waiting for a title of thirty-seven million acres of its land. alaska natives are awaiting final transfer of 11.4 million acres, from the one quarter of their land some 40 years after the fact they are still waiting. my staff has surged. we can find no other state in the union that was ever asked to me effectively pay to gain the lands that were promised them when they joined this union. not arizona, not new mexico, not florida, not california, no one, not one state has been asked to foot the bill to pay for the land. we will not start with alaska. i would ask mr. chairman, i received a letter from the alaska village ceo association that was to the issue of the land conveyances and i ask that -- >> without objection.

>> you have a unique background. in confirmation hearings caminiti background in oil and gas industry and the private sector and confirmation community. and lack of experience in the policy realm of but i am hopeful that a set of eyes and new perspective like you bring can help us move beyond the traditional stalemates we have faced that pit one against another. they set a policy agenda, and state and country to provide the help needed to address the nation's energy by unemployment, sluggish economy, and i appreciable in this to work with

me on that. as chairman i work with you and all our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee and look forward to the opportunity for questions. >> let me a give an overview of where we are, we have a 12:00 vote, it is 10:45. we do six minute rounds. order of arrival and side to side, if any colleagues would like to make an order brief on the order of one minute statement i would be happy to entertain and. your testimony will be made part of the record in its entire league. >> thank you, members of the committee. it is an honor, i look forward to future years when i have a

hand in creating it. and i am enjoying it so far. i recognize my colleagues, and willingness to stay to the end of june because i'm doing as much as i can to tap his wisdom, we have been incredibly helpful to me as well and continue to be -- is helpful to have a business background at this time in government. i will do a glancing blow at sequestration. i can't not express that it is very difficult to walk into a department that just at an 880 one million dollar cut for the budget since 2013. five% on a year applied over the remaining months has been very difficult, hard on employees who are hard-working and committed to commission and all the things you care about as well and taking on the chin. for those of u.s. park police, 14 days, not getting paid, 25% reduction across the board and

seasonal hires so wildlife biologists, law-enforcement rangers, interpretive rangers, maintenance folks, very difficult to carry out the mission in the way it is expected. a couple new examples, public lands in all of your states have welcome four thirty five million visitors a year and they are going to see reductions in services, programs, some of the parts won't be opened to the extent we would like them to be because you have to protect the people and protect the resources. on the energy side we just announced we would not be able to do a few lease sales in california because we have to prioritize those activities that are already in flight from environmental safety and protection standpoint to authorizing permits to drill. this is going to impact our ability on the conventional energy side and renewable energy

side to complete the environmental impact statement work. the permits and so on. i know it is not where you want us to go and not where we want to go but this budget we are dealing with in 2013 is equivalent to where we were in 2006, not accounting for inflation. it is very difficult and i have to say that i have been doing what i can to boost the spirits and encourage the people who work at interior that devotes so much time to this but it is a rough year. 2014 is a better show is for all of us. i know that you agree with that. the $10.9 billion budget for 2014 support energy. conservation. it supports holding trust responsibility as ranking member lisa murkowski reference to alaska natives and found science to drive our decisionmaking. investments focused on the economy, jobs and country's

future, and $513 million increase from 2012 enacted budget -- for the fire program. there is a lot to take, your referenced, mr. chairman, land and water conservation fund and the request over a two year period of time that moving to mandatory funding category. ability really a 50 year promised to the american people to take offshore oil and gas revenue and mitigate those impact by putting them into conservation programs on shore and touched every single county across the united states and given the environment we are in, mandatory funding makes sense and we get into more of that. on the science side we have $946 million investment in basic and applied science to support the mission essential programs. it is $138 million from 2012. to what do we use this for?

the fish and wildlife service addressing invasive species threats. one big one is the asian part as a potentially moves into the great lakes. we get that out of control and we are in real trouble. this provides the science and support to net that in the bud before it becomes a problem. the white note syndrome in that big issue for the agricultural community in the northeast, throughout the country as well. resources to bear from science to addressing things like that and the use of g i f mapping to get smarter how we manage our lands overall. these are investments in science that will help us carry out our mission and fulfill the interests of your states. on the indian program side, our 2014 budget request of $2.6 billion for indian affairs programs over all of holding trust management responsibility, in the education, law enforcement, social service programs and many others. we have $20 million in this

budget, and self determination. and indian communities and help tries manage natural resources and prepare for threats from climate change. this is the balanced budget from the standpoint of supporting the administration's priorities without adding a dime to the deficit. one thing that is beneficial about interior is we generate revenue and this budget proposes to generate $3.7 billion in additional revenue over ten years. we cut administrative costs by $217 million by reducing travel, being strategic and purchasing, my colleagues on my left have orchestrated the largest i t consolidation across the federal government which is saving hundreds of millions of dollars by being smarter and more efficient how we deliver services and the budget reflects what a business person would do which is secure priorities,

scale back other areas to find areas that are important to you and a line with the mission of the interior. we have $600 million of reductions which include $476 million under the jurisdiction of this committee. and we reference in the opening statement. and bring business expertise to the table to deliver on the mission effectively and support the american taxpayer. final note, hurricane sandy. i want to thank all of you for your efforts to pass the hurricanes and the supplemental appropriation act and later on today. $475 million to support hurricane relief efforts. and and many other programs, and

will repair the damage and create more resilience for the future. and we have additional storm events. i thank you very much. and thank you for the opportunity to be here and we look forward to your questions. >> 6 minute rounds, our schedule in your schedule, happy to do a second round also to accommodate many questions. let me begin on a note you concluded with that, hurricane sandy, thank you, $829 million for mitigation in the northeast. and wildlife refuges, and further indication how to make the details accessible to the public this afternoon and also talk about $360 million in

funds, and we announce those. >> i give you a high level lancer and colleagues provide more detail and have more detail, press release which is going out this afternoon we have a link that has a list, encompassing $370 million so that will be accessible to the public relatively soon. on the mitigation funds, and building of sand on the outer continental shelf. make those habitats and the number of other programs and to address that further. and the details on funding that will be released today. or complete project list and

factual appropriations and with respect to the mitigation we are working very hard to come up with those negation funds. we appreciate your leadership for giving us the opportunity to think about mitigation. and maximize the pick the we have to create resiliency on the ground, and and work on partners within the federal government. and the make sure they're spend as wisely and effectively as possible. >> the recovery and restoration funds. >> and you served on a

