly dropped. It has been, in large part, due to mechanization, 

and improved efficiencies. There have been some other factors involved. 

For instance, out West in Wyoming, in the Powder River Basin 

the coal is much, much thicker. They do not have some of the hydrologic issues that we face in the eastern part of the country. And 

so it is a combination of improved mechanization and geologic advantages. 

And the numbers that you referenced on job loss, those numbers 

cannot be relied on. Some of the concerns that we had with the 

quality of the work product had to do with a wide variety of issues 

and the quality of the work produced by the contractor. Those numbers are not the Department of the Interior’s numbers. Those numbers are not the Office of Surface Mining’s numbers. In fact, we 

know now that those numbers were derived using some 

placeholders. So they have no value. And we have been working 

with the contractor, expressing our concerns to them, in order to 

get a quality product across the board that meets all of the requirements of NEPA and the regulations, and complies with the contract. 

Mr. MORAN. Even though the numbers have been used in debate 

as though they had been verifiable and they are not. You mentioned Wyoming for example, and that is—I will use that as a 

segue because I understand that North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, at least those three states’ production is going to climb by as 

much as 15 percent because of what you are talking about, the type 

of coal and where it is gathered. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Actually I would not rely on those numbers either. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. That was the first working draft from the contractor. You know, there was a lot of work that needed to be done 

at those times. As part of our effort to be more open and transparent, we were sharing those working drafts with cooperating 

agencies, many states, to get the benefit of their expertise and insight. And it was very unfortunate that those drafts, first draft documents, were weak and leaked. I do not believe that you can rely 

on any of those numbers. 

ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

Mr. MORAN. This is very helpful. Now, but I mentioned in the 

testimony that—and what I want to go back to is the difference is 

where coal mining is taking place and particularly in regard to the 

fee that is now collected to reclaim abandoned mines. The whole 

purpose of the fee was to restore these abandoned mines. It was 

unsafe. It was unhealthy. It left real scars on our environment, and 

much of that is along Appalachia. It is Virginia, Kentucky, West 

Virginia, et cetera. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
877 

That is where the money was supposed to be spent, but since 

much of the fee is now being collected gathered in states that do 

not have or have very few abandoned mines, the money is now 

going to western states such as those I just mentioned. And they 

just dump it into their general fund basically because they do not 

have the need for it. But the need for it is in these areas where 

we have conducted mining operations for over 100 years, and we 

have a situation that needs to be addressed. So you have a proposal 

within this budget to redirect those funds to achieve the intent of 

the abandoned mine land program, I gather. Could you elaborate 

a bit on that, Mr. Pizarchik? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Yes, Congressman Moran. You touched on a very 

important point. When the Surface Mining Act was originally put 

together, the formula on how the abandoned mine land fees that 

were collected on coal production were going to be distributed was 

based, in part, on where the production was occurring. And at that 

particular time, most of the production was occurring in the East, 

in a number of the states that you mentioned. 

Over the decades, as the easier-to-get coal was exhausted and no 

longer available, production started to drop somewhat in some of 

those eastern areas, not in all the states. But in addition to that, 

the resources that were available out in the Powder River Basin 

and places in the West became available. And to give an example, 

you have coal seams in the West that are 60 or 70 feet thick. Nothing of that magnitude here in the East, and so the production shifted out West, which led to an increase in fee collection and distribution. The unintended consequence, I think, is a lot of money going 

to the areas which had certified they completed the reclamation of 

all their abandoned coal mine lands. 

And so the Administration’s proposal is to refocus the funds to 

the abandoned coal problems and the original purpose of reclaiming them to deal with the highest priority, the most dangerous sites 

in the East and the West, wherever they are. It is just based on 

the history of the country and the history of mining. Most of those 

sites remain in a number of the eastern states that you had identified. 

AML EMERGENCY FUNDING

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. You did cut that program by $8 million 

though for emergency grants and projects. I just wanted to—and 

then I will conclude my question, but I did want to wrap up this 

aspect of it. Why do you think you justified in reducing the money 

for emergency grants? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Two aspects on that. First, we are proposing to 

reduce it as far as the discretionary appropriations. But the reason 

for that is due to the increase in a mandatory dispersements to the 

states. 

For example, as recently as 2007, the states received $145.3 million of abandoned mine land fees. In 2011, there has been $395.6 

million available for distribution. So the view is that the increase, 

in mandatory distributions is more than enough to cover the AML 

emergencies in the particular states. And so some of the states we 

have been working with over the years have taken on that responsibility. In 2010, the states with AML programs, where OSM had 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
878 

been conducting the emergency program, were notified that they 

needed to take on the responsibility for addressing emergency 

projects themselves with their AML mandatory funds. 

That process, that transition process, has been pretty much completed. OSM provides technical assistance to the states as it always 

has. And under the Administration’s proposal, out of the mandatory distributions that would be available in 2012, $313.8 million, 

some of those funds would be available to use for the emergencies 

wherever they occur. And whether it is in a certified state, an 

uncertified state, a state that does not have an AML program, the 

money would be available to take care of these projects. And the 

belief is that there are sufficient funds to take care of those emergencies out of the mandatory appropriation from the AML fund 

without having to use general treasury funds. 

Mr. MORAN. Good answer. I just wanted to get that on the 

record. Thank you. And the policy certainly makes sense. You 

would think you would be able to save money in that area. Thank 

you. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Hinchey. 

EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT OF OVERSIGHT IN APPALACHIA

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you very much for the work that you are doing. We know how important it is, and thank you for what you are talking about here 

today. I just wanted to ask you a simple question and follow up 

with what was just said by Mr. Moran. 

I understand that there is a budget request which contains an increase of $3.9 million for expansion and enhancement of federal 

oversight stream protections, and mostly in this particular case, it 

is going to be focused on the Appalachian system. So I wonder if 

you can—first of all, I think that that may be not nearly what is 

needed. But nevertheless, I appreciate that you are trying to get 

some additional funding to focus attention on this particular issue, 

but probably there is a lot more that could be done and a lot more 

money could be used for that operation. 

I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about what the situation is in Appalachia, what are the kind of things that are you 

going to have to deal with there in overseeing this. We know how 

serious it is to some extent at least, and to whatever extent you 

are going to be focused on other areas outside of Appalachia that 

deal with this issue as well. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you, Congressman Hinchey. When I took 

this job and started in November of 2009, we were in the process 

in the Office of Surface Mining of launching improvements to our 

oversight and conducting additional oversight in Appalachia to address, and try to prevent and minimize, the adverse impacts of coal 

mining. But we were looking at oversight nationwide. One of the 

underlying principles that Congress put in the Surface Mining Act 

is that we were to develop a nationwide program. So we have been 

trying to do oversight nationwide and maintain that as far as to 

make sure we have the appropriate amount of oversight inspections across the country. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
879 

We recently developed and published final internal guidelines 

that sets forth the criteria to decide where we would do our oversight inspections and the percentages of oversight inspections, et 

cetera. And we had also increased our inspections by about 40 percent in that first year. In order to be able to increase since, we did 

not have any additional staff or resources, we refocused some of our 

efforts where we provided technical support and training to the 

states. 