commission advancing the national park idea, and recognize heritage areas which are critical and long-term assets to national parks and your colleagues went so far as recommending permanent funding and full program support for national park service but the budget proposes cuts from heritage areas. can you give us some assurance to avoid these cuts, and the vision that you so eloquently and wisely laid out along with senator baker and colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this budget represents tough choices and the work in the second century commission was very rewarding but the need to support our national parks, which has such a multiplier

effect is very important. on the heritage area, pull the supportive in support of heritage areas and difficult decision made to scale back funding and heritage areas to focus on those that are relatively new that need to get a boost to get themselves established and one of the benefits of heritage areas is broad community support so it does reflect the hard choices we made in terms of how we prioritize but we felt heritage areas in particular needed some support to get rolling and get up and operational but we needed to look at scaling back some that had been around for a period of time to walk on their own two feet if you will so that is how the priority was identified in this budget. >> i appreciate that and i do point out there public-private partnerships so this is not something that is federal money going in but generate a lot of economic activity and is very

critical. and there is a shared notion that we can collaborate better and be smarter about these things but they are all over the country that there has to be a core federal support level because that is what pull the lot of the private support, a lot of the leverages, lot of activities at these could in fact failed. that would be as you point out eight in your previous report a real detriment. ..

you to be, can you give us a sense of your enthusiasm level? i hope it's over the top. >> i am enthusiastic, mr. chairman. >> the president chose wisely. i have said repeatedly. i will not relinquish my time to senator murkowski. we will try to do a second round. senator murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, let me ask you about the land conveyance issues and legacy wealth. as you can tell i'm not only for my discretion you today but previous conversations. this is something that isn't setting the width people in the state of alaska, and it clearly doesn't set well with me. you have indicated in your comments combat with land and water conservation fund, the proposal here in terms of mandatory funding makes, keeps

commitment of a 50 year promise to the american people. and i'm looking at a 54 year-old promise. we've been a state now for 54 years, where we have yet to receive our full land conveyance is under that stated act. a 42 year legal obligation to the native people to the state, and that i look at the budget. waiting, we are making a new promise here to mandatory funding for lwcs but we have some outstanding obligations that are very serious. and so i appreciate what you have said and that these decisions were made prior to your arrival here. you're defending a budget that you are tasked to defend.

but i'm to have some assurance going forward that we're going to be able to deal with this. because my this has been is that if we continue at the level of funding that we have been for the land conveyance is, again, we are decades, we are another 50 years out. that's not acceptable. can you give me some assurance that you will look to revising the spending priorities in the attempt to finish these interim conveyances and the surveying and patenting that needs to go forward? my goal was that we would have this done by statehood. when i came i in the office 10 years ago everybody thought that that was reasonable. now it looks like it's not only another decade, it may be a decade beyond the. i need to have some assurance that we're going to finish this. in the meantime the people of the state of alaska and the native people can't move.

can live on their land. what assurances can you give me that we're going to see some forward motion in this in a positive way that's not going to be another two to three decades from now? >> thank you, ranking member murkowski. i have had briefings on this topic and can reassure you that there is a commitment to move forward on the part of the blm and the my colleagues. i gather that 63% of the area has been surveyed and mapped, and about 33% have had interim conveyances so far. there is a requirement as i understand it in the legislation about actually physically putting a stake every two months. the use of mapping technologies which were not available at the time things were written gives us an opportunity to be able to move forward in a more expeditious way on conveyances, and do it using technology that is a lot more efficient and

effective. so be happy to get into more detail with you and have my teammates that are steeped in this, talk about how the budget supports moving that forward. >> i'm going to be meeting later today to review the schedule apparently that has been proposed. i don't know whether or not that is a schedule that you'll have agreed to, but we need to have greater assurance here. let me ask you on the legacy, the concern that i have, federal government comes in, does an assessment, drills, lease, doesn't cleanup the mess. decades later says, when we are screaming about you need to clean up your mess, the idea is welcome the state of alaska into the. we will take it from the state of alaska's funding. i guess the simple question is whether not you feel that the state should be held financially

responsible for the federal government's responsibility to take care of legacy wealth. >> senator, as we discussed, legacy wealth is a significant from an appreciative ring it up to me in the past. we need to find a way to fund it in a budget that doesn't have enough funding for everything that we want to do. and appreciate the reaction to this just in that the revenues generated from the to element on the npr a come on the states, go to pay for the. if not that suggestion, we need to work together to figure how we prioritize in the budget the best way to move forward in a comprehensive way to deal with this issue that is, i share your concern. >> i guess i need to hear from you that you would agree that it's not the state of alaska's responsibility clean up the federal government to mess. are we in agreement there? >> i would say that the

petroleum reserve up in alaska and as it's developed it will benefit both the federal government and the state, and so revenues from that development seem to be a reasonable source to help address the issue on the legacy wealth. so we can talk further on what that looks like, what a stay, what is federal and how do we do that and a constrained budget environment spent and i will allow you greater opportunity to learn more about this, hopefully see what we're dealing with he here. but there is no doubt in my mind that when the federal government comes in to land that has been federally designated, drills wells, walks away from, leaves a mess, that that is the federal government's responsibility. and that it should not then be on the shoulders of the state of alaska to do that cleanup. so i just want to make sure that when you're talking about prioritizing it within the

budget that it is prioritizing within the federal budget and not taking revenues that would've otherwise come to the state. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator murkowski. again we're using the earlybird rule going from site to site. senator tester. >> i want to thank everyone for being here today. it's good to see you, and thank you for putting yourself up for this pushing. i know you would do a great job. david hayes, thank you for what you've done during your tenure at the department of into your. i very much appreciate it. i even more appreciate your friendship, so thank you, thank you very, very much for your service. as far as the budget goes i would just like to say i'm very encouraged to see the administration is putting some additional funding into renewable energy on public lands. we all know what's going on in eastern montana and north dakota with conventional oil production. and that's a very good thing. we cannot forget about other

ways to become energy dependent, too. so want to thank you for the. i've got a bipartisan bill that i've introduced, hopefully promote more such development and i look forward to working with your department on that. is there anything else we can do? >> senator, your support is very much appreciated and valued i think that any balanced approach to energy renewals play an important role. i've been really pleased to see the science behind assessment of where the resources are. the work that is going on collectively on transmission which also important, because with the energy is not necessary where the energy is used. and i hear a lot of enthusiasm in the department, continue doing the work but also supporting conventional development as you referenced. >> as we move forward here, are there other things we can help to facilitate that, let us know. i think it's really important. i think your budget puts it