Many of the states, like OSM, have a workforce that is reaching 

retirement age, and they are going to need to have new people 

come on board. The newer staff obviously need to have some type 

of training, and OSM provides the programmatic training to states, 

staff in cooperation with the states. So we need additional staff to 

continue to provide the necessary training and technical support to 

the states. Without it we would have a problem where we can end 

up with maybe more violations, more complaints, and more environmental problems without properly trained staff. 

The process of refocusing staff was not sustainable, so we are 

looking to increase our oversight folks so we can maintain the level 

of oversight that we conducted last year, as well as continue to provide the technical support and training to the states. 

Some of the things that we found during oversight is that there 

was an increase in the number of 10-day notices. Now, a 10-day notice does not necessarily mean that there is a violation. It means 

that we have—if it came through a citizen complaint—that it appears to be the potential for a violation. Under the law, we provide 

a 10-day notice to the state regulatory authority, and they have 10 

days to investigate and respond back to us—to give us all the facts, 

to let us know, since they have the primary responsibility, is there 

merit to the potential violation or not. And if there is a problem 

out there, then they have to address it. 

Some of the other things, areas where we know of an issue, is 

in one of the states in Appalachia. As part of our oversight improvements, we looked at the adequacy of the bonds. We found that 

about 80 percent of the bonds and mine sites that were forfeited 

did not have enough money to complete the reclamation as was 

contained in the operator’s reclamation plan. 

So we are working with that state and developing a plan in order 

to make the improvements to the bonding program to meet the 

statutory requirements. Therefore, if there is a bond forfeiture, that 

the state has enough money to reclaim the land and put it back 

the way it was prior to mining. 

OSM OVERSIGHT OF STATE PROGRAMS

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, the situation there in Appalachia is something that really has to be dealt with effectively, right? There are 

a lot of problems there. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Well, yes, there are problems. There are places 

for improvement. Most operators want to do the right thing and do 

a good job. Same way with most state regulatory authorities. Having formerly worked for a state regulatory authority, I know sometimes there are circumstances and environments that may not enable the regulatory authority to be able to do as effective a job as 

they want to do. And that is part of where OSM is responsible. We 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
880 

are required to do the oversight to make sure that the states who 

voluntarily took on the obligation to implement the law, that they 

do so and do so effectively. And sometimes there are parts where 

they will be doing an excellent job. Maybe economic circumstances 

change or there are other factors, and maybe there is a little slippage. And you have to make some improvements in specific areas. 

And so that is the role that OSM has had to play, and it varies 

a little bit depending on the circumstances. There has been a lot 

of improvement that has been made in Appalachia and a number 

of states. With the technology we have today and the science that 

we have today, we know there is still room for improvement and 

more things that we can do a better job at. 

YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AT OSM

Mr. HINCHEY. Well, thanks very much. One of the interesting 

things that you are doing, a number of interesting things, is youth 

engagement and the enhancement of youth in the operation that 

you are engaged in. Could you just tell us a little bit about that, 

what you are doing, what the objectives are there, and what are 

you expecting to see happening in this context? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Sure, that is a very good point. A number of 

years ago, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement 

engaged in a partnership agreement with the Americorps and Volunteers in Service to America. We partnered with those folks to get 

youth involved who would make commitments and go into the communities that have been adversely affected by historic coal mining 

and work with citizens to help them understand the law, and some 

of the opportunities available for cleaning up their areas. This 

helps them deal with the abandoned mine issues or abandoned 

mine drainage and other things that have adverse social and economic impacts that the historic coal mining has left on their communities. 

Under that program, we provide part of the money. Our partners 

provide the other part of the money, and we had a couple hundred 

young adults working. They typically do about a year’s internship. 

What we hope to accomplish in that particular area is getting more 

of the youth in America involved in dealing with some of the problems we have, both environmental and social problems, with the 

historic coal mining that has occurred. And with the expectation of 

helping to improve the environmental and the social conditions in 

those areas, as well as hopefully getting those people to consider 

a career in either government service or other environmental areas. 

In this past year, we had a former VISTA student that applied 

for and was hired as a Federal government employee. We also have 

added internships where we bring college students in during the 

summer to help in some areas where we do not have enough work 

to hire a full-time employee permanently. We also have students 

help with some of the mine mapping, and some of the IT work. 

Some of the youth are terrifically skilled in the information technology, the high tech area, and that has been very helpful. 

And part of what we were trying to do again is to bring more 

young people into the government. We are also coordinating these 

resources with the states who were having some fiscal difficulties, 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
881 

and where we could provide some services for the work that they 

needed to have completed. 

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

MINING WITHIN 100 YARDS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had more of a comment than I have a question. I was curious, having served on both 

an agriculture and a DNR committee that dealt with setbacks and 

everything, and we have mining and we have big ag and everything else, kind of like what—I did not want to just go from own 

memory, and looked at the guides that we have for shore mine 

management standards, and basically what I am seeing, whether 

it is the EPA or ag or whether it is the DNR on—whether it is mining, recreational, or development, it is about 100-yard setback minimum wherever I look through statute. And I know at one point in 

our state’s history, there was none, and then it was 25, and then 

it was 100. And 100 is the minimum. In some areas where it is 

more fragile, it is higher. And that is about the length of this hall 

right here. That is all we are talking about, about the length of this 

hall out here for not piling things any closer to that where there 

is possible flood, water runoff, anything that is going to get into the 

water. 

So I wish you luck. I think it is common sense. I wanted to make 

sure that the federal government was not out there doing something really radical, really extreme, but it appears, and I did a 

quick look at some other states while I was sitting here, and it 

seems like any time that there is kind of water involved, it is going 

to be common sense, kind of prudent, that you create at least a 

hallway length of buffer between where you are piling things up, 

where you are digging, where you are building, and the water. 

So you are just kind of—are you looking at—is the contractor 

kind of looking at what is best practices, or supposed to be looking 

at was best practices? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. There are a lot of things that the contractor was 

hired to look at—what the potential environmental impact would 

have been, and the overall environmental impact assessment. In 

November of 2009, we laid out some potential concepts in areas of 

how we thought maybe the regs should be improved and sought 

public input on that. As well, we asked the public for other suggestions. 