forth as if rudy and hopefully we can indeed make it that. i want to talk about wildfires out of nowhere talk about wildfires we talk about the forest service which isn't in your area, but blm is, and very similarly blm has forced to land, they have rangeland, and they are being impacted by wildfires, too. getting our current fiscal situation where a lot of money is being diverted towards fighting fires, i understand the forest service, the forest service to begin to work out and collected on the effectiveness of their firefighting efforts by certain aircraft. i do not believe the blm has started on this, and that's okay from my perspective. i don't know if they can use information that comes from the u.s. forest service work or not, but i need to know what your plans are. we've got a lot of public lands, a lot of, over a million acres

burned up in montana alone budget. what's your plans? is a to collect what the force surface gets? when is it going to happen or will be a combination? >> thank you, senator. i am serving well aware of the impact of wildfires and we certainly got things right now, wildfire burning in california and it's only may. and it's pretty scary. the firefighting is coordinated between the departments of agriculture and interior, agriculture takes the primary position but we work hand-in-hand. i will next week be going out to maybe this week, i loose track, with secretary vilsack to the fire center in boise, idaho, to talk specifically about this. the budget going forward as i mentioned, the increase of the budget 40% is defined wildland fires. and is to get back to the fuel reduction program as well. all of which was the without in

the sequestered just to make sure we had funds available for depression. i think things you could do to help over time or for those spikes to have it out emergency money because it hits the operations and is very, very difficult to manage for both agriculture and interior. >> fuel reduction is critically important that we can talk about that at another time and i'm sure we will. i guess the issue is, you interested in your opening, we are in tight money times. this is the assessment being done by the forest service on aircraft which is most affected by the fires, is blm doing the same thing or they just go and use the forest service number? >> i'm going to have to defer to rhea. >> senator, we're working hand-in-hand with the forest service. we have a korea sub stretch across the federal government on aircraft in particular as you also know that the lead on large air tankers but we've been working very collaborative with them to come up with a strategy that can put large air tankers on the ground for fires this

season. when it comes to smaller aircraft tankers we have the lead and we been working again collaboratively with the forest service to determine effectiveness and efficiency throughout all of the edition that we have. >> i was just encourage you to do that. i think effectiveness is the key word here. and efficiency. we need to make sure that we are hiring the right groups to right -- to fight the right fight with the right equivalent so think very much for that. want to talk to indian country for just a second. sequestration is negative impact them in a big, big way and the main reason is, is because they are underfunded to begin with. that's the problem with the sequestered and we all know that sitting o on the dais, we make across-the-board cuts, the programs that are fat and sassy don't really care. the ones that are cut to the bone really get whacked. and hopefully we can find a solution to this, but in any case, the indians, american

indians are i think least equipped to absorb this loss. could you detail specifically or in general how your budget will help either restore that money or remediate the potential impacts for the sequestered? >> senator, relatively short period of time to answer. i would say that we are as frustrated and worried about the impacts of the sequestered. there's no question in indian country we've got needs that far exceed the ability to meet them. we are trying to prioritize on indian education. we're trying to model schools to work on to try to find a path forward. law enforcement, domestic violence issues, self-determination, working with tribes on a

government-to-government basis to help support their ability to determine the ways they want to govern themselves. these are all topics of critical discussion. i know there's not enough money to go round but we're certainly working with tribes to do the best job that we can. they become do want to add anything to that? >> i would just say, senator, we feel this hurt very hard because of the indiscriminate way in which the cuts have to occur. and many of the tribes that operate under 638 grams, self-determination tribes, are particularly hurt because they're getting effectively a 9% cut for the remainder of the year. there's nothing we can do about it. our bia folks who work with him likewise are feeling that cut. we're having to furlough bia folks, tribes are having to furlough folks. that's what our fiscal year '14 budget is so important. it would restore and increase in

gets back to where we need to be with the tribes. >> that's what it wanted to hear so thank you for the. i'm sure there will be further debate on that. if i might just 15 seconds, mr. chairman, you talked about asian carp. it's too bad the ranking member is in the. to talk about the effect it's going to have as its georgia great lakes, and this naked. i hope other folks are paying attention. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator tester. before i recognize senator blunt, let me review the order of arrival. on the democratic side senator feinstein, cingular, senator merkley. on the republican side senator blunt, senator johanns constant alexander and senator hoeven. >> secretary, welcome to the committee. i've always thought your job may be the best job in the federal government. i hope for your sake i'm right, it's a child the job with great opportunities. we haven't had chance to vicki goetze i'm going to spend my time talking to you a little bit about a big project in missouri, the arch project.

a lot of cooperative effort has gone into that zone for your predecessor, mr. salazar was there three times. two times there with mr. lahood who does a tiger granted i don't know if it's my without the arch sets but it is separated from the rest of sort of the downtown mall by interstate 70. the tiger granted seems to be played in places which will connect the park to the rest of the old federal courthouse with the dred scott case was and a lot of other public land in town that is not necessarily federal and. this is i'm told maybe has the potential, already is possibly the biggest joint partnership project that the park service has ever done. the city just voted a $10 million annual tax for the next 20 years that would support this project. i think there are $220 million

of private funds that have already been pledged, and, and the arch is 50 years old in october, a 15. so every 50 years you've got to look at these things and see what needs to be done to be sure they can last another 50 years. and that 50th anniversary was one that secretary salazar's october 15, i think his comment the last time he was there was he would move heaven and earth to get this done by october the 28th, 2015. which appears, might be easier to move heaven and earth than the department. there does seem to be a tendency that i would like you to look at. you don't have to necessarily comment on it today. these things are getting silent again. the one big request from the mayor and others in st. louis is if you could put somebody in charge of this that one person that really tries to be sure that all of this stays on focus,

on time, that the private and public elements of this that are not federal continue to move forward in a way that all works. i know there's one contract with my state transportation that runs the trends in the arch since the beginning. and that contract runs out, it actually expired december the 31st, 2012. there was a six-month extension that expires in 54 days. and it needs some attention pretty quickly. and for bonding and other purposes to update department that i think my state does, i don't think we, the federal government even does that, but they have to the contract that allows them to do what they need to do. and i think the park service has come in with some amendments that are never been in the

contract before, that they are concerned about. so i guess one thing i would like to ask you to do is make a commitment to come and visit us at the arch, and get personally involved in this project, as your predecessor was. and then any comments that you want to make about a public -- private relationships are going to be viewed as by your department and by the park service would be appreciated. >> thank you, senator. i do look forward to meeting with you directly, and also visiting the arch, certainly would be delighted to do that. there is a point of contact. peggy o dell who is the number two person in the national park service, so you can look to her as a focal point on this. i was briefed on. i can't promise the heaven and earth thing, that may be beyond my pay grade your butt speak the guy who did promise that left. maybe it was a bigger promise