We took that information, and we prepared a number of alternatives. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, we have to 

look at what is our preferred alternative and some other reasonable 

alternatives and to have the contractor analyze those. Part of that 

is looking at other data and resources, information, and to figure 

out what else is available, what works, what does the science say, 

what does not work, et cetera. That information will be used to put 

together the environmental impact assessment to help me have the 

information to decide what OSM needs to put in the proposed rule 

that is being developed. 

Some of the things that we have that are a bit different that 

what you cited is that under the Surface Mining Act, it does not 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
882 

prohibit mining on streams. It anticipates that there will be some 

adverse impact on streams in the permit area. The practice for the 

past decades has been, in most states, to allow streams to be mined 

through, and then for reclamation to occur. The Surface Mining Act 

provides for mines to be designed to prevent material damage outside of the permit. When it comes to excess spoil in various steep 

slopes, what happens if you are in a very steep area, a mountainous area, when you break up all that rock, you cannot compact 

it and put it back as tightly as Mother Nature did. So you have 

more volume to deal with. 

So the law specifically allows for placement of excess spoil in certain areas. What we are trying to do with this rule that we are developing is to do a better job in striking the balance in protecting 

the environment, to minimize the adverse impacts on the streams, 

as well as to make sure we have enough coal to meet our country’s 

energy needs. 

And one of the concepts we have that we are looking at leaves 

it up to the mine operator, let the company decide whether it wants 

to mine through that stream. But if it does so, the company would 

restore the stream’s form and function. So that if you had a perennial stream with fish there before mining, complete the mining, 

then put a perennial stream with fish there after mining. That is 

something to look at, and it is a business decision. And if they 

think that they cannot do that and they choose to stay out of the 

stream, that is their prerogative. 

Some of the other ideas we are looking at developing is that if 

you are going to stay away from the stream, stay at least 100 feet 

away, that is what was in the ’83 rule. Keep the buffer forest. We 

know that the forest does a better job of controlling the storm 

water runoff and pollution. If you are going to mine through a 

stream and restore it, then put a larger buffer in place because it 

is going to take a little while for those trees to get mature. 

So we are looking to try to craft an enhancement to provide more 

clarity, more certainty to the industry so it can do a better job of 

protecting streams. The approach is to let mining companies make 

a conscious business decision. Is it really worth risking this kind 

of environmental degradation or this kind of risk to my company 

for creating pollution? 

We are looking at trying to do a better job of handling the toxic 

materials so that you can keep the pollutants from leaving the site. 

We do not have the luxury of just drawing a line and saying you 

have to stay X feet away from every stream. The statute does not 

give us the authority to do that. We are working within the constraints. We have to do a better job to try to provide for that protection of the streams in what means we have available. 

EIS CONTRACT

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I have a question on the contractor. 

We have somebody who sounds like they did not do the job that 

they were asked to do. So are we paying this person? Are we having to pay this person to redo the work? I was—Mr. Chair, I was 

on ledge branch when I found out we were paying for change orders for stuff that people should not have done in the first place 

because they were missing a piece, and they went ahead and knew 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
883 

that they had to redo the sprinklers, put the ceiling in, and then 

took the ceiling out to put the piece that they knew was missing 

in the sprinkler. So I mean and we paid for the change orders in 

most cases. 

What is going on with this person that could be a woman too so 

I will not say gentleman in billable hours and everything for us? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. The contract that we have through the competitive selection process is a small business under the SBA guidelines. 

They have a number of subcontractors that work for them, and 

they have been producing a work product. We have a timeframe. 

As I indicated earlier, we had some concerns, as others did, with 

the quality of the work. So we provided them comments back and 

an opportunity to correct the problems. 

With the cure letter that we had sent out and with the work 

product that was coming in on the 23rd, there were some other 

things that were scheduled to occur after that time period. For instance, under the National Environmental Policy Act, when you 

have the draft Environmental Impact Statement, that needs to be 

published for public comment. And you need to have hearings. We 

have asked the contractor to do no further work on scheduling 

those hearings because we wanted to make sure we actually had 

a draft document available that we could publish. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, I understand that, but the contractor is 

going to have to go back and redo the work. Is that—and causing 

great inconvenience and, you know, a PR problem for you. Is this 

individual having—is this individual, you know, reclaiming, you 

know, hours or asking for more money, or is this person expected 

to do the job right the second time with the amount of money they 

were given the first time? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. When we provided the cure letter to them that 

outlined our concerns in the areas where we thought that the quality of the work did not meet the contract requirements, we did that 

with the expectation that they would provide us a contract compliant work product with the same funds that they had already received without additional funds. 

Right now, we are still in the process of reviewing that work 

product, and I do not know what the future holds yet because we 

have not completed that review. When that review is completed, I 

will be sitting down with my staff to hear what they have found. 

And based on that information, we will decide what makes the 

most sense and the best way to proceed. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So if you suspend a contract, let us say—I am 

not saying you are going to, but if you were to suspend the contract, does the contractor get paid in full because you have to go 

back, you have to reissue? This has been a PR disaster for you with 

everything that I am hearing floating around in Congress. I mean 

is this individual held responsible in any way, shape, or form? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. The contract we have is for a lump sum for the 

total product, and there was a time period for it to go on through, 

and I believe we were scheduled to, under the plan, have the final 

environmental impact statement in December 2011. I cannot remember the exact date on that, but we have a progress schedule 

where, as they were progressing, we were making scheduled payments. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
884 

And as I understand it from talking to our contract lawyers, if 

the situation leads to where there is a termination of the relationship, that the additional payments would not be due to the contractor. It can get pretty complicated. You can get into litigation. 

From our view, we hired a contractor to provide us with an environmental impact statement that complied with the contract, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the regulations. And that is 

what we expect to get for the money that we paid. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. You are welcome. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It has been my experience that we have a tendency 

to agree with that science that supports our preconceived ideas and 

disagree as bad science as science which conflicts with our preexisting beliefs. The same is true of studies. There have been a 

number of people who have said that the reason this contractor is 

not complying or is said is not complying or has produced a bad 

work product is because you did not like the results of what they 

were doing. Not saying that is true or not, but there is that argument out there also. 

I would be interested at some point in time in a probably more 

private setting to sit down and talk about what exactly it was in 

the work compliance that OSM and DOI disagreed with in what 

they were doing because there is that argument out there that it 

is just, you know, you did not like the results, so it was a bad work 

product. Not saying that is true at all. Not even suggesting it, but 

a couple of questions I need to ask. 