than he thought. spin but to comment about public-private partnerships and i think the st. louis arch is a great example, from the private sector which is where i've been for my 35 year career, there is no question that the ability of private enterprise to work closely with our federal land vegan agency, with its park service or u.s. forest service, other element of interior, is really important to leverage our resources to get buy-in from those communities so that you have an asset like the st. louis arch that's not just a national treasure, but it is locally embraced and taken care of and helps make our federal dollars go farther. so i think it's a great illustration of public-private partnerships in action and i think they're going to be many more opportunities to do that kind of work. as we think about these assets that we care a lot about how we want to protect, and are examples of them in other states as well. well. >> this is a case where there's significant at jason public property that obviously is

visually part of this whole experience. i think the park service if you going to encourage partners, both public partners and private partners, the park service has to be willing to look at this in a different way than they have before. you know, park service, well, we can't let this happen unless it's something we totally control. that's not really a public-private partnership. it's something that is not public-private partnership. i think one of the things as the new leader adventure you can help instill is how partnerships really work. and it's not just one side giving all their money and sang, do whatever you think you ought to do with this. communities made huge commitment, individuals are making a huge commitment, and i would like for you and i to be able to work together to make this a model project of what these partnerships can be moving forward. that every time a community comes up with $200 million, or

private individuals match that with another $220 million. and we need to do the kinds of things that would be a good lesson going forward to encourage that. and i will do everything i can to help you make that work. >> just if i could have five seconds, the national park second century commission that chairman reed mentioned in his opening comments talk a lot about public-private partnerships. i don't have you in my conversations with director jarvis, he is very supportive of this and i think increasing flex builder on how we recognize these kind of partnership and encourage them going forward. thank you. >> thank you. senator feinstein. >> madam secretary, i want to add my words of welcome to my colleagues. i've had an opportunity to meet with you, and i look forward to working with you. but i would like to begin by thanking the gentlemen on your

right. iunknown have known david hayes now for the 20 years i've been just about innocent. it bega begin with this negotian of the quantification settlement agreement which we in california off a lot of colorado river water and was very controversial but i think good negotiation that you conducted. and since those times, mr. hayes has been the point person for the most contentious issue in california, which is water. and he's been really quite wonderful in terms of moving to see that the department anticipates problems and moves administratively dissolved them. and i'm very, very grateful for that. he's going on to teach law at both of our alma mater's, stanford, and serve i gather the hewlett foundation. and david, i just want to wish all good things. you have been just terrific,

enter service to the country has been remarkable, so i want to thank you for that. madam secretary, i would like to associate myself with the comments of senator tester. you mentioned the venture of fire. there've also been five of the wildfires burning at the same time. we anticipate a very that you. wildfires usually hit california in the fall. that the sand and is rolling and it hit in the spring. -- san and as. it's really going to be a problem, so you are correct. hazard mitigation is critical. the quick movement of planes from the ability to abate of fire. we had 2200 lightning strikes on one day which started a thousand small fires. so the ability to address them quickly is really important before the rage out of control. because of candidly overgrowth that has been allowed to be

unabated. that's the first thing. the second thing is you're about to get a baptism of water. it's the absence of water. the primary source of california's water is the sierra, nevada, snowpack, which is drawing up. as it may second, the sierra, nevada, was at 17% of normal. california is the largest agriculture state and union. the allocation for farmers is 20% of the contract of my. it takes 40-45% of the contract amount to be able to plant and everything that is required to form in california. in 2010 when this happened, the unemployment rate in a farm town was 40%. farmers were in bread lines. we cannot let that happen again. i think much to the credit, on

april the 15th amid region put out a press release detailing administrative action that has been taken to date to create an additional 110,000-acre feet of water. david, i want to salute you for that, and madam secretary this is what we had hoped that the department won this debate and move to do those things with respect to water transfers north south, east-west, using the inner tie and using groundwater banking, doing whatever we need to do that is prudent and wise to see that water is adequate. beyond this 110,000 acre-feet, i am very interested in what other actions can be taken. and this press release describes bank groundwater, 20,000

acre-feet, and water transfers of up to 156,620 acre-feet, as to sources for additional supplies. essentially i would like to ask you, i don't know whether you know, but if you do i would like to know, what is the status of reclamation's efforts to secure these additional supplies? >> senator, i'm going to take a glancing blow and to turn it over to my colleague to the right. first, i want to say that david hayes has been an amazing resource on these issues. you are fortunate that his big brain is going to california but i'm going to miss his big brain next to me, but i will have all oof his phone numbers and use them liberally. i will turn to david to answer specifically on the conversation topic. i mean on the sources topic with the bureau of reclamation. i know that i've had briefings from mike connor directly and this is a very, very important issue. david was meeting with the governor earlier this week, was

flew in on the redeye so you starting to nod off, i will give him a jihad. the other thing i've wanted to work on his conservation. how do we use the water sources we have more wives of because were seeing these low-water drought years and that's the biggest source of this challenge. david, do you want to add to that? >> thank you for your warm words. it's been a pleasure working with you. >> thank you. >> so this is the driest january-april period in california's history in the last 100 years right now, 70% of normal for snowpack. as you noted we have been anticipating this, we are up to a 20% allocation for south of delta because of that 110,000-acre foot increase due to water banking, water transfers et cetera but in addition, you mentioned the additional 20,000-acre feet of water banking and water transfers. we are anticipating working with the contractors that will have

160,000 acre-feet of water transfers. and we're also working closely with them to allow liberal rescheduling of water which will be about 225,000-acre feet of water. all told if we are successful in all of these ventures, despite the dry water year, we are hoping to get to about a 35% or even 40% equipment amount -- equivalent amount for the south oof delta folks but it's taking all hands on deck. we really appreciate the work that westlund and other south of delta irrigators are putting into this working closely with us. mike connor is in california as we speak on these issues you and i was with the governor yesterday. we are looking for debriefing you as soon as mike gets back to talk about the delta conservation plan which is a long-term fix for this problem that we have to stop. >> mike connor is appearing before energy and water appropriations tomorrow.