STATE REGULATORY GRANTS

In 2010, the budget fully reflected the 50 percent federal match 

for the state regulatory programs for the first time. The administration is again proposing to fall short of the 50 percent commitment in 2012 and shift a greater share of the cost of the regulation 

onto industry via the state fees. The administration indicates that 

OSM would work with the states to raise their permitting fees to 

cover a greater share of their costs. 

We noted at last year’s hearing that additional fee increases was 

not likely to be a politically viable option for some states. How 

many states have enacted fee increases since the proposal was announced last year? And have you conducted a full analysis of the 

administrative rulemaking complexities inherent in such an undertaking? 

And along those same lines, to what degree would states need to 

increase their fees in order to recoup the loss of the $11 million in 

grants that the 2012 budget proposes to cut from the 2010 level? 

And could you provide for the record a table of existing fees, fee 

levels by states, and the percentage of increase that each state 

would need to enact in order to recoup the loss of the federal grants 

to the states? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. There are a lot 

of questions in there. I may have to circle back to you on some of 

those that I do not answer. It is my recollection that there was one 

or two states that have enacted some type of a fee increase that 

we processed since last year on this. Most of them have not, and 

as far as getting together with the states, we have been working 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
885 

with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission to gather data to 

get a better idea of what is the status, what type of fees are being 

charged or collected in each state. 

It is my understanding that there is a great deal of variety out 

there and variation. And we do not have a handle on that yet. We 

did receive some input from the states on the development of the 

questionnaire, and we have the hopes that we will be able to get 

that out to the states and that they will respond to that to help 

provide the information that we would need in that particular area. 

In regards to how much money the states get and the fees and 

how much they are collecting, our understanding, based on some 

prior information that we had gathered, that of the 24 states that 

receive grants, 20 states collect some type of permit fees. The percentage of the fee that they recover varies widely. Some of them 

as much as 50 percent of the cost of the program. Some of them 

as low as around 1 percent, and we also know that in some states, 

the regulatory authority cannot adjust a fee, that it must go 

through the state legislature. 

And we know that those things can take time, and there can be 

a lot of other factors involved, particularly in these difficult budget 

times. In working with the states after our hearing last year on 

this, we sat down with the states and talked to them. And a lot 

of them expressed concerns about whether they would be able to 

get those type of fee increases and asked OSM to do it. And so 

we—part of our charge at OSM is to provide assistance to the 

states—are willing to explore and work with the States and if necessary, to promulgate a regulation or request legislation to collect 

the fee on their behalf. 

We cannot do the job without them, and we need to work together. And if they have some type of impediment, maybe we can 

work together to address that. So we are exploring those possibilities as to how to get there. 

Regarding how much money will be needed, whether that $11 

million needs to be entirely made up. Some of that will depend on 

the states themselves, what type of income they have. If they do 

not need the amount of money that they have indicated in their 

preliminary grant requests, the $11 million may not actually be 

$11 million that they need. It might be something less than that. 

If we have carryover funds—we do not know that until we get to 

the end of the year—we have the two-year appropriation for those. 

And we will use the carryover funds from the previous Title V year 

grant to make it available to the states to help address those issues 

as well. 

So we have some tools available to us. We do not know exactly 

how that will all end. Another aspect of it is under our existing regulations, it provides that should we not have enough money to give 

every state 50 percent of their cost of their program, that the 

amount of money that we do have would be prorated among the 

states. So that each of them would equally share a corresponding 

reduction and not any one state would suffer the burden of carrying a larger reduction in fees than the other ones. 

Did I miss any? 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
886 

Mr. SIMPSON. No, that pretty much covers it. There was one 

other question that I wanted to ask, and I am fairly certain I know 

where it is but maybe not. Mrs. Lummis, did you have some? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stall for a minute 

while you look. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay, thank you. 

AML FUNDS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Actually I do not have a question. I do have an observation. It is about AML. I understand that subject has come up 

in my absence while I was at other hearings. Under SMCRA, the 

state of Wyoming and any other state that has coal production, is 

entitled to its share under the law of that money. And that money 

belongs to my state. It does not belong to the federal government, 

and so that is—it is just clear. It is in the law. 

Now there are some laws that people do not like. Apparently the 

president does not like the Defense of Marriage Act law, and he is 

not going to enforce it. But that does not mean it is not the law. 

That is that way with AML, you know. So now I would strongly 

encourage you to also visit with Congressman Rahall of West Virginia because my predecessors, between Wyoming and West Virginia delegations, negotiated an arrangement which allowed the interest income off those monies to be used to resolve the problem of 

the United Mine Workers Combined Benefits Fund and to ensure 

that those orphaned miners whose mines went out of business and 

could no longer pay, to make sure they had benefits to which they 

were entitled. It provided that source of funds. 

And as a successor to that agreement that was made by my successor with Congressman Rahall and others from West Virginia, I 

am going to honor that agreement, and to his great credit, so is 

Congressman Rahall. So I encourage you to look at the history here 

and as discussions about AML occur, I think there is a history that 

is worth revisiting. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. If I may. Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis. 

As far as the president and this office following the law, we have 

done that. We will continue to do so. We made a proposal last year, 

as I am sure you are aware, to reduce or eliminate funding to your 

state or any other state who certified they completed reclamation. 

That was not enacted by Congress, and earlier this year, for the 

2011 budget, the mandatory distribution funds were made available. We are implementing the law. 

I understand there is a history there. There is also history that 

we discussed earlier when you were not here that the original purpose was to try to get the worst of the abandoned mine lands 

cleaned up, and the original formula was based upon where coal 

production was occurring at that time. Things have changed which 

lead to some of the statutory changes. The most recent were the 

2006 amendments. I appreciate your view that it was your money. 

Just like you, I was not here for those discussions. And for whatever reason, all that money was not appropriated at that time, and 

that led to the 2006 amendments and the compromises that were 

struck at that point in time. 

We are in some very difficult budget times right now, and, you 

know, the money that would be going to Wyoming is coming out 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
887 

of the general treasury fund. And, you know, that is one of the reasons why we are looking at proposing it is to reduce the amount 

of the deficit we have, recognizing that there was a lot of history 

behind the issue. 