we have a number of questions for him. just one last thing. madam secretary, you're going to receive a letter from five members of the house, bipartisan, and myself, to ask if you would be willing to come to the central valley and talk with farmers and understand the crisis that we have year after year? one last point, for 10 years your department has been looking at feasibility studies for cost effective of them raises in california. and we have not yet had the melody to those feasibility studies. i would say that that's a matter of the highest priority to get results. because of us were able to hold water from the wet years, for the dry years, california end up as a desert state. i really believe that. and it will kill agriculture, and you speak of conservation. well, i come from a city that is

conserving water like mad, and you know, they're going to tertiary treatment of water, and southern california. so that is being done to the greatest extent possible. but you have to have some water to start with. so we really need your help. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. senator johanns. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and madam secretary, welcome. glad to have you onboard. let me, if i might, shift focus if i could to a couple of questions about the sequester. i have a little bit of the unique experience here, because i was a member of the cabinet as you probably know during the bush administration, sector of agriculture -- secretary of agriculture. i certainly appreciate the fact that the sheet of music using from comes from an office that

is oval in this town. if you know what i'm saying. and every cabinet member has talked about the sequester kind of in the same terms you have talked about in your testimony. and i must admit it's got an aura of the sky is falling the sky is falling. now, you're also talking to a former governor, a former mayor, balanced budgets during good times and bad times. when times were good and the revenues were good, you could do some more things but when times were bad, for example, post 9/11, you just kind of had to deal with it. when i came here in 2005, and somebody said to me, you could get somewhere around a 5% cut, and the best you can hope for is a flat budget. i thought, hallelujah. you know, this is a breeze.

after what we have been through post 9/11 at the state level, that didn't seem to be too big a challenge. and yet i hear secretary hayes, i hear you, i hear other cabinet members talking about how dire the situation is. so let me ask a couple of very specific questions. either one of you can answer these questions. i appreciate the sequester is less than artful across-the-board cuts tend to be less than artful, and i've done it all. i've done across-the-board cuts. i done focus cuts. anything that was necessary to get the budget balanced, we did. but if congress were to give your department and other departments greater flexibility to make judgments about where you would allocate resources from one area to another, would

you find that to be helpful? >> thanks for the question. shorthand, absolutely we find that to be helpful. i am not quite four weeks into government service, and north of 35 years as a private businessperson. i have certainly dealt with a tough budget years, as you referenced. i have never ever implemented those on a line-byline item basis. and so when you see the comments that come from me and others about the impact of sequester, it is the nature by which these cuts have been required of us. the 2014 budget reflects prioritization. it is cutting some areas, it is investing in other areas. and no question there is a desire to develop resources in this country, both conventional and renewable. it costs month to do that but there's a return on that investment. we have a trust obligation to try across this country, and we need money to do that. so we are reflecting that 2014

budget, et cetera priorities that are, in fact, scaling back senate and growing others. that's the big problem with the sequester. >> so your issue with us is more along the lines of if not the cuts so much, as the forced way of influencing them if we could give flexibility there, i can manage it is budget, i think is what you're saying. and i suspect you could. >> we would appreciate all flexibility that could be given to us, and predictability. so a 5% cut that is him to depart with of the year is, in fact, a 9% cut, and then applied across every line item is very difficult. >> yes. let me ask you another question. admittedly a more sensitive question but i think it's an important one to ask. one of the things that came about as a result of affordable

care act was that a certain select group of federal employees were targeted to go from the federal health plan into the exchanges. and that's the way the health care law was passed, and it's basically our staff your congressional staff -- our staff. congressional staff will not go to the exchanges. some would argue it's a good thing. some would argue it's a bad thing, whatever. would you support an approach that basically said if it can save money we will take every federal employee, your employees at interior, and wherever else, and instead of providing them the federal plan we will put them into the exchanges. would you support that? >> senator, i can speak from a perspective of a businessperson. in the business of that iran right before coming here we felt that it was important to provide our full-time employees with a

comprehensive plan, and for a part-time employees who ha havea limited plan, the exchanges going to be a better option. so i think that i would need to look broadly at out might be applied to the federal government. that's how we chose to do in private industry. so it was a blend of both, as you're suggesting was done here. >> my employees our full-time. i don't think anything to do with them being part-time. they our full-time employees, but for the fact that i'm not going to seek reelection i'm certain that they're hoping for a long, long career here on capitol hill. >> i'm not familiar with the circumstance. i would have to look into that. >> secretary hayes, what is your sense of all that? would you be comfortable in all interior employees going to the exchange? >> senator, i apologize, but i'm not an expert in this area. obviously, department of health and human services is implementing the affordable care

act, and i apologize but i can't respond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator johanns. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me also join the whole group up here in just saying, first of all, agreeing and associate myself with remarks about david hayes. madam secretary, great to have your comment thank you for coming in and meeting and rhea and pam, thank you for your service to the department. but david, you've been a good friend of mine and you've been an extraordinary friend of the west. and i think it's been a good up here. you heard senator feinstein and the chairmen and many others talk about it. i think one of the things that's been so key if you have stayed focused on water, and water in the west as you know is very controversial. and when we have these three years of drought, and in new

mexico it's up to 12 years. with some very, very say situations. and you've been right on top of it by working on settlements and have achieved settlements that were going to be able to stretch our water resources. so i figure much appreciate that and we're going to miss you a lot. the department is going to miss you, and your students are going to gain a lot from you out there at stanford. let me just briefly agree, madam secretary, with senator tester on the indian country and native americans and what's happening on sequestration. and i'm encouraged to hear deputy secretary hayes say this budget will restore those. i don't know why we ever got ourselves in the situation. when we created the sequester we tried to protect the most vulnerable. and the most vulnerable population in america is in the native american population. and we didn't put him in that

category, and so it's a terrible tragedy and they are really being hit hard now. i think the only health care that wasn't exempted was the indian health service. so i know it's not under your jurisdiction, but it seems like an important point to make here. i want to applaud the president and you for putting in the budget the 1872 mining law reform. i worked with senator murkowski and senator wyden on an amendment to the budget bill that brought 1872 mining law reform forward. i know what you are doing into bill is a new leasing program with royalty, and abandoned mine line to be used for a band and hard rock mines that the country. we very much appreciate that. as you know, the mineral leasing act provides that all state shall be paid 50% of the

revenues resulting from the leasing of mineral resources on federal public domain lands within their borders. this revenant is vital to new mexico where it fund our public education system. new mexico state leaders are very upset by the department of interior's office of natural resource revenue determination that these state revenues are subject to sequestration. these are state revenues based on minute development within state borders and are not federal funds. in new mexico alone we expect to lose $25 million in state and mineral revenues in fiscal your 12, to sequestration. i'm working with senator some other mineral revenues generated states to form legislation that would address this issue but hope you can help resolve this administrator. i understand the decision to subject these state shows a friend were made before your time and i hope it will get a

fresh look from you. these state royalties are part of the bargain between west and states and the federal government, which owns so much land within our states. altering that bargain risks increasing conflict between the states and the federal government. will you and your team were you the department's decision to consider states shows the mineral royalties as subject to sequestration? >> senator, thanks for raising my awareness of this issue. i have a couple of notes here that my colleagues have been bringing me up to speed, that is not the office of natural resources revenue but this the budget control act itself that governs this. and it affects all revenues. so i'm unclear as to what kind of jurisdiction we would have over this. rhea or pam, you want to provide more detailed? >> senator, so we actually made determinations based on the budget control act, and evaluation of the law and what

things were exempt and were not. and it is unfortunately consistent for revenant and payments like schools and payment taxes and mineral payment from the sequester does impact of those. and we have looked at it at least twice. >> well, these are state revenue. i mean, they are coming what we're going to do in legislation, would going to look at making sure you don't get your hands on them at all, so we don't get in this kind of situation. you know, that's where we are on death. the last two years have seen the largest wildfires in new mexico history. we're in a drought and we are bracing for the worst year yet. and i applaud the president and your department for making full funding of the tenure suppression average a priority, and for supporting full funding for the collaborative forest landscape restoration program at 40 million. but i'm very concerned, however,

that the president's fiscal '14 budget request for hazardous fuels reduction for the office of wild land fires reduced by 88.9 million, this is a 48% cut for the program, and it just seems to me that this isn't the area to be cutting. what is the justification for this cut, and why are you doing this, why are you headed in this direction on hazardous fuels reduction in the department of interior? >> senator, i'll give a high level and you and my colleagues may be able to provide more detail. no question the sequester where we removed essentially all of the fuels remove the budget to go into cut is not the best way to operate our public lands. removing the fuel to begin with so you don't have the degree of suppression makes all the sense of the world. be out the prevention pound of cure argument. and we agree with it. this difficult decisions made in this budget. we don't have the capacity to go to emergency funds would have

wildfires that it extend a 10 year average it impacts the overall operation of interior, and we've make difficult choices trying to balance what goes into suppression versus what goes into fuel reduction. rhea or david, you want to add anything more to that? >> senator, i certainly appreciate your concern and would recognize the deep importance of hazardous fuels reduction and the balance between the prevention sides of our fire program. we are, as the secretary noted come we're dealing with very difficult choices in the budget and in particular, fire is perennially a very difficult thing for a the budget in whole. and so we are very committed to having the adequate funds for our suppression, and we look forward to working with you to try to come up with long-term sustainability for the budget overall.

>> thank you. >> senator alexander, please. >> thanks, madam secretary. welcome. a national park where you've been and where you're well known and well appreciated. let me go over some figures you. the great smoky said nearly 10 million visitors in 2012 and received 19 million in federal appropriations. grand canyon had 4.4 million visitors, half listening and received 21 million, 2 million more in federal appropriations. yosemite had 3.8 million, that's less than half as many visitors as the smokies, and received 29 million in federal appropriations. now, in the case of grand canyon for another 14 million from entrance fees. in the case of yosemite, another 15 million from entrance fees. there's a great inequality here, taking the entrance fees first.

the great smokies as you well know was given to the united states by the people of tennessee and north carolina and schoolchildren who collected dollars, all this in the 1930s. and one of the agreement was there be an entrance fee. so the western part of all carved out of land owned by the united states. and so the smokies already penalized because they don't get the $14 million grand canyon gift, and the 15 yosemite gets in entrance fees. why should the most visited national park with twice as many visitors as these two great western parts, grand canyon and yosemite, receive less appropriated funding every year than the western parks? >> senator, i appreciate your question. i appreciate your park, and i'm a lot closer to it so i will be spending a lot more time to time been able to in the past. i will say that the 2014 budget

requests $19 million for the great smoky mountains which is about level with 2012 funding. i think it's very difficult to compare, i appreciate the visitation to the park and the road that goes through and the number of people to go through and entrance fee issue. the management of the park has to do with their acreage, with their threats. there are just a lot of factors that go into the budget, and i think it's very difficult to say it's a function of the number of visitors versus a broader view of what -- >> but what i would like to ask you to do is to review the formula you use for this. because, number one, i think you ought to take into account the fact that the park can't, by law, collecting entrance fee. and so it loses 14 or $15 million right there, which is, you know, 75% as much as the entire federal appropriations. and second, for to also be

funded less than the western parks, at a time when has a lot more visitors, the wear and tear on the parks is substantially a product of visitors. you can't really get the whole formula right here, but as you begin your study, i would hope that you would take a fresh look at that funding formula in light of what i think is the persistent underfunding of the smokies. we love the grand canyon. i've been down it. in fact, i went with senator udall's cousin, he took me down there 20 years ago. i would like to go again. we love you simply. we want them to be properly funded but we don't want our park to be. so would you take a look at that a part of your review of policy? >> i'm happy to take a look at it and see if there's something we can do spend i have two other questions. have you been asked about the bats? senator leahy has talked about that before. if you're a senator asking about

bats, you may wonder, well, why is he talking about bats. it's a big problem all through the eastern united states, and it costs, it costs about $74 per acre for the insects they don't eat. past suppression is a big part of it. it's a really concern in a very. what is the steps of research that you're working on to do with white nose syndrome? >> i've been briefed on the white nose in it, and the budget for 2014 does include increases in the usgs and the fish and wildlife budget to address with the. working on long-term effects of the vaccine to try and address it on the fish and wildlife, identifying the resource issue. there's no question is a huge impact on agriculture. so that is part of our signs budget that we are requesting for 2014. >> thank you. on the question of funding,

again back to the smokies come one of the things we're proudest of is your volunteers in the park. and you're aware of that. that might be a good thing for you to visit their come a good example for other parks. when you come there are over 3000 volunteers, and the estimated value o of the service is free and have million a year. the smokies add another million but that still doesn't make up for the funding lost. i have one of the question that i would like to ask you. there's enthusiasm for renewable energy here in the administration, and i've been puzzled by this obsession with these gigantic, grotesque wind towers all over the scenic america. most of our great environmental groups were founded by people admired ansel adams photographs and loved it to become along and turned the whole stretches. we destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment at putting these cuisinart in the sky that killed golden eagles and adopt an

energy policy that is for the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. so that's my view on these giant windows. but my question is this, we have thousands of abandoned mines across the country that people mind and left and now we are looking for money to clean those things that. what i'm going to do when these windmills low down or when they were out after 20 years? are when the tax subsidies for the rich people that fund them run out and we decide we don't want to spend $12 billion a year subsidizing them? who's going to clinton? there are thousands of them. my question is simple. is there a bond that you require of developers of wind turbines on public land so that at any time they are abandoned by the developer, is there a bond that the developer has to put up to make sure that the landscape is returned to its former pristine

beauty? >> senator, i'm going to have to defer to deputy secretary hayes on that. >> senator, i know there's at least requirement for the owner to be able to take down those turbines at the end of the useful life, much like we require for conventional oil and gas, all leaseholders to take down their equipment and returned the land to its previous condition. i don't know if it's a bond requirement. we look into and get back to you. >> does it require that -- >> a requirement to take down, on public land obviously, to take down the turbines at the end of their useful life. but whether there's a specific bond requirement or not i don't know right now, but we will get that information. >> thanks, david. i would appreciate it very much and i would add my compliments to your work here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator merkley. >> thank you all very much.

i wanted to start by a going senator udall's comments in regard to the proposed reduction of funding for hazardous fuels reduction. we had this last summer in oregon, the last -- largest forest fires we've had in 100 years. including one the size of rhode island and largely probably the forest was dry, but the other big factor was the accumulation of fuels from fire suppression in the past combined with the absence of forest management. and it's kind of a very hazardous combination, those factors. and in page 106 on the conversation of this, it notes the president's budget proposes reducing the program and 96 million, reduction of 89 million, i'm rounding it off, the 2012. and it presents a silver lining.

the program presents an opportunity to reunite with and recalibrate the focus of hazardous fuels reduction to align support the national cohesive wildland firemen the strategy. i am doubtful that there's anything in that strategy which says that the accumulation of fuels is not a problem, and that we should cut the funding in half. so i think this is probably just kind of nice language to dress up the fact this didn't make the list of higher priority operations. but i guess my question is, is there some type of fundamental insight of hazardous fuels reduction no longer merit the funding that it had? and if so i would like to understand that. >> senator, i'll take a high level crack at the question. fuels reduction is very important in reducing the risk of wild land fires, no question about it. we have very difficult budget choices to make, and so this budget reflects a balance of

what we expect to have to spend on suppression based on the 10 year average, and putting some money a side which has been removed in the sequestered, putting it back in to reduce the fuel load. there are ways that we fight fires that would be much better put on the emergency funding side so that we had a predictable annual way to continue to reduce the fuel load and fight sort of normal fires without the fights that inevitably occur in terms of how it impacts our funding. so we made smart choices. there's nothing that i am aware of our have been told that there's, you know. >> i appreciate the hard choices, and i just want to reiterate concern for a lot of our private landholders are very concerned about forest fires that moving from public land onto the private land, private rangeland, private timberland come into good share of the fires that occurred last year were on both public land leased,

so it operates as an income generator for our ranchers, and and also the private land including private timber stands. when you're private timber stand is burned up as result of a fire that initiated on a poorly managed public track, you can manage -- you can imagine how angry he become. that's my concern that we need to do more, not less. i wanted to turn to the climate days and restoration agreement. this is an agreement that i discussed with you earlier, that i just wanted to engage you on. this is an effort to address a significant area in southern oregon where you have a complicated set of rivers and dams and species, including a freshwater sucker fish and the

salmon, both of which have provisions to affect their survival that sometimes are in conflict with how much water stays in the lake versus how much goes in the river, so once of what the stakeholders have been fighting over this water together. they came together and forge the agreement. your predecessor flew in to be there for the signing of this agreement. the department worked very closely to try to support these concepts to turn what's been a lose-lose proposition into a win-win. nothing about this is simple. but i again wanted to raise your attention to it and ask for your help in trying to take this long term water war and convert it into something that is more reliable for the irrigators, better for the fish, both in lake fish and the downstream fish your. >> senator, thanks for your support of that and i am aware of how extensive and i'll

important of how complex this is and i look forward to working with you on it. >> thank you, madam chair today. then i wanted to turn to the issue of the omc lands in oregon, the grand slams. -- grant lands. these lands have gone through various management plans and there is a pending rewrite of the resource management plans for six different districts. and one of the concerns, just as a concern, if you will, fire suppression our response will take away the funding for fuels reduction. the concern here that the resources that are necessary to do these plans might come at the expense of the planning for timber cuts. these were lands that were dedicated for our county to essentially have a timber supply

to feed a local mills. and part of the revenues from the sales go to the local counties. and if the planning isn't done for the sale of timber, then nothing happens. nothing gets cut, nothing gets manage. we have second growth forest that continue to be good for fires and disease, but not for either ecosystems, or for timber sales. and so i wanted to raise this issue and ask whether the dedication of effort on the resource management plans is going to divert funds necessary to plan the sales on these lands? >> i'll answer at a high level and then ask my colleagues here to chime in with more. what i heard from the bom is a commitment to provide a steady source of timber for the mill in oregon. i know it's very critical funding for secure rural schools program, and so i have not heard that the resource management

plan takes away from the ongoing commitment to provide a steady supply of timber. my colleagues, would you -- rhea? >> senator, we fully expect to meet our cut target of 197 board feet that is expected in 2013. >> a million and something in there. >> i'm sorry 197 million, i'm sorry. and what we're asking for in the budget is an additional 1.7 million that will go into the resource management plans. we do not think these things are mutually exclusive. we think both of them are equally important for communities that you represent spend i appreciate the i will just close by saying, two weeks ago we lost the rough and ready no, the last know that we had in that particular county, and the owner of the mill said, and i believe i have this right, that it's like a person starving to death in a room full of food. that essentially that because of

the scarcity of the sales of the nearby timberland, they just couldn't get the logs to feed the mill. in a small town of cape junction, this is 85 living wage jobs which will of course affect that payroll being spent, will affect every other retail operation in this mill town. and certainly kind of that snapshot reflects the frustration and just of working out a sustainable timber supply strategy of the land. thank you. >> before i recognized senator hoeven, a vote has started. i will depart to vote. i'll ask the vice chair, senator murkowski, to reside. senator hoeven, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, good to see again. thank you for being here. a project that we submit for record, a decision some years ago come we're still waiting for

a final record of decision, the red river valley water supply project. would you be willing to commit to me that we can get together and you could give us a final decision one way or the other on that record of decision? >> happy to meet with you on it and learn more about it. deputy secretary, you know the status of the record of decision? >> i did not but we certainly will get back to you on that. that. >> we need to get a decision from. so could we agreed to schedule something, get together and get a frank discussion on a final decision? >> absolutely. >> second, i want to thank you for your willingness to come visit us in north dakota. appreciated very much. one of the stocks that we've got to make is at the spirit lake nation. and i think it's very important to there's a situation where the bureau of indian affairs has taken over the child protective services, for problems on the reservations, need to be addressed. your presence there i think a be

a big help in terms of making sure the job gets done and getting good progress report. and i would like your thoughts and hopefully commitment from you to do that. >> i'm very happy to work with your office on my visit to see a we do prioritize working that in with the other things you would like me to see in north dakota. >> good. the third point is i want to thank you again for the u.s. geological service study that came out, updating the recoverable oil reserves in north dakota, between double and triple, 7.4-11.4 billion barrels recoverable. the industry think it's going-it. natural gas, almost 7 trillion cubic feet. your study is very important because it's going to help us, we've got the oil companies in there, but we are growing so fast we need private investors and private developers in there,

building stores and housing and, you know, all other different things that go with the quality of life, restaurants. in addition to the public investment we are making in roads and bridges and water supply and all that. so it's very helpful, i want to thank you for that. i worked with your predecessor, secretary salazar, very close to to get usgs to do that study. we thank you for it. it's going to have a real impact in terms of jobs, energy, tax revenues at local, state and federal level without raising taxes. and, of course, energy security, energy independence for our country. it's a great example of what we can do together. so now you're working on hydraulic fracturing. we can't produce oil and gas without hydraulic fracturing. so i need your commitment to work with us on that. that's one. at the same time, we are working

on permitting, for example, on blm land. right now takes 10 to 14 days to permit a well in our state but it takes 270 days on blm land. we've got energy legislation in. our blm streamlining act, which i think we got bipartisan support. i think you guys are on board with the. we work with some of your people to develop it. the point is this, we need your help streamlining the regulatory burden. and that's one of the things we're going to show you. we will show you hydraulic fracturing, transparent and open. we do it right, we don't will that we create a lot of jobs and a lot of energy. so specifically where are you at with the hydraulic fracturing rules? are you going to work with the states to make sure they work? and can we continue this model of the deal in streamlining act when we work together to streamline this regulatory burden?

this is a win-win in a big way. so i know that's kind of a long question, but it goes to a big point here and a real opportunity. and i would love your response spent an happy to respond but as i'm sure you recall from a confirmation hearing i actually havhave tracked a will before. >> you said you. >> having been a patrolling engineer early in my crew. i understand the risk and instead reward and its essential and has been for decades. in economically extracting the resource and can be done safely and responsibly. so i do understand the. fracking rules, we are very close to releasing them. so i said that it's a matter of weeks, not months, and so he won't have long to wait. in terms of streamlining the records were burden, we agree, and the blm agrees. yesterday, i had an opportunity to meet with western energy alliance, which a small operators of the west. we talked about this. i hate to keep bringing up

sequestration. we have a movement afoot to streamline and automate the process. when we do a line item by line item cut it makes it difficult to do that because we don't have the flexibility on where we kept. the people are necessary to process permit applications, and they are being scaled back. so we are actually prioritizing authorization for permits to drill and our inspections over additional leases, but the blm is very committed to being more streamlined. there's some legislation that has had pilot offices that don't allow us to go beyond those in the region. we are asking for a fixed to that but i think the blm is very much on the same page with you, senator, and when we need to go to be responsive. >> that's it. that's a legislation on document. we will get you authority so ya flexibly to some of these things. i think we can leverage the resource. we could do much more together, even with common you know, challenges up sequestration.

because with some flexibility we're going to bring you state and local resources, private resources in a way that will help us do these things. it really just comes back, your willingness, your willingness to engage with us and do it. this is where your leadership i think can be critical and make a big difference. >> appreciate that. >> first off, madam secretary, congratulations on being here. i was proud to vote for your confirmation. i think your expense will be very good for us. you've heard from a lot of the western senators up here, and i just want you to know as important as the department of interior to the west, we have some interest in vermont, in the east. we take pride in their own. we appreciate the value the department of the interior brings to vermont, to our to

wildlife national parks, to national fish ashes. the connecticut river, new england states became the first national blue way. so these are all things that we are very interested in. since 1998 the fish and while the services have left -- led, that's what this ugly looking thing is common which attaches, attaches itself to fish, like salmon, trout and so one. it's critical to the restoration of native fish species in lake champlain. than a devastating impact on the ecosystem is left unchecked. program to get ready that has been a huge success. in 2011, your predecessor and former colleague, ken salazar joined me in vermont to say the

fish and wildlife service were accepting full responsibly of managing it. they have yet to budget money for this work. when will the u.s. fish and wildlife service spending plan began to honor your predecessor's commitment, 25 years of leadership by the fish and wildlife service and put money into eradicate see lepers in lake champlain? without sounding too parochial. >> it's a great our session of a challenge that we have and balancing the resource, particularly with invasive species pick specific to the c. lampre, looking at him to see if she has a number. she's scrambling to with a number. >> the 2014 budget maintain fish and wildlife funding at the 2012 level, $11 million. the supports fish and wildlife service's efforts in market, in

michigan and lake champlain fish and wildlife resource office in vermont. so how much is going to be budgeted for vermont? >> i'm not sure. we can get you that information. >> would you di get it this wee? >> we can. >> thank you. >> senator from tennessee has mentioned white nose syndrome, something i raised her several years ago. it is a matter of huge import. not only to farmers that use pesticides, but also to those who are involved in organic farming without pesticides. and then native fish populations ever increasing risk. we see first hand in vermont the fish and wildlife service is a federal fish hatchery system is critical to preventing that. vermont's two federal fish

hatchery's support this registration as far west as lake ontario, as far east as main. administration is spending request is a significant drawback from freshwater fish restoration. are you going to be able to continue strong network of federal fish hatchery's? >> senator, i'm going to actually work white nosed bats as well as the question on the fish hatchery could i give information we have 11 and a half million dollars for programs in the 2014 budget for the white nosed bat system and that the $5 billion increase above 2012, recognized the huge impact of that. in terms of fish hatchery's i know that there is support for fish hatchery syngenta. i don't know specifically about vermont. rhea? >> senator, we believe strongly that the white river national fish hatchery is one of the best examples of our work in this

realm. .. >> if you go online, you've probably seen this, how you became president, the vice president, the speaker, myself, those of us in line to succession to the presidency took a hot air balloon ri