But again, we are trying to deal with the situation that we have 

today, and we do know that it requires statutory changes. We are 

working on putting that information together for consideration 

later this year. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that discussion, and did I stall long enough? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I found it. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

FEDERAL PERMIT FEES

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Last question. The budget proposes to 

permanently allow OSM to retain and use up to $40,000 in coal 

mine permit applications and renewal fees which are currently collected and deposited in the general fund. These offsetting collections would reduce the appropriated amount by the amounts collected as collections roll in. How much was collected in 2009 and 

2010? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. I do not have those numbers at my fingertip. My 

budget officer tells me that they have been averaging about 

$40,000 a year. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Total? 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Yes, and to give you an idea of cost recovery, it 

is about a couple of percent of our actual cost, and earlier we had 

mentioned that we were encouraging the states to recover more of 

the costs. We are looking at the same for ourselves. We started this 

past year by putting the infrastructure together, the coding together, information to be able to track our actual costs. Our intention is to do the same thing for the Federal programs that we are 

asking the states to do, to recover more of those costs for the services that are provided to the industry. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for being here today and participating 

in this hearing. We look forward to working with you as we put together your 2012 budget. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. You are welcome, and you had mentioned about 

wanting to get together. I am available to get together to meet individually with any member who would like more information. I 

would be happy to do so. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We will do that. 

Mr. PIZARCHIK. Thank you very much. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARING
888 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1394 here 66892B.225
889 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1395 here 66892B.226
890 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1396 here 66892B.227
891 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1397 here 66892B.228
892 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1398 here 66892B.229
893 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1399 here 66892B.230
894 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1400 here 66892B.231
895 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1401 here 66892B.232
896 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1402 here 66892B.233
897 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1403 here 66892B.234
898 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1404 here 66892B.235
899 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1405 here 66892B.236
900 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1406 here 66892B.237
901 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1407 here 66892B.238
902 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1408 here 66892B.239
903 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1409 here 66892B.240
904 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1410 here 66892B.241
905 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1411 here 66892B.242
906 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1412 here 66892B.243
907 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1413 here 66892B.244
908 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1414 here 66892B.245
909 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1415 here 66892B.246
910 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1416 here 66892B.247
911 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1417 here 66892B.248
912 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1418 here 66892B.249
913 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1419 here 66892B.250
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Abbey, Robert ........................................................................................................... 763 

Bennett, Barbara ..................................................................................................... 247 

Elkins, A. A., Jr ....................................................................................................... 149 

Hayes, David ............................................................................................................ 547 

Haze, Pamela ........................................................................................................... 547 

Jackson, L. P ............................................................................................................ 247 

Jarvis, Jonathan ...................................................................................................... 707 

Kendall, Mary .......................................................................................................... 1 

Mittal, Anu ............................................................................................................... 1 

Mouritsen, Karen ..................................................................................................... 763 

Najjum, Wade .......................................................................................................... 149 

O’Dell, Margaret ‘‘Peggy’’ ........................................................................................ 707 

Owens, G. H ............................................................................................................. 855 

Pizarchik, Joseph ..................................................................................................... 855 

Rusco, Frank ............................................................................................................ 1 

Salazar, Hon. Ken .................................................................................................... 547 

Sheaffer, Bruce ........................................................................................................ 707 

Stokes, R. E .............................................................................................................. 855 

Trimble, David ......................................................................................................... 149 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

2012 Volume 6—Hearing Indices 

Major Management Challenges at the Department of the Interior 

March 1, 9:30 AM 

Page 

Acquisition Management ......................................................................................... 46 

BIA Alaska Reservation Roads Program ............................................................... 119 

BIA Detention Facilities .......................................................................................... 118 

Biography: Anu K. Mittal ....................................................................................... 44 

Biography: Frank Rusco .......................................................................................... 44 

Biography: Mary Kendall ........................................................................................ 54 

Communications Coordination ............................................................................... 61 

Cross-Department Coordination ............................................................................. 62 

Environmental Stewardship vs. Oil and Gas Development ................................. 94 

Financial Assistance ................................................................................................ 46, 70 

Financial Management ............................................................................................ 45 

Fort Peck Tribal Credit Program ........................................................................... 119 

Grants, Cooperative Agreements ............................................................................ 70 

Health, Safety, and Maintenance ........................................................................... 45 

Human Capital Deficiencies in Oil and Gas Management................................. 90, 128 

Indian Funds: Mismanagement .............................................................................. 72 

Indian Lands: Fractionation ................................................................................... 73 

Indian Trust Responsibilities .................................................................................. 74 

Indians and Insular Areas ...................................................................................... 46 

Information Sharing ................................................................................................ 60 

Information Technology ........................................................................................... 45, 60 

Interior’s Oil and Gas Management on the Feb. 2011 Government Wide 

High Risk List..................................................................................................... 87, 125 

Lease Price Thresholds ........................................................................................... 67 

Non-Responsiveness ................................................................................................ 120 

Oil and Gas Revenues.............................................................................................. 56, 63 

Onshore Revenue Collection: Challenges ............................................................... 75 

Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson .................................................................. 1 

Opening Remarks: Ms. McCollum .......................................................................... 2 

Outer Continental Shelf Oversight ........................................................................ 45 

Past GAO Recommendations .................................................................................. 55 

Questions for DOI IG from Chairman Simpson .................................................... 114 

Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Cole ...................................................................... 142 

Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Flake .................................................................... 143 

Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Moran .................................................................. 125 

Questions for GAO from Chairman Simpson ........................................................ 81 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Questions for GAO from Mr. Cole .......................................................................... 106 

Questions for GAO from Mr. Flake ........................................................................ 110 

Questions for GAO from Mr. Moran ...................................................................... 87 

Questions for the Record: DOI IG .......................................................................... 114 

Questions for the Record: GAO .............................................................................. 81 

Recruitment and Retention ..................................................................................... 60 

Reducing Interior’s Deferred Maintenance Backlog............................................ 99, 133 

Reorganization of Former MMS and Similar Needs at BLM............................. 92, 130 

Resource Protection ......................................................................................... 46, 99, 134 

Revenue Collections ........................................................................................... 45, 75, 95 

Revenue Sources: Additional .................................................................................. 65 

Seldovia Ferry .......................................................................................................... 120 

Strengthening Accountability of Indian and Insular Area Programs.............. 103, 135 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Fisheries (SLPT) ........................................................ 120 

Testimony of Acting DOI Inspector General Mary Kendall ................................. 45 

Testimony of GAO Directors Anu K. Mittal & Frank Rusco ............................... 3 

Togiak Roads, LLC .................................................................................................. 119 

Major Management Challenges at the Environmental Protection Agency 

March 2, 9:30 AM 

Biography: Arthur Elkins, Jr .................................................................................. 201 

Biography: David Trimble ....................................................................................... 189 

Chesapeake Bay ....................................................................................................... 203 

Cyber Security...................................................................................................... 211, 242 

Data: Collection and Reporting........................................................................... 204, 236 

Delegations to States ............................................................................................... 206 

Endocrine Disruptors .............................................................................................. 213 

Inspector General Act .............................................................................................. 209 

Nanotechnology ........................................................................................................ 213 

National Environmental Policy .............................................................................. 234 

Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson .................................................................. 149 

Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran ................................................................................ 149 

Questions for DOI IG from Chairman Simpson .................................................... 234 

Questions for DOI IG from Mr. Moran .................................................................. 245 

Questions for GAO from Chairman Simpson ........................................................ 216 

Questions for GAO from Mr. Moran ...................................................................... 227 

Questions for the Record: DOI IG .......................................................................... 234 

Questions for the Record: GAO .............................................................................. 216 

Superfund ................................................................................................................. 238 

Superfund: Special Accounts ................................................................................... 240 

Testimony of EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr ...................................... 190 

Testimony of GAO Acting Director David Trimble ............................................... 151 

Toxic Substances Control Act.............................................................................. 202, 241 

Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 235 

Water Infrastructure: Clean Water and Drinking Water .................................... 245 

Water Infrastructure: Green ................................................................................... 209 

Water Nutrients ....................................................................................................... 203 

Environmental Protection Agency FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing 

March 3, 9:30 AM 

Air Permits in Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf ................................................. 454 

Air Quality ................................................................................... 273, 275, 289, 295, 436 

Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Permits ........................................................... 269 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Arsenic/Phosphorus ................................................................................................. 326 

Assistance to States and Locals ............................................................................. 429 

Assisting Small Water Systems .............................................................................. 284 

Bed Bugs .................................................................................................................. 416 

Biography: Barbara Bennett ................................................................................... 263 

Biography: Lisa Jackson ......................................................................................... 262 

BioMass .................................................................................................................... 428

Boiler MACT Rule ................................................................................................... 458 

Carbon Capture and Storage .................................................................................. 358 

Chemical Safety.................................................................................................... 260, 282 

Chesapeake Bay ........................................................................................... 268, 338, 422 

Clean up of DOD Superfund Sites ......................................................................... 424 

Clean Water Act........................................................................................... 300, 271, 435 

Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................. 425 

Coal Combustion Ash .............................................................................................. 349 

Coal-Fired Power Plant ........................................................................................... 283 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) ............................................................................................................. 459 

Construction Effluent Limitation ........................................................................... 536 

Criteria for Regulatory Changes ............................................................................ 293 

Delay of Mandatory Reporting to the Greenhouse Gas Registry ......................... 324 

Desert Rock Energy Facility ................................................................................... 450 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Program......................................................... 280, 325, 438 

Draft Pesticide Registration Notice 2010–X .......................................................... 442 

Economic Impact of Regulations ............................................................................ 426 

E-Manifest User Fees .............................................................................................. 364 

Endocrine Disruptor ................................................................................................ 283 

Energy Star: Verifications and User Fees ............................................................. 365 

Enforcement: Common Sense.............................................................................. 330, 433 

Environmental Permitting ...................................................................................... 440 

EPA and States Roles .............................................................................................. 294 

EPA Budget .......................................................................................................... 282, 295 

EPA IRIS Assessment of Halogenated Platinum Compounds ............................. 367 

EPA IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic .......................................................... 374 

EPA Personnel and FTE ......................................................................................... 409 

EPA Priorities .......................................................................................................... 294 

EPA Research .......................................................................................................... 294 

EPA Rural Water Systems Budget ........................................................................ 304 

EPA Workforce ......................................................................................................... 265 

Ethanol/E15 .............................................................................................................. 528 

Ethanol/Renewable Fuels Standard ....................................................................... 353 

Fill Rule .................................................................................................................... 348 

Fly Ash or Coal Ash Regulation ............................................................................. 297 

FSMP ........................................................................................................................ 415 

Funding Restrictions ............................................................................................... 301 

General Budget: Operating Plan ............................................................................ 415 

Great Lakes .................................................................................................. 336, 338, 538 

Green Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 394 

Greenhouse Gases........................................................................................ 299, 309, 422 

H.R. 1 Amendments ................................................................................................ 264 

High Unobligated Balances ..................................................................................... 311 

High Unspent Balances: Recovery Act ................................................................... 312 

Homeland Security .................................................................................................. 406 

Hydraulic Fracturing.......................................... 276, 277, 293, 355, 430, 452, 461, 469 

Information Technology ........................................................................................... 390 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Lead Paint in Commercial Buildings ..................................................................... 530 

Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................... 300 

Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation ............................................................ 261 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology ............................................................ 304 

Milk Regulation ....................................................................................................... 335 

Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names ......................................................... 296 

Mississippi River Basin ....................................................................................... 350, 431 

Mobile Source Fees Program .................................................................................. 363 

Multi-Media Tribal Implementation Grants Complement Gap Grants .............. 430 

National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................ 280 

Natural Gas .............................................................................................................. 468 

Navigable Waters................................................................................................. 265, 314 

New York Times Article .......................................................................................... 302 

NSR Rule for Indian Country ................................................................................. 449 

Oil Spill ..................................................................................................................... 333 

Opening Remarks: Chairman Simpson .................................................................. 247 

Opening Remarks: Mr. Moran ................................................................................ 249 

Opening Remarks: Mr. Rogers ............................................................................... 250 

Ozone Standard ....................................................................................................... 379 

Permitting Guidance ............................................................................................... 270 

Pesticide NPDES Permits ....................................................................................... 318 

Pesticide Registration and Reregistration ............................................................. 391 

PM Research Centers .............................................................................................. 385 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...................................................................................... 286 

Portland Cement and Boiler MACT Regulations .................................................. 328 

President Obama’s January 18, 2011, Executive Order ....................................... 293 

Puget Sound ............................................................................................................. 272 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 309 

Questions from Chairman Simpson ....................................................................... 309 

Questions from Mr. Calvert .................................................................................... 436 

Questions from Mr. Cole ......................................................................................... 447 

Questions from Mr. Hinchey ................................................................................... 461 

Questions from Mr. LaTourette .............................................................................. 442 

Questions from Mr. Moran ...................................................................................... 422 

Questions from Mr. Rogers ..................................................................................... 435 

Questions from Mr. Flake ....................................................................................... 528 

Questions from Ms. Kaptur .................................................................................... 538 

Questions from Ms. Lummis ................................................................................... 454 

Regulation ............................................................................ 284, 292, 306, 367, 447, 454 

Reports to Congress on Lead and Stormwater ...................................................... 532 

Rescission.............................................................................................................. 406, 431 

Rule: Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................... 267 

Science Advisory Council ........................................................................................ 290 

Spill—Seneca Nation of Indians ............................................................................. 453 

Spill Prevention and Counter Measure Program .................................................. 288 

Spray Drift ............................................................................................................... 321 

Spruce Mine Permit ................................................................................................. 348 

STAR Grants ............................................................................................................ 387 

State Air Grants ...................................................................................................... 399 

State Revolving Funds (SRFs) .................................................................... 313, 316, 266 

Stormwater ........................................................................................................... 319, 529 

Superfund ............................................................................................. 359, 361, 392, 430 

Supporting Healthy Communities .......................................................................... 260 

Testimony of Administrator Jackson ..................................................................... 253 

Tightening Air Quality Standards for Ozone ........................................................ 534 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Title 42 ..................................................................................................................... 382 

Toxic Substances Control Act ................................................................................. 432 

Tribal Grants ........................................................................................................... 402 

Unobligated Funds .................................................................................................. 266 

Urban Rivers Initiative ........................................................................................... 351 

US-Mexico Border Grants ....................................................................................... 405 

Wastewater Discharge Permit PA—0026825 ........................................................ 461 

Wastewater Utilities ................................................................................................ 443 

Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 322 

Waters Pollution ...................................................................................................... 423 

Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 534 

Department of the Interior FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing 

March 8, 1:00 PM 

2012 Budget ............................................................................................................. 552 

2012 Funding ........................................................................................................... 600 

Alaska Oil Drilling .................................................................................................. 617 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) .............................................. 670 

America’s Great Outdoors ................................................................................... 580, 650 

Biography of Deputy Secretary David Hayes ........................................................ 574 

Biography of Pamela K. Haze ................................................................................. 575 

Biography of Secretary Ken Salazar ...................................................................... 572 

BLM Draft Solar PEIS ............................................................................................ 681 

BOEMRE Reorganization ....................................................................................... 576 

Budget Cuts ............................................................................................................. 552 

Bureau of Indian Education Schools ...................................................................... 590 

California Water Issues ........................................................................................... 688 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 652 

Climate Change Coordination ................................................................................ 618 

Cobell ........................................................................................................................ 584 

Conservation......................................................................................................... 554, 629 

Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties ......................................... 642 

Costs of Endangered Species Act Implementation ................................................ 604 

Delisting of the Northern Rockies Wolves ............................................................. 585 

EAJA ......................................................................................................................... 621 

Employee Retention ................................................................................................. 578 

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 553 

Energy Management On-Shore .............................................................................. 647 

Everglades Restoration ........................................................................................... 627 

FCC Towers & Potential GPS Interference ........................................................... 693 

Gas Prices ................................................................................................................. 592 

Generating Other Revenue Collections and Enhancing Financial Assurances 

and Bonds ............................................................................................................. 664 

Goals for Domestic Energy Production .................................................................. 613 

Grazing Permits ....................................................................................................... 622 

House Resolution 1 .............................................................................................. 578, 640 

Hydraulic Fracturing ........................................................................................... 595, 598 

Idaho Bull Trout Decision ....................................................................................... 623 

Indian Country, Cobell and Needs at BIA ............................................................. 655 

In-Holdings ............................................................................................................... 580 

Land Acquisition/PILT ............................................................................................ 630 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 611 

Land Into Trust ....................................................................................................... 599 

Legislative Proposals on Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation, Hardrock 

Mining, and Non-Producing Oil and Gas Leases .............................................. 662 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Litigation Costs ........................................................................................................ 609 

LWCF—California Desert ....................................................................................... 678 

LWCF/Federal Land Acquisition ............................................................................ 619 

Mitigation Costs ....................................................................................................... 703 

Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans ........................................................ 594, 690 

National Mall Needs and Options .......................................................................... 659 

Non-Producing Fee Proposal ................................................................................... 616 

Ocean Energy and BP Spill and Future Funding Needs ..................................... 643 

Oil and Gas Development ....................................................................................... 607 

Oil and Gas Royalties .............................................................................................. 597 

Oil and Gas Royalty Collection ............................................................................... 614 

Oil Spills ................................................................................................................... 576 

Opening Comments by Congressman Lewis ......................................................... 587 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 547 

Opening Remarks of Congressman Dicks .............................................................. 550 

Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran ............................................................ 548 

Opening Remarks of Secretary Salazar ................................................................. 551 

Permitting ................................................................................................................ 578 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson .............................................. 613 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert .......................................... 683 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Cole ................................................ 698 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake ............................................. 703 

Questions for the Record from Congressman LaTourette .................................... 697 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Lewis ............................................. 676 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran ..................................... 640 

Raising Fees on Onshore and Offshore Oil and Gas Producers .......................... 615 

Reducing Interior’s Deferred Maintenance Backlog ............................................. 669 

Renewable Energy and Strengthening Resource Protection ................................ 666 

Renewable Energy Projects ..................................................................................... 680 

Reprogramming from State Regulatory Grants .................................................... 583 

Riverside County Habitat Conservation ................................................................ 696 

Rocky Mountain Wolves ...................................................................................... 605, 609 

Royalties................................................................................................................ 577, 592 

Santa Ana Sucker .................................................................................................... 588 

Southwest Border .................................................................................................... 601 

Southwest Border Mitigation .................................................................................. 603 

Stove Piping ............................................................................................................. 587 

Stream Protection Zone Rule .................................................................................. 581 

Strengthening Accountability of Insular Area Programs ..................................... 660 

Uranium................................................................................................................ 608, 704

Water ............................................................................................................ 554, 588, 593 

Water Rights ............................................................................................................ 600 

Wild Horse and Burros ............................................................................................ 624 

Wild Horses .............................................................................................................. 654 

Wild Lands ........................................................................................... 579, 596, 606, 617 

Wildfire and Cohesive Strategy .............................................................................. 669 

Wildland Fire Center ............................................................................................... 639 

Wildland Fire Cohesive Strategy ............................................................................ 626 

National Park Service FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing 

March 9, 9:30 AM 

Administrative Cost Savings and Management Savings ..................................... 759 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................ 749 

America’s Great Outdoors ................................................................................... 742, 744 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

ix 

Biography of C. Bruce Sheaffer .............................................................................. 721 

Biography of Jonathan B. Jarvis ............................................................................ 719 

Biography of Margaret O’Dell ................................................................................. 720 

Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Stewardship .............................................................. 749 

Civil War 150th Anniversary .................................................................................. 754 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 751 

Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties ......................................... 741 

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 756 

Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................................. 723 

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ............................................................................... 722 

Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................... 736 

Everglades Restoration ........................................................................................... 737 

Ford’s Theatre-Peterson House .............................................................................. 734 

Government Shutdown ............................................................................................ 732 

Grand Teton National Park Concessioners ........................................................... 761 

Gulf of Mexico and BP Transocean Deepwater Horizon Disaster ....................... 758 

House Resolution 1 .................................................................................................. 740 

Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 728 

Land Acquisition and State Assistance.............................................................. 722, 724 

Management Efficiencies ........................................................................................ 724 

National Mall........................................................................................................ 725, 731 

National Mall Needs and Options .......................................................................... 746 

National Parks in New York City Area ................................................................. 732 

NPS Centennial ....................................................................................................... 737 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 707 

Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran ............................................................ 707 

Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis ...................................................................... 708 

Park Operations ................................................................................................... 733, 745 

Park Police and Security ......................................................................................... 757 

Partnerships ............................................................................................................. 734 

Program Elimination ............................................................................................... 723 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson .............................................. 737 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Calvert .......................................... 760 

Questions for the Record from Congresswoman Lummis .................................... 761 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran ..................................... 740 

Reducing Deferred Maintenance Backlog .............................................................. 750 

Save America’s Treasures Grants............................................................... 728, 731, 747 

St. Croix National Scenic River .............................................................................. 729 

Territories ............................................................................................................. 731, 733 

Tropical Forests ....................................................................................................... 733 

Yosemite Staffing ..................................................................................................... 760 

Youth in the Great Outdoors Initiative ................................................................. 755 

Bureau of Land Management FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing 

March 10, 9:30 AM 

America’s Great Outdoors ....................................................................................... 849 

Applications for Permits to Drill ............................................................................ 788 

Biography of Director Robert Abbey ...................................................................... 777 

Biography of Karen Mouritsen ............................................................................... 778 

BLM Staffing ............................................................................................................ 808 

Continuing Resolutions and Management Difficulties ......................................... 822 

Equal Access to Justice Act .................................................................................... 790 

Fee on Non-Producing Leases ............................................................................. 789, 793 

Grazing—Jarbridge Permits ................................................................................... 783 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

x 

Grazing—Permit Backlog ........................................................................................ 784 

Grazing Permits ....................................................................................................... 801 

Hardrock Mining Administrative Notices Under NEPA ...................................... 819 

House Resolution 1 .................................................................................................. 821 

Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................................... 793 

Impact of H.R. 1 ....................................................................................................... 780 

Land Acquisition .................................................................................................. 809, 852 

Merging Forestry and Range Programs ................................................................. 809 

National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)........................................... 814, 844 

National Landscape Conservation System Spending ........................................... 852 

New BLM Wild Lands Policy (Secretarial Order #3310) ...................................... 846 

Northwest Forest Plan—Survey and Manage ....................................................... 811 

Office of Wildland Fire ............................................................................................ 804 

Off-Road Racing ....................................................................................................... 785 

Oil & Gas .................................................................................................................. 816

Oil and Gas Development ....................................................................................... 793 

Oil and Gas Inspection Fees and Legislative Proposals ....................................... 842 

Oil and Gas Royalty Rate Reform and Disclosure of Fracking Chemicals ......... 782 

Oil, Gas and Coal Management .............................................................................. 825 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 763 

Opening Remarks of Congressman Moran ............................................................ 764 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson .............................................. 801 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake ............................................. 852 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Moran ..................................... 821 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REA) .................................................................. 811 

Renewable Energy................................................................................................ 779, 847 

Renewable Energy Development on Public Lands ................................................ 815 

Shifting Inspection Costs ........................................................................................ 779 

Soda Ash ................................................................................................................... 792

Testimony of Mr. Abbey .......................................................................................... 765 

Timber Sales ............................................................................................................ 810 

Travel Management Plans ...................................................................................... 810 

Uranium Production ................................................................................................ 791 

Wild Horse and Burro Management .......................................................... 780, 782, 791 

Wild Horse and Burro Program ............................................................................. 805 

Wild Horses, Changing Management Emphasis ................................................... 823 

Wild Lands Policy ................................................................................................ 796, 808 

Office of Surface Mining FY12 Budget Oversight Hearing 

March 10, 11:00 AM 

2008 Stream Buffer Rule ........................................................................................ 871 

2010 Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................... 870 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund ............................................................ 903 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation: Legislative Proposal .................................. 876 

AML Emergency Funding ....................................................................................... 877 

AML Emergency Program ................................................................................... 891, 911 

AML Funds .............................................................................................................. 886 

Authority to Retain and Use Permit Fee Collections ........................................... 891 

Biography of Glenda H. Owens .............................................................................. 867 

Biography of Joseph Pizarchik ............................................................................... 866 

Biography of Ruth E. Stokes .................................................................................. 868 

Coal Mining Permit Process ................................................................................... 869 

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment .......................................................... 871 

EIS Contract......................................................................................................... 872, 882 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

xi 

Expansion and Enhancement of Oversight in Appalachia ................................... 878 

Federal Permit Fees ................................................................................................ 887 

Future Legislative Proposal to Focus Reclamation ............................................... 898 

House Resolution 1 .................................................................................................. 895 

Legislative Proposal—Competitive Grant Approach ............................................ 913 

Legislative Proposal: Competitive Selection Process for Abandoned Mine Land 

Reclamation Funds .............................................................................................. 893 

Legislative Proposal: Elimination of Payments to Certified States ..................... 892 

Material Damage Outside Permit Area ................................................................. 871 

Mining Within 100 Yards ........................................................................................ 881 

Opening Statement of Chairman Simpson ............................................................ 855 

Opening Statement of Congressman Moran .......................................................... 855 

OSM Oversight of State Programs ......................................................................... 879 

Permit Coordination in Tennessee ......................................................................... 869 

Permit Fee ................................................................................................................ 904 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Simpson .............................................. 888 

Questions for the Record from Committee Chairman Rogers .............................. 911 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Flake ............................................. 913 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Moran ............................................ 895 

Regulation and Technology Program Increase for Environmental Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 903 

Regulatory Grants ................................................................................................... 888 

SMCRA ..................................................................................................................... 906 

State Regulatory Grants ......................................................................................... 884 

State Regulatory Program Reduction .................................................................... 900 

Stream Protection Rule Schedule ........................................................................... 873 

Stream Protection Rule: Environmental Impact Statement ................................ 872 

Stream Protection Rule: Impact of H.R. 1 ............................................................. 874 

Stream Protection Rule: Impact on Jobs and Production .................................... 875 

Stream Protection Rule: Need ................................................................................ 874 

Ten Day Notice of SMCRA Permits ....................................................................... 912 

Testimony of Director Pizarchik ............................................................................. 856 

Youth Engagement at OSM .................................................................................... 880 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING