helicopter sfszs between cold bay and the end of the road, as you referenced. we are willing to work with the community on other water-based transportation methods to cover that six miles from the end of that road to cold bay. but, senator, to suggest that the eisenbeckh refuge is the same is inaccurate. >> 300 to 1. 300 to 1. and, madame secretary, and in all respect, to suggest that you're going to be able to count on the coast guard to establish some kind of a base there in cold bay is not realistic. it's not rational.

the coast guard knows that and you know that. and in the meantime, 21 medivacs to pluck people out to get them to some level of safety when a ten-mile one-lane gravel, non-commercial use road could help save these lives. we've got to keep working on this, madame secretary. >> senator, i recognize this issue and i also recognize that this is not a unique situation. that there are many villages that struggle in the case of medical evacuations. and i appreciate that it is part of our job to work on that. and i will continue to work on that. >> that is true. that there are many villages. but there are none none that have ready access to an all-weather airport right there. >> i think we should talk to the senator who has an appropriations committee and talk to her about what we can do.

i'm just pointing out that in 19 t e 98 we appropriated $187 million to promote a hoefer california. so i think that was something that the clinton administration worked on. so maybe we need to look at something in that area for the future. i want to turn to this issue that we're seeing in so many wesz tern states this issue of of -- and, maybe the undersecretary wants to address this issue. i'm sure you visited with congressman hastings and myself and then, interior secretary to e to this basin project. but it does reflect so much of what we're asking e asked to do. it's part of a water enhancement program through the bureau of reckly nation. so my question is what do we need to do to not only use the

resources that -- to implement this plan through the department of interior, bum providing adequate levels of funding and for other areas since that this is, you know, you could say the same of i'm assuming california has more than a san joquin issue. so what do we need to do knowing that we are facing serious drought in these areas? >> you're absolutely right. in developing a plan of action to deal with the long-term imbalance between water supply demand and the basin. i think the bureau of recommendation is based on studies program, which helped fund a lot of the planning activity can with respect to the developed an overall strategy

that, when implemented, i think, will benefit environment tribes, as well as the large-scale agriculture that exists in the basin itself. as you highlight and hint at, it's a very expensive plan. i think, overall it's a $3-5 billion over a 30 year period.

but the bolt tom line all of these areas that need a large number of investments, i think it's going to be a combination of states increasing their support for waterer resources infra infrastructure. state of california has recently passed an 8$8 plus billion bond. reckly mags has gotten very good support in its budget to increasingly invest in the strategic planning as well as some of the activity that comes out of that plans and the infra infrastructure and the investments that need to be occurring. but it's pretty daunting, overall. reckly mags gets about 1 to $1.1 billion each year. it's got a $6 billion backlog in its programs. whether it be restoration, new infrastructure, damn repair and rehabilitation that needs to be doing, as well as the

conservation initiatives that are yielding a substantial amount of nonfederal dollars. but we're not making progress by leaps and bounds. >> do you think that some of the solutions that are being talked about are positive solutions? >> well, absolutely. i think some of the solutions -- i think more and more, i wanted's a balanced approach. take the basin. we're looking at water supply projects. i think the integrated plan came out of the black brock dam proposals.

>> well, i think -- i guess my point is this. what we've seen is a lot of legal cases that people have decided didn't turn out the way they wanted. but a lot of the parties haven't walked away from the table. so i applaud, you know, native americans in oregon for saying -- even though -- you know they wanted -- their water rights they're still willing to agree to work together as a community. that's the most positive thing. tribal leaders farmers, everybody are working together. and, at the same time, we've seen these drastic changes in climate and more drought. so i think it's -- and i don't think these solutions are the yesterday's solutions. i guess that's why i asked you about that. i think some of the ideas that people are putting on the table, that farmers and tribal members can agree to are the types of projects we should be supporting. so i know many of my colleagues on this committee have issues in their state.

so i hope that we can look at this further. i know my time is expired, madame chair. >> thank you, madame chair. madame secretary, thanks for being with us. in 2013, you testified that wyoming is "a good example" of a state that is doing an effective job of regulating hydraulic fracturing. you quoted great high dral e drawlic fracturing regulations. for kparm, we now require base-line testing before and after hydraulic fracturing takes place and it also requires additional disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids. now, blm is soon going to issue a rule for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. so my question. will blm allow wyoming and other

states to apply for and obtain a variance from its rule so it can avoid dupelicateing state regulations? >> thank you, senator. and standby my comments. wyoming has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward-thinking. and and we've learned from wyoming as well as some over states. our proposed regulations say that if a state's rule is stronger than a proposed federal rule, than the state's rule will govern. that is in fact, the case that you just referenced in wyoming. i don't know that there's anything in our proposed rule that is more stringent that than wyoming's rule. so i'll have to look as to whether a variance will be on the table. but i think we want to provide certainty to industry. we don't want to make the regulations complicated. so if that's something that the state would want us to consider u it's certainly something that i'd asking blm to look at. the goal, however, is to provide

minimum base-line standards. and many states are not sophisticated like wyoming. these activities are relatively new. these regulations have not kept up, if at all. so we're really looking at baseline standards learning from folks like you. >> limtsing to the endangered species act, the endangered species act states that you the ek e secretary of interior shall, by regulation, determine whether any species is an endangered species or a tletenned species. last year, congress passed the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill. that the bill states that you may not use any funds to write or issue a proposed rule for great er greater state grous. but last month, you wrote that the appropriations bill, "does not afengt fish and wildlife

services court-ordered obligation to make a determination by september 30th of 2015. as to whether the greater sage grous does or doesn't warrant protection under the endangered species act. so i can't make sense of your letter. and i find your plans to ignore federal law troubling. so the question is please explain how you can list the sage grouse without first issuing a rule. >> thank you, senator. i know these are legal nuances that i am learning myself. we are required under a quart e court order to make a determination whether a listing is waranted or not through the fish and wildlife service. we would not have any funding to make a rule. so we'd have to make a determination by court order. so if we make a determination that is threatened or endangered, and believe me i hope that we won't get there because of the great work that's going on. but if a listing were warranted, the first and wildlife service

could say a listing is warnted, but they could not rite e write a rule that indicates what that means. so we certainly fully intend to comply with the law. but it doesn't stop them from making a determination just writing a rule that says then what? >> so is it your view that this so-called determination would be legally binding? >> you know i have to defer to the solicitors. it's a determination. but the rule is what would determine what happens next and we are bound by court to make a determination and bound by law to not right a rule. so i am working very hard to support the state's efforts and the federal government efforts so that a listing is not warranted so that we don't have to call the question on this issue. >> final question on your president obama's so-called strategy to reduce methane emissions. is as part of that strategy, the blm plans to i shall shoe new

regulations. absent in the strategy is any effort to actually make it easier to get permits to natural gas gathering lines, gathering lines are the pipelines which can collect and then transport that natural gas from wells to processing plants. they're necessary to reduce the venting and the flaring of natural gas. and we've introduced legislation in the past to make it easier to do those sorts of things. a principal reason why natural gas is vented and flared in the west is because blm has failed to give permits in a timely manner. so blm is trying and doing all it can to expedite the permitting of natural gas gathering lines and what specific steps blm has taken. >> yes, senator. we are very committed to gathering the gas and not resorting to venting and flaring, as is happening. i am not aware of circumstances

where permits have been slowed down by the blm. but i will say resources are constrained. we've had a real challenge in our budget with sufficient resources to do what's expected of us. so i would appreciate any support that you could provide in making the case for why it's important that we resource blm appropriately because we completely agree that the best tling to do with this natural gas is to gather it and sell it in the market. >> thank you. thank you, madame secretary. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, madame chair. secretary jewellu i i want to thank you for your extraordinary -- in particular, i do represent hawaii. using the land and water conservation fund, which you highlighted in your testimony and saying that the fund supports 105 projects and 39 states including alaska and

hawaii. particularly for hawaii the hawaii volcanos and national park. these efforts have taken us a long time. i wanted to ask you how important is commercial action in making sure that the lwcf funds are more consistent because you keep asking for full funding, you keep not giveing full funding. full funding is about what? $900 million? and we give you $300, $400.

so how important is it for us to give more funding over a longer period of time to allow the department to plan and exkwut these projects effect efly. >> thank you very much, senator. there's no question that 50 years ago congress was very visionary when they passed the landmark conservation fund act. they recognized as we drill for oil and gas in federal waterers offshore that there is some impact. not only does every dollar invested in lwcf provide a very strong return on investment, but we have many willing sellers of land in holdings within national parks, access areas so hunters and fishermen can get to the waters or the hunting lines that they have, important areas for connectivity and ecosystems that you referenced like those that you talked about in hawaii. this has been used successfully

over 40,000 times. it has benefitted 98% of the counties in this country. and we think it's a brilliant piece of legislation that has worked well. so i want to compliment many members of the u.s. senate for their support for reauthorization of the landmark conservation fund. i appreciate the president including full funding not just in this budget request, but in the last two. and i hope would that given what we know about the impact of oil and gas activities, based on the revenues that we get from the gulf of mexico, $14.7 billion in revenues that this department collected, largely from off-shore oil and gas that we could have that permanently going to this fund so that those willing sellers will know that they have an opportunity to sell that land. >> and you noted that there are willing sellers, but they're not going to wait forever. the sooner we move ahead with funding, the better off we will be. i want to get to the issue

of compact milegrants and compact agreements. hawaii is the state that's the most impacted by the free asoegs association that the united states has entered into with the fed rated states of micronesia. and our state is tremendously impacted by the compact migrants in terms of our health care, education, and housing needs. with regard to palall, however, i am aware that we are to provide some $17 million to palall over the next ten years to effect keep our part of the bargain. and i know that the interior department has come up with some $8 million on a yearly basis. but how are you doing in getting the other departments who have been part of the compact, particularly with palall and coming up with a full $17 mill dwronl

on over the next 17 years? >> thank you, senator. compact impacts are very significant, as you point out. hawaii and guam have the biggest hits. we're limited to $30 blilon and we'd like to see that cap raised. the president's budget requests mandatory funding for the compact impact and requests that you consider raising that cap because it is a huge impact on hawaii, guam and fsm fed rated states of micronesia to deal with this. as far as palao is concerned yes, we want to work collectively with the department of defense and the state department. we need your support for a solution from a funding standpoint to if palall compact. i know that there have been various funding sources considered by this body. helium was one of them. we acceptability that to other places. we request your support in getting funding to address, you

know, our government's obamaly gagss to palall. i don't have a lot of influence with the department of defenlsz and the state department. but it's certainly on their radar and on mine. and we would appreciate your help in moving forward. >> thank you very much. madame chair i just want to say that for a nation like ours to not meet our obligation to a small entity such as palao, that only $17 million a year is really, in my view unconscionable and we should move forward with that funding. thank you. >> agreed. thank you. >> senator, thank you for bringing that up. and this is something that we do need to find a resolve for. and it has been somewhat discouraging to me that state department and the defense department have been very uchb creative, i think, in trying to find some solutions. so we'll work on that. senate senator cassidy? >> excuse me, secretary jewell,

i'll begin with a statement. i am incredibly -- i cannot put enough hyperbole in front of this -- opposed to the gulf coast states under the revenue promised. moneys by our state constitution that go to mitigate miss management of our wetlands. now, in louisiana, we are experiencing an unparalleled loss of land. this red area is what we are losing. down here, this results from chabl e channelling, levying the lower mississippi for the benefit of commerce for the rest of the country. this has taken a once-growing delta plain and caused a wetland loz. we were told that we could count on a portion of oil revenue to restore this coastline. can i see the next slide,

please? and what is at stake? this is a result of that coastal loss. i'll hold this up now. having lost this much land, can no longer protect itself with wit wetlands from that surge. in the upper area this is all plaqueman's perish. those are working families, work working an industry that literally fuels the rest of our country. and they're reliant upon this revenue to rebuild this land so that they can continue to live there. now, over the last three years i'm going to point out, the federal government has taken in $22.3 billion from leasts in this area. and the four gulf coast states

most affected by this have received $4 million. .2%. now, frankly i don't know how the administration has gotten at this. and i will point out that the gulf coast states and the off-shore waters have, over the last few decades, produced billions of barrelings of oil, trillions of cubic feet. but, with that, there is a coast associated. and, for u.s. to support this infrastructure, we need to rebuild our coastline. now, speaking of the infrastructure ignores the individual family to take this away. the atrocities that horrified us a week ago, become acceptable tomorrow. if way back when when this was channelled we would have known that these homes would

have been destroyed, maybe we wouldn't have done it. but now it becomes acceptable to take that money away and to allow these families to continue to be adversely affected. by the way, it's not just an irate senator. let me read a quote put out jointly from the environmental defense fund. the national wildlife federation, the basin foundation. they are disappointed kriltically needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal louisiana in the mississippi river delta. this proposed budget undercuts previous commitments to restore critical economic infra infrastructure and ecosystems where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year a preventable, coastal erosion crisis. these are the environmentalists. let me go back to the louisiana headlines. does president obama hate

louisiana? if you're this person in that home, that's a question you're asking when the land with the money we were going to use to build back that wetlands is being taken away. now, in that is a question. don't you care about these families? it doesn't appear that you do. your thoughts? >> thank you, senator.. of course, i care about those families. as i do about many families in coastal communities that are experiencing dramatic impact. the president's proposed budget says we should revisit the revenues from federal waters offshore beyond state waters. >> revisit means take it away from the coastline that will be rebimt. let me go back to the other quote. an atrocity a week ago is acceptable now. this is an environmental atrocity. and now we're saying let's

revisit. maybe that should be my question. why should these families think he cares about them? sir, we are balancing the assets of all americans. in large measure, because of the very unfortunate oil spill -- >> that is an unrelated incident. that is unrelated from this 80 year process. totally unrelated. >> and, if i may, sir, i see when it was closed by the core of engineers, the beaches began to e crete.

>> >> so if this is green and this is mr. go, that does not forego that. >> i unction what has happened there has taken many years. and it has been the result, largely, of how we have channelized the mississippi river, as you brought out in your comments. we certainly support gulf coast restoration. we're working on gulf coast restoration. this is a pro po poe sal by the administration about whether the revenues from the outer continental shelf that are national assets should be focused on four states or should be -- >> we're over time so let me conclude by this. thank you for your indull jenls. i will point out that for the last three years all the states have received $22 billion and the four gull coast, 25 million, now we're talking 375 million out of 22 billion. it doesn't seem much to ask.

thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, madame chair. senator from louisiana, i can assure you that this is very important to all of us in the country. i have good friends environmental friends and family in louisiana and i know that the loss of koegscoast down there is an extremely serious problem. i appreciate you raising that issue. madame secretary, just to get back to the budget for a minute, how does this budget line-up with the sequester and with the 2011 budget caps. i'm actually going to ask mike to take that. >> senator since the 2013 agreement on the budget this economy has started to rebuild

restore and grow. we don't want to go back to the sequester. we think it will keep the economy growing very strongly. from that standpoint, the pet has proposed a budget that will eliminate the sequester and help us move forward. >> so it would beat the original 2011 budget caps, but not the sequester caps? is that right? there were budget caps and then there was the sequester. >> it does the sequester i don't know with respect to budget? yeah not only the budget in 2001, still. >> fine, thank you. to go from the brunt toelt specific, madame secretary we had an experience a year or so ago at acadia. and one of the gems of the national park system which, also, is a hundred years old next year. where there was the concession which had been held by a local

company for 80 years was put out to bid under congressional action. what was surprising to me was, apparently, the bid result was strictly a matter of lower price and past per formanls and record of performance and local impact and those kinds of things didn't count. we had a meeting with your staff and discussed this and, to my surprise, they said, yes, that's right. that's the way we read it. any plans to revisit that process? because it worries me that a small company is always going to be at a disadvantage to a large, national company with who has you know, full-time bid design people. as opposed to people with local knowledge. and, again, with a high level of performance. shouldn't that be a factor in deciding? when i go to buy a car, i don't just look at the price. i look at the quality and the past per formanls of that automobile.

should that be part of the contracts? >> senator i'm not intimately familiar with the contracting. i will say that as i've looked into the concession contracts, there have been requirements placed on what they can and can't do that are quite frustrating in terms of what they owe the concessioners over time to change out the contracts. it has not worked the way it might if one was running a business and part of that has to do with the restrictions that are placed on the park service in that regard. >> restrictions placed by congress? >> yes, i believe so. >> if there are such restrictions that you find frustrating, please let us know and we'll try to fix them. i think this is a place where we can perhaps work together. >> will do. . >> a second point about parks. i note in your opening statement that your department is seshltly self-funded. you collect 16$16 plus billion in fees and you're proposed of a budget of 16% 2. but i believe there's a lot of

money level left on the table. for example, at acadia it's very difficult for local mesh chants to sell park passes. i believe it's impossible i may be wrong, but i believe it's impossible to buy park passes online. we've had visitors say we'd like to pay, but we don't know how. i would urge you to have the park service visit the whole clerks of fees, how they're collected and bring it to the 21st serge ri in terms of access points because it would be a sharm shame to be cutting park service and noot doing maint innocence if, in fact you've got customers, if you will who aren't paying and perhaps would even like to be paying. >> well, i'll just quickly say that the director of the park services has revisited the fees charmged in a number of parks. they've been static for quite a number of years and has proposed some fee increases that are being considered right now.

>> let the record show i'm not necessarily recommending fee increases. i'm brave, but i'm not stupid. [ laughter ] >> but i am suggesting methodology for collecting fees. my impression, from working with these issues, is there are a lot of fees that are already in place that aren't being elected. as i say, we've had people say visitors, i've had merchants say we've had visitors staying at our inn who say i want to pay to visit acadia, but i don't know how or where. so i'm talking about the mechanics of collection rather than the level, maybe that the level -- if you're leaving 20% of the money on the table, it may be that the level isn't as relevant as to how it's collected. i've got several other questions which i'll submit for the record. thank you, madame chair. thank you, madame secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you madame chair: i'll continue on this parks discussion. and i'll continue with what

senator parks was discussing in enhancing to get some more money to the parks with some of the clear issues you've identified in your budget. i want to back up and talk a little bit about the sen centennial challenge. as you know commissioner, i've been working with you on those. and we've talked a lot about how in 2016, we could do some exciting things to try to generate more interest in the parks and, also to deal with some of the budget challenges. in 2007 when i was submitting the budget, we launched this centennial challenge where you get the private sector more engaged. and i think your company was part of that. it makes so much more sense to me. you provide a federal match to be able to leverage private sector dollars.

mpx thank reallies, senator. i did work trying to encourage congress to pass the centennial app. the national park service is arguably the most recognized and valued brand within the federal fwovt. and, certainly, a place where people are very, very interested in providing support and research has shown that there is a tremendous interest in private philanthropy. we've also known -- and i've done a lot of fund raising myself, that a match is a great incentive to get people to give sometimes two, three four, five times the amount showing that

we're putting our money up and individuals will do so, too. so the budget has, in the discretionary part, $50 million for a match and an additional hundred million in the mandatory proposal. we are confident that with a match, we can multiply that to several timesover. i think that there are parts of the park service where people will want to give private flannel philanthropy and other areas are going to be less conducive to that. so our budget focuses our resources on those that are less accessible to fund raising, like the deferred maintenance, and would concentrate those matching funds on areas, like getsz burggettysburg would be a good example. and we've seen that here in washington, d.c., as well. >> i think it's a really committing opportunity. i think we'd be interested in working with you on that. i am interested in the backlog and some of the deferred maintenance. it's a real problem in cayhuga

national park in ohio. my question to you is how do you square this backlog and the problems that we have with funding that we have with the fact that you all continue to promote more workload for the national park service by expanding the areas of responsibility and proposing more stewardship? >> yeah. well, this budget proposes -- really has a proposal that, over ten years, would clear up the maintenance backlog on the facilities on our highest priority assets. those that are going to see the most visitors those that are in the most difficult condition. for example, glacier national park still has knob and tube wiring, which is still not safe. so we have made a budget proposal to clean all of that up over ten years. about half of our backlog is end roads.

the other half this will address the highest priority assets and give us a good shot in that centennial year in the highest of the high priorities and dealing with them. it is a path forward because we recognize that we have not kept up, the budget has not kept up. >> i would also say the transportation budget that is not under your ages but does not provide adequate roads and bridges and infrastructure. a lot of it is infrastructure. i hope that you pushed for that -- >> we do. >> and that those efficiency people -- well you've got to continue to push for that and i'm very disappointed in the conservation budget not having more. let moee just ask you a question. let's say that somebody in cleveland, ohio wants to make a contribution to the cayhuga national park let's say to improve a building. and there's situations like that in all of the parks. how can they do that? can they assure that the money they give to the park is going

to fix that roof? >> yes, we can do that. we doo it flu the national park foundation. or, if they have their own friends group, they can go through that mechanism, as well. >> they do have a great friends group, one of the best in the country. but how can they do it through the park service? >> i'm not exactly sure of the mechanics. >> i don't think they can. >> you don't think so 1234. >> okay, i'll look at it. >> that's splg that we should work on. i'm already over time, but i would like to i shall shoe if i could, some questions for the record with regard to per mything process. i think this is an area where we've had a great opportunity to do some work on a bipart san basis. again, senator king and i have introduced some legislation on this. and let me put a concern on the table. and, in particular, your folks at u.s. fish and wildlife who are proposing to list that that is endangered and what that would mean for commercial activity. so we'd like to work with you on that. and i'm very concerned about it.

>> let me just answer that very briefly. it looks like the likelihood is a threatened listing. and the fish and wildlife services would enable a lot of the same kind of economic activities to go forward, if that's the case. so, that's where we are. we recognize it's the biggest issue. >> it's not development? or commercial activity? by the way it's not broad enough to encompass what people care about in eastern ohio as well as some other commercial activity. so we need to broaden that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, chair. i want to thank you, secretary jewell, for your leadership around the issue. in my view, there are many places in our federalist state where oil and gas development are the highest and best use of our federal lands. i believe wildlife refugees are not among them. and i want to thank you for

recognizing that unique wilderness resource that, frankly, belongs to every american. we've got two new national park service units in my home state of new mexico. that passed in the last public land spill. and the local communities that host these new units are incredibly excited to see these places finally come to fruition after literally decades of advocacy. at one of those, a device called national preserve management is moving from an unsuccessful experimental model to an existing model under parks management. and what drove that was really a lack of adequate public access and recreational opportunities under the previous arrangement. but the preserve has a very strong scientifically driven resource managed program, that the delegation certainly myself,

feel must continue under the new management model. and, in particular the preserve is going to be a key partner in a collaborative restoration project designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and to restore forest health after many years of relatively irresponsible, high-grade logging that occurred years ago when this land was actually private. adjacent land managers including several tribes and the department of energy, have a big stake in making sure that the preserve doesn't present a fire threat. i want to know that we can count on this critical restoration work and want to ask the park service, in particular, if the park service can continue to work with the preserve's existing partners, including neighboring neighboring tribes, to finish this important forest health project.

it's unusual that you have a co-mingling in the interior as in transition occurs. >> and they've been working closely with us on this transition. >> i want to go back to the backlog that senator portland mentioned. we hear a lot of the backlog of

may not innocence on our public lands and, especially, our national parks. some even claim that we shouldn't protect the new places like the manhattan project national historic park because of the backlog. and one ft things that i wanted to point out was that oftentimes, that deferred main innocence doesn't come out or shouldn't come out of the interior department budget or even the forest service budget. but is actually relatedoç to the department of transportation backlog and transportation backlog that is shared between the department of transportation at the federal level and then state and local responsibleties for transportation ways that just happen to be on park service real estate. can you talk a little bit about what portion of the park service backlog is actually a transportation issue that needs funding through the highway bill? and other responsibleties? other than your budget? >> we have, in the park service

an $11.2 billion backlog. that's billion, with a "b". 5.9 billion is a deferred maintenance of the facility that is we're responsible for. and 5.6 billion is transportation. so just sliegtsly less than 50%. >> so just under half of that is not the responsibility of the department of interior? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> i'm going to leave you with one last issue. in recent years, i've seen sort of a troubling dynamic where congress refuses to provide your agencies with the resources they need to manage our public lands. and then, when those lands deteriorate because of lack of funding and management congress accuses the agencies of mismanagement and claims that the states could do a better job. in fact, i believe that we in congress, need to do a much better job of providing the resources necessary to manage these lands so that they are healthy and could make a posztive and sustainable

contribution to the entire american economy. would the president's budget provide the department with the resources it needs to gingrich to address the broader may not innocence backlog? >> do i have time to answer? certainly, with the national park centennial, we have focused a lot of our energy around the national parks and addressing that maintenance bag log. there is a small amount in the mandatory portion of the centennial budget that proposes support for the backlog on other public land. lm, for example, in the fish and wildlife service. these public assets as you point out, are, in many cases the opportunity that people have to breathe and to experience the best of the best of what this kun tri is known for, the natural world. and, also, our history and our culture. so it's -- it's not a budget that fixes all the problems. it's a budget that's a step in that direction. and i really appreciate your support on that. i will say that it is frustrating. i know many, many hard-working

people that are dedicated public servants that are working on our maintenance, that are working on interpretation and science and law enforcement. and i met somebody out at the mountain park, which is where camp david is who was a law enforcement ranger who was cleaning the toilets and actually repairing part of the visitor's senator. that's where we find ourselves. and i won't say this budget helps address that completely, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. thank you. push push . >> thank you madame secretary, for your time tonight e today. and as we talk about the national park services next year i'm excited about the centennial celebration this year, of rocky mountain national park. and i'll be commemorating the incredible, incredible grandeur of rocky mountain national park and will certainly invite you and hope to work together in the coming months together.

i look forward to that. i wanted to talk a little bit about the arkansas valley conduit. first authorized in 1962, under president kennedy, the project will serve more than 40 rural economically depressed communities in my state to congress passed legislation in 2009, but provided a funding mechanism and an extensive process has already been completed. early stages of mapping, design and other pre-construction activities are under way, as well. and led to a significant number of savings by optimizing as the project moves forward. but, this year the administration's budget request was only $500,000. and, in 2012, president obama actually went to southeastern colorado in pueblo, colorado and said it will be built. can you help me understand, why is the request only 500,000 dplars? what is happening?

is this project receiving the kind of priority that it should in order to be completed? >> on i shall shoes like this, i turn to the expert for that department, that's mike connor, deputy secretary. >> senator i've had the opportunity to work very closely with your constituents. when we passed the legislation as well as running the wur row reclamation and getting the work done associated with that. it's a very important project. i understand the water supply and water quality concerns that your constituents have. and if bottom line is right now, we're trying to plan for a phased-in development of this project. and it's tough given the constrained resources that we have. overall, after getting the record decision done, we've focused on competing the feasibility work that needs the be accomplished. and i think overall, we're looking at this in bite-sized pieces. that work is going to take about $5-6 million. we managed to last year

transfer an additional $2 million on top of our $500,000 budget request to try to accelerate work along those lines. but the bottom line is we are in bottom line is we are in constrained resource environment. we will look continue within the budget and when we can move funds over there and i think this is the second time we did it and in 2014 we'll move that resources over. try and develop technology we have a hard time funding the construction. we need to get it to the point we can evaluate all the options. the state of colorado is offered a loan which we're thinking maybe sufficient to initiate construction activity. we're in a dialogue now within the administration and the stake holders are looking at other

federal programs and see if we can't given the quality concerns if we can't make use of epa resources that can go for water infrastructure. we'll continue to work along those lines and try and put a patch work of funding opportunities together with local resources that we can afford. >> we'll love to continue our conversation on this. it's a project. this has been for 50 years a reclamation project and like to continue our work together on this. what do you believe these to be

achieved in order to allow states to implement their plans in order to determine they are best protecting they are best at protecting the wildlife within their borders. >> thank you senator. what's happening is 11 western states particularly those twoer states are unmandated. it's different state by state. we are trying to strike the right balance every place we are with the federal plans, state plans and the science to make sure that we're doing everything

we can so that a listing of the species is not warranted. the fish and wildlife service will need to have something they can rely on. we have executive actions that the governors have taken that provides that assurance. i've had a secretarial order that provides assurance in the great basin. our goal is to provide a clear path forward so grazing can continue but continue in really smart way where we know where the most critical habitat is and we know how to protect it. we are doing everything we can with them to reassure the fish and wildlife service that the bird will be protected.

>> >>. >> thank you. secretary joel thank you for visiting the school. as you know from before the time you were nominated i've been raising the alarm about the school. i talked to you about it pretty much every chance i get. thank you for going up there. what did you see at the bug school? >> i saw a facility that should not be a school. it's converted to adequate uses, small hallways, inadequate heating systems and a school that did not convey a sense of

support to the students that were there. i also saw committed teachers. i saw a school that wants to retain the culture identity of the tribe and nurture them. i saw their use of the great out doors to do that because i was there when the weather was good. this is not a school that i'm proud of or you're proud of. it's indicative of the one-third of all schools overseen by the bur bureau of education. >> >> it's not enough. what -- i'm glad you went there. i thank you again for doing

that. this just unacceptable. our native children have so many challenges that face them and, if anything, we should be giving them better schools than, we should be giving better schools than that. i want to ask you talk about $25 million to rebuild the school. what does the increase in indian school construction funding mean? >> the short answer is we have several schools remaining on the 2004. that's now, by time we get to this budget will be 12 years old that our priority. after that we are completely redoing the priority. we'll be on the list of priority schools. we're working on a set of

objects objective criteria that's being refined now. i don't have the list. i expect to have it along the middle of the year that will reprioritize those and put it in place. it's going to take a long term commitment on the part of congress and a long term commitment to address these challenges. having seen the school it's in bad shape and needs to be replaced. i will tell you that i've seen other schools that are in equally bad shape and i just breaks my heart. this is what we do in supporting indian education. the prioritized list will be coming out middle of year. we'll make sure you know where that particular school is on the list. there's a good chance in this budget that there will be planning and design dollars for a number of those schools on the highest priority list to move them forward very quickly. we're learning from the

department of defense because they had a similar situation and they had a pathway forward that their schools will be brought up to speed and hired the person that did that on our team here to do the same kind of long term game plan for indian schools. >> one of the other things we talked about was lois and clark. it's been a frustration also for me. specifically, this project, you've in your budget last year you suggested that if local governments want these projects built faster they should put in more money on to the of the legally required. state of minnesota has done

that. this year you still came back and only requested $2.7 million for the project the congress has already demonstrated that we can re responsibly fund these at a higher level. these communities have done everything that's been asked of them and then more. more funding than there are supposed to. what will it take to get interior to prioritize these projects projects? >> may i? i'll make my part very brief and turn it to mike. we have way more demands than they have funding. indian water right settlements have taken priority for us in making sure that communities do not have access to water are

prioritized. i know you'll appreciate that. there's some money in the budget to continue to make progress. there's not enough money to go around. we have to prioritize. mike, do you want to talk specifically about that? >> we greatly appreciate the additional resources that congress has put in. we have validated that funding to three times as much as we had in our budget to allocate. i think in this year's cycle 2015 they have about $9 million that can be coupled up with local resources and we can make progress overall. >> i don't think that's right. >> we had 3 million on our budget and congress appropriated additional $30 million which they got about 6 to $6.5 million. that's where i get the $9 million figure. that was announced about two weeks ago the additional resources that were provided.

you're right about the 2016 budget. this is one where competing priorities, we have not been able to allocate funding to the water program in the way we would like. these are good project. it's a lot of recovery dollars in them and made some significant progress. strained under the budgets and even in a very robust budget with good investments here for the interior department. this program is strained. if we end up with sequestration it will get worse. >> thank you. thank you for your indulgence. >> thank you. good to see you again today. i was back home in montana last week where it was a whole lot warmer than washington, d.c. i had chance to spend some time with a tribe back there in montana. as you know unemployment would be more than 80% if we did not have the mining jobs there.

travel unemployment is already at 50%. they are very concerned about what's going on as it related to coal development. it's a significant part of the funding for the tribe and the well being and future hope for the tribe. they need basic says to foreign markets. they need rail and infrastructure. as the gate way specific terminal is going through these permits permits, there's tribes on the west coast engaged in this process. i want to make sure they're having their voice heard in this process. the question is would you agree it's important that we get all the tribes views on this issue of approval of the gateway

pacific terminal? >> senator, i'm not familiar with the pacific terminal but i'm committed to helps the tribes on anything we do that impacts them. >> i hope you'll take a look at all the treaty rights not only the west coast but[3] the treaty rights of impacted tribes. by the way, next time you come out to montana we may want to take you out to the eastern side of the state as well. we love the flat head. it will be good to see the challenges out in eastern montana related the economic despair in many ways in these small communities. we are working on the all the above energy strategy as part of

our national security and energy strategy and montana is one of these unique states that has the ability to play in the all the above of these. sometimes we hear message it's all the above except for coal and oil and sometimes natural gas. we're very concerned that the administration does not share the same all the above vision that we share back home. as we look at approval of drilling permits back home the blm approved just 26 drilling permits. in the state of montana last year approved 269. in order of magnitude more

permits approved on state and private land. i was encourage bid your comment that senator gardener was talking about. the fact a one size fits all policy is not going to be the best policy. in montana we have a lot of checkerboarding. we have federal sections in the middle of private land as well. i really hope you'll allow the states to really take the lead on that. not have a one size fits all coming down the federal government. my question is, does the department of interior have a plan to increase oil and gas development on federal lands? if so, is there a speck goalific goal? >> i'm going to respond on a couple of other things you mentioned as well. i've been the eastern montana, not just western montana.

they have some frustrations. the treaty rights i'm committed to that. we have continued to process apds. what would be helpful is the ability to match supply and demand. we have the resources so we cannot only write the permits but do the needed inspections. we were written up by the gao for not doing appropriate inspections on the 100,000 wells that the blm is responsible for overseeing. there's a request in the budget to be able to charge a modest fee to industry to cover that as they do already offshore.

i don't think we'd have significant objection. that's something i would ask of you because that will help us move the drilling permits through, move the inspections forward so that we can make sure there's a fair return for the tribes for the taxpayers and so on. we have some pilot offices that have been funded by congress. i think that we did get -- >> my old city. >> where the permits get down has to do with demand from the companies. we are committed to moving forward with due speed on that. they are reducing the amount of time for permitting. there's small amount of money in the budget to automate the process. right now it's all paper based which doesn't serve anyone's interest.

we do want to make sure there's a fair return for the taxpayer. we have been asked by the gao to look at this. we're looking at this as well. certainly all the above from my perspective and the budget reflects that, it means all the above. we're working on both. >> hydro is not renewable? >> it is renewable. >> by federal definition is it? >> yeah i think so. >> yes. we have testified it is renewable. >> it's a good thing. >> not by law it's not renewable. we scratch our heads out in montana. we look at this incredible renewable resource. >> you guys write the laws.

>> by law it's not. it's something we have to take a look at. >> thank you. >> i was shocked to learn when i came here that congress overrules the laws of nature and falling water is not a renewable resource. i don't know. we speak a different language in idaho. madame secretary thank you very much. you remember the first meeting we had you didn't know what -- you weren't familiar with the sage grous. now you're a lot more familiar than you want to be. you'll recall the criticism at that time and that was that we had two agencies under the department of interior. we were perplexed in idaho that you could have two federal agencies at odds with each other within the same department under the same head and we

weren't making progress, as you recall. your leadership has changed that dramatically. i'm happy with that. we're drifting again back in that direction. let me say thank you for coming to idaho last october. it's only appropriate that you visit us once in a while since is government owns two-thirds of the state. we do things differently. i want to commend your predecessor for inviteingeing states. collaboration is a wonderful thing. it works. it only works if people work at it. idaho accepted that invitation. the governor put together a

great group. who sat at table and worked on a plan. even though the wildlife service signed off the blm said not so fast. here we go again. on october 27th 2014, dan ash director of the united states department of interior fish and wildlife service wrote a letter to the blm. i don't understand why they communicate in such a formal fashion, seems like a phone call

would with good. we're ready to go in isd id. we've got a plan. we want to work with the federal government. i understand that the federal government and the state work in different paces. this letter raise a new issue for us. it says this memorandum and associated maps respond to a request from the bureau of land management to identify a subset of priorities habitat most vital within which we recommends strongest levels of protection. where did this come from? we've been at this for years and all of a sudden here we go. they now identify a focal area. we need to get this done. focal areas should have been identified years ago. they should have been incorporated in plan to move

forward. we want to move forward but this moves the goal post. we were down on the one yard line with the ball and first down and all of a sudden we look up and the goal post is way down the line. we got to stop this stuff. we need to move forward with a finalization for a plan and i know you and i have said the head of the blm have said oh yes, but then we're going to get sued. of course we're going to get sued. we want everybody on one side of the table who are pragmatic who have put together a plan that will do that on one side of the tanl table and nut cases on the other side who just want to fight. get our plan finalized to move

forward with actual work on the ground. i apologize for the passion for this. i'm telling you we're incredibly frustrated when the goal posts keep moving on us. we need to get this done and we need to move forward. my time is up. i'd like to get a brief response to you about what your plans are to try to help us move forward. i understand states are all in the different position. this addresses all states. i wish they invited the idaho people there to get their hands in on this. >> that was october. now we're in february. i will say that incredible cooperation is going on between the various agencies.

you've got distinct acts under which you operate. the fish and wildlife service about long term protection. bureau of land management. we've moved a long way since the letter you referenced. the blm has finalized its plans. they have been working closely with state and fish and wildlife service. those plans are being finalized right now. i think there were 98 of them. lots and lots of environmental impact statements and work that's been done. the secretarial orlandoyial order which your governor was nice about saying words about a key element. i have encouraged edd people to stay at the table and not engage in

letter writing. we're on the cusp of something that's pretty incredible here because this colation as come together and the states have come together. we're very close to the goal line and the goal line is not moving. the goal line is scientific information agreed upon between the states and fish and wildlife service. we are going to soon have to turn it over to the fish and wildlife service to make their determination. it's been a rocky road to get there. i appreciate your passion. i know it's not been an easy journey. >> first of all, i appreciate your leadership on this. i really appreciate the fact that you understand you have two agencies that we really need to bring together. the message you gave me i will take back home to the states.

they don't understand it yet. hopefully we'll get to progress where they will understand it. thank you very much. thank you. >> let's go to senator white. >> thank you. secretary joel thank you for being with us. there's plenty to say that is supportive of your agenda. there's so much support for the land and water conservation fund making it permanent fully funded. your leadership has been especially helpful. i want to talk about a couple of

issues that are especially important to oregon right now because i think it would be helpful for the public to get a sense of your leadership and what's ahead. we have a bipartisan bill that was written in this room. it was written in 2000. it is particularly important that we get mandatory funding for pilt back. as you know at the end of the year there was this one year arrangement and a lot of rural counties have finding that as a result of the complications pilt formula they're getting less money.

>> that is correct. >> second area that's important to my constituents is the clamont. we were thrilled you came out for our lunch. we think not only will this will pepful to oregon but we think this is a model for people coming together to deal with tough water issues in the days ahead. can you all commit that this will continue to be an administration priority. recent developments with respect, a forest in if basin. we'll have figure out how to ensure fair treatment. the tribes have really stepped up on this issue. can we continue on your support and continued interest in this? >> you can. i want to compliment you and members of the oregon delegation as well as unprecedented cooperation between the tribes and the ranchers and interest that had been on different sides

of the table coming together. it would be real shame if this does not get approved through congress and done. >> it's my highest priority for that rural area. they have been so hard hit and have the farmers come together and the ranchers and fishing families and environmental alal folks, i think it can help and be a national model. i appreciate your leadership. >> mike was very instrumental and will stay very much at the table. >> mike made many treks. we thank you for it. >> you got an inferno on your

hands and government brothers toorrows to put fire out. we're not giving adequate prevention fund. it's part of it. tell us how you feel the increased budge et cetera certainty provided by this restructuring would help you. it shows how valuable it is because it means you'll have fewer disasters. how would this increase budge et cetera be a value? >> thank you for your leadership. the bill you put out there have been enormously helpful

we're supportive of those efforts. we have about $200 million of the 13.2 billion dollar amount that's part of the wildfire funding cap. by not doing that as has been the case for a number of years we spent more and more on suppression and hazardous fuel removal.

we see this all over the place and in the says of being able to proactively reduce the risk of range land fire is critical to habitat protection. there's no question we would put the money to good use which would reduce our cost. >> can i get one last question very quickly? on the question of coal, coal royalties. i've been concerned for some time that taxpayers aren't getting their fair share of royalties. when i was chair of this committee, we co-authors a letter to you all. i'm enkurjcouraged by the rule that you have put out to stop companies to use sub sidsidiaries to stop the payments. i think it would be helpful to review a recent report on this.

if you can put that in the record, i'll just wrap up with that request. if we can have further conversation. >> i'd be delighted. >> thank you. i want to talk about the program payment in lieu of taxes. on the department of interior website there's an explanation that the p.i.l.t. program helps offset losses in property taxes. you would identify this not as a hand out and not special interest or something like that. this is payment we make to local governments in order to help

make them whole or offset the burden of having nontaxable federal land within their jurisdiction, is that right? >> that's correct. i agree with that. the 2016 budget proposes a yearlong extension of the p.i.l.t. program. then there's a statement to the effect that while we're doing this we need to look at a sustainable long term funding solution and a sustainable long term funding solution needs to be developed. can you talk to us about your policy priorities and how you frame this to make businesses sustainable program for the long haul and tell me whether you would consider tieing some federal resource to this whether it's perhaps revenue from timber harvest on federal lands or selling excess federal land to make it sustainable or something like that. how do you do that?

>> well, we -- thank you for the question and for highlighting the importance of p.i.l.t. we know this is really important. we know many of these communities rely on this money for the public services they provide to the rural residents and the visitors. this budget as we said in the front end, is a forward working budget. it assumes that we move beyond sequestration. it assumes we make investments in the future of this country. when we invest we see a brighter future. we have lots of re knewvenues that

are collected on federal water. it's intended to come from offshore oil and gas revenues. collect something like $14.7 billion. it's possible that that funding source could be dedicating to p.i.l.t. and secure rule schools as well as the conservation fund. we believe it should be mandatory. we'd like to work with you on solutions to make p.i.l.t. mandatory. it's not a worry every single year. we're not subject to sequestration as we felt in 2013. >> that's great. thank you. i appreciate that. my personal view is it's got to be a high pryioritypriority. i do think that p.i.l.t. funding and making sure it's adequately funded ought to be a greater

priority than acquiring more federal land. when the government owns nearly one-third of the land mass, more than two-thirds of the land in my state and we're disproportionately the land owned by the federal government. it makes it a high priority. on february 10th of this year you talked about herbert issued an executive order to further facility the protection of the greater stage grouse. the state of utah has developed conservation plan. one that, i think, addresses ae inging interests and the threat to this bird. can you tell me whether fish and

wildlife has endorsed this man and what the department is doing to coordinate. give me your commitment that you'll work with the governor in giving this chance to succeed. >> i've been working with the governor and i will continue to work with him. i saw him a couple of days ago at the national governor's association and asked if he could remove the 2017 expiration date. the fish and wildlife service needs to look over the listeningong term to make sure they can ÷s!fd'l ck&ñ order to make£v@ñ their determination. that's the kind of cooperation i have not just with the governor but with all the western téypgovernors and the states as we have been very much on the table multiple time a year to address what's unique to utah, wyoming, utah, colorado and nevada and the other states. you certainly have my word. i'll stay at the table.

keeping my teams at the table. the plans are being finalized now. i think it will be in the spring that the final decisions come out and the fish and wildlife service will have all of that. the state's plans, the blm plans take into account as they make their final determination. they have been at the table all along. we're finally getting information shared with us from the state which is very useful including utah. they'll need all hands on deck to make the right decision. we're very hopeful that the kinds of efforts made by utah and other states give them the confidence they need to not feel it's warranted. >> thank you. appreciate that. i appreciate your willingness to work with him. >> thank you. we'll do a quick second round. i appreciate the time that you've given us this morning.

this is an issue that we're not dealing with up north and we want to keep it that way. you had said you were bound to render a determination even though congress had banned the issuance of the rule. isn't it true that the settlement provides that such determinations are subject to appropriations. that was the language that we had included in the appropriations last year as part of a writer. it's still subject to appropriations. >> we'll look into the specific language. my understanding is that fish and wildlife service can say we

believe a listing is warntsranted or not warranted. >> it's subject to the appropriations. i wanted to just make sure that we had cleared that up. i thought as long as it is subject to appropriations and those have not been made you are not able to move forward with this. we will look at that. i wanted to ask you about the clean up of environmental contamination on lands that have been transferred to alaska native cooperations under the native land claim settlement act. back in 2013 i asked the department what they were doing to speed up the clean up. this had been in response to a study that had been done way back in 1998. it supposed a six-point effort to clean up the speed up of the

contamination. then in january of last year you sent me a letter that proposed the department was going to update its contaminated land survey and address the other recommendations coming out of that 1998 letter. i'm trying to understand where we are in this time line. i'd been led to believe that the updated list would be finalized by this fall. there were more than 650 site onss on the list. we haven't received that yet. the question is when might we expect an updated comprehensive list in the contaminated sites and further to that point what is the proposal or what is the plan within d.o.i. to really facilitate and move forward with speeding up and funding the contamination for the clean up

on these native lands? >> i'll have to get back to you on the timing. i'm not exactly sure. i had a broad update on the blm that they are assessing the sites. they have been prioritizing those. some are native advances and some are not. we're sorting that out first. they're also in the process of identifying potentially responsible parties that could be responsible for the clean up. if there is a responsible party that's where we go first as opposed to the federal treasury. i'll need to get back on when the list will be updated and we'll get to you with specifics on their plans if that's okay. >> that would be appreciated. we did have language within the current spending authorization that requires the department to report by june of this year about the comeprehensive inventory and what the plan is. i think you sense the priority

when you were up in alaska in addition to the legacy wells which we had plenty of opportunity to discuss what that plan is how we're going to be able to clean up that mess caused by the federal government. we have these native lands that have been conveyed pursuant and just frustration with a decade's long delay in addressing this. please know that this is a priority for me. it's a priority for, i believe, the entire delegation. it's clearly a priority for our native people. one final question for you. this is a question that i am posing at every budget hearing this year. that relates to the administration's proposal for an arctic strategy. the implementation plan for the

administration under the national strategy for the region, has the department of in interior designated as the lead agency in five different project area. you were also designated as a supporting agency for numerous other projects. the question is what funding is included in the budget for the five projects that d.o.i. is the lead agency as well as for any other projects that the department may be involved with with the arctic region? >> mike and i are scrambling for our notes on this. as we take over chairmanship of the council, we intend to be at the table on that. let me see if i've got the

numbers here. rather than trying to run through this because this is very broad, let me get back do you specifically on the arctic council work. here we go. i don't know if it addresses your question. arctic funding only pretty large numbers. $145 million in total. that's about a $3 million increase. that includes everything that we're doing up there the offshore oil and gas activity, research activity, the usga and park service. i don't think that's specific dwrour questionto your question. let me get back further to you. >> i would appreciate a further break down. i had my folks scrub it carefully. to be honest with you, we

weren't able to find much that acknowledges that we do have this stepped up rural and it's not just as we assume the chair of the council. it's leading in the arctic and recognizing that d.o.i. is the lead agency in several of these areas. we're trying to figure out are we doing anything or is it just window dressing. if you can help me identify that that would be greatly appreciated. >> we're happy to do that. i will say it's very much on our radar, the usgs's radar. some of what we may be doing is steering existing resources to focus on the arctic so that we can be prepared when the arctic council happens. we'll get back with you with more specific pss council happens. we'll get back with you with more specific psspecifics. >> i appreciate that. >> i will say i'm very impressed by the level of specificity

because we're covering a broad range of subjects. i'm going to throw three others at you. the columbia river treaty is important to the pacific northwest northwest. what can we get from the department of interior about clarifying these interests so that we can move forward on a proposal through the administration. obviously, interior has the weigh in with the white house and the state department. we want to make sure that's happening so we can elevate the discussions with canada. want to get your thoughts worngon working with the department of energy on the implementation. you mentioned other park projects there. we want to ensure the parks service works closely with the community in planning that park. we want to see if you can commit

to finalizing that by the end of the year. then lastly my colleague brought up this process of blm coal valuation and wanted to get a sense if you can commit to your process by the end of the year on that royalty issue. >> let me turn to mike on the columbia river treaty. >> we move forward to modernizing the treaty. when that process i'm not sure. we have a frame work for modernizing the treaty that we like to proceed with dealing with services they provide.

>> you've sent that to state? >> we have. >> quickly on the manhattan project, it wasn't money in the current budget. we are pushing d inging d.o.e. for support on this. i know the national park service would be very, very interested the gauging local communities. that will be part of the effort. i can't answer whether we'll have it finalized by the tend of the year. it's not currently in the budget request because the budget was done before it came occupy. we are working d.o.e. we'll need their financial support to do this. >> i talked to him at last week's hearing about this. >> did he commit? >> yes he did. >> i'll make sure this is on their radar. we'll do our best to get it done by tend of year.

on coal valuation we just extended the draft. it's complicated. we're going to have a lot of comments. whether we can get it across the finish line is questionable. it depends on how many comments we get because we have to respond to all of those. we are focused on getting it done while i'm in this chair and while the president's in his chair. it's been very important and we've heard about it from the gao. we want to make sure the american taxpayer is getting fair return. we've had extensive consultations with industry and the proposal streamlines to make process more efficient and provides more certainty on that end. it will also provide more certainty that we'll get the return we should be getting as american people. it's going to depend on the comments. we're focused on getting this

done. i think conversing with my colleague, end of the year may be tight given time frame on the comment period. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you madame chairman. i appreciate you and the ranking member holding this hearing today. first, i want to thank secretary connor for the work you're doing the try to help facility with the dakota access pipeline. that's the thank you i want to acknowledge right up front. very important. we appreciate it. i'd like to ask secretary jewell about blm in regard to coal leasing. i was just out in the goal fields and they are moving one of these big drag lines. it's a 10 million pound drag

line. they're going to put it on carts and move it, if you can imagine that. they are in the process of leasing and it includes 350 mineral acres owned by blm. blm does not own the surface acres and it's only 350 mineral acres. blm indicated to the mining company there that it's going to take seven to ten years to get an approval. that's totally unrealistic. blm doesn't own the acres. they will just mine right around it. the private leaseholders will have that squared away probably in a year or less. that's typically what blm has done too. i'm flaggerbbergasted to what could

be going on. do you have any idea? >> i have no idea. >> there's mine land all around there and reclaimed land all around there. the reason it's coming into place is they are moving this huge drag line and they reclaimed the land all around it. you've been in north carolina. thank you so much. the reclaimed land is beautiful. it's being hayed and graze and there's geese all over. the private owners want it mined. that's never going to happen. all they will do is mine around you. then the federal government is out the revenue. doesn't make any sense at all. >> it's not necessarily easy to do business on federal public land because of the requirements

we have as a federal land management agency. i will talk to the blm about this specific project and talk about the time frame they're talking about. the seven to ten years that you referenced and see if there is anything they can do to speed that up. the rules are different. >> we know neil cornsey. we have a good relationship with him. you've been doing it in a year and now seven to ten years. >> on coal? >> yes. i think they just did a tract. it was over 1,000 acres and it took less than nine months to a year. >> we'll take a look at it. >> something's going on. >> something needs to be checked on here. oil lease we're still working to expedite that process. you're still running 180 to 270 days for approval on blm land versus a few weeks on private.

>> there is money in this '16 budget to automatic permits. it's paper based and more custom than we would like it to be. we have a pilot going in karl carlsbad new mexico. we'd like to take learnings from that and apply it. it's time that the permits back with company providing information we need. if there's a way to work on getting that dealt with up front, that will help. there is money in the budget to help do that along with money that we're able to charge fees to industry. we can't get out and request the

wells that we have. >> those are the kinds of things that jamie has been working with us on and our industry. she's got a good relationship out there with industry. she is creative and does try to do things. i hope some of these dollars the or programs could be moved her way to try to help us improve the process. >> this budget lets us roll it out everywhere. >> good. i think she would be a great one to help you do it. >> she would. >> we would like to work with you on that. >> the last thing hydraulic. when are you coming out with your hydraulic fracturing rules? >> soon. specific date i can't give krouyou. we have revised the rules and waiting for final clearance. it will be soon. >> where you can work with the states the i strongly encourage

you. we have done that with the tribes and it's working well. i just would ask for you willingness to work with the states. >> we will do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. madame secretary i want to associate my comments with that of the senator portman. i think this is a real opportunity for the service to really link closely the remedy with the science. the results of an overly broad structure of regulation as a result of any kind of listing would be just i believe, catastrophic across the country because the habitat is so broad. i believe in the endangered species act but we have to be careful that we don't undermine public support for it. i think this is a good test case. i urge you. . secondly, you may have noticed out of corner of your eye i was playing with this. i wasn't texting or tweeting.

i was sadly trying to find an app to buy a park pass. when you put in national park pass, to my dismay get australia national park pass. you don't get usa park pass. so then i went to the web site and found that i can buy a park pass, but just -- i didn't go all the way through it but just below are the most dreaded words on any web site. "if you need your pass within 10 days or less it is recommended that you either purchase your pass at the first site you visit or request expedited shipping service for your order." come on. you have to mail the pass out in 2014? i hope i'm wrong about that. and if i am i'm delighted to be corrected. but if you have to guy online, buy the park pass and somebody mails it to you and not print it, make it printable again i hope i'm wrong.

the point is, let's say until -- june 1 let's have a national park app like starbucks has an app, everybody has an app. and you waive your phone at the kiosk on the way into the national park and you get the fees and everybody's happy and it's a good customer experience. how about give meging me a commitment you'll get us a national park app remembering that eisenhower retook europe in 11 months. [ laughter ] >> point well taken, senator king. as a person that did a lot of business in electronic commerce, i can tell you that it actually requires investments to be able to do what you're suggesting. the park service budget for this year requests significant amount of money overall to improve our technological support. we are in the process as the president announced a few days

ago, of something called "every kid in a park." and that's automating a pass for fourth graders and their families to use parks for free. we are working with some wizards in the white house that have come from private industry google specifically to help us fall together. if there is an opportunity to automate what you're talking about for others we'll look at it. but i will also tell you it's very expensive to actually do automated and cross checks and tying into credit cards and all of those things and i think the -- perhaps an appropriate way forward is to work with private industry to facilitate the sale of those park passes so we can lean into the technology that's there. we're behind in every department in the use of technology from automating our oil and gas permits to facilitating visits to the national parks i do have

national park apps by my phone. >> individual parks. >> no, actually, npca has an app that i use that has lots of zblfgs that's the one i just downloaded. that's for the parks but it's private -- >> that's right, it a nonprofit operation. >> you get the point. >> i do. >> if you need more money to do it, tell us. this is basic customer service. because i just think this is -- z as i said before this would pay for itself probably in a year. in terms of increased revenues to the department based upon ease year access to park passes. >> certainly something we'll look into and i appreciate your point. we are not nearly as automated as we would aspire to be.

good. >> thank you. good hearing lots of questions. i appreciate what you said, senator king about make it easier to access the parks. and given that we've got this centennial coming next year, i've had long conversations already with john jarvis about the goal of getting more people in the parks. we've got to figure out how we're going to be dealing with the maintenance issues i don't want people coming to the national parks for the first time and seeing that it looks shoddy. so we have to deal with this $13 billion backlog that is out there. i happen to think that we might be able to get a little bit more creative with our lwcf fund with purchasing federal land. i think we might want to look for that as a funding

opportunity. i will be submitting a host of other questions but i want to put you on alert. i have been to a couple different events in the past several weeks where large gatherings of hunters come together and the most talked-about issue was the filming on public lands. whether it's our park service lands, our forest service lands and being able to film. and it is -- it's clear to me that there is an inconsistency that doesn't help and a real frustration with those who want to be able to show our amazing public lands through capturing videos and photographs and filming and the requirements that are being placed on them. i will conclude my marks here

today with a statement that you just used in response to comment from senator hoeven. and you stated that it's not easy to do development on federal lands and i think this is where you hear the greatest frustration from those of us who have such great percentages of our states that are federally held. and i appreciate that there are differences. but it ought not be next to impossible. in many instances that's seemingly what our issue is. so how we make it easier and better and more fair to do development on federal land is what i think we need to get to. because as senator hoeven says,

you're just going to go around your federal lands and then we get no revenue to the treasury it just doesn't make sense. so we need to work in that regard. with that, i appreciate you have given the committee a lot of time and senator cant well if you want to have the final word -- >> i would just say thank you madam chair for this hearing and i think a lot of members showed up and a lot of questions across the board and i get your point about federal lands and, yes, i'm sure that there's a higher percentage in alaska than in washington state. in washington state we get revenue from those public lands and so that's been a big benefit to us. i want to work with you as we move forward on trying to think about an energy package and what we can do together to bolster our economies and to work together on policies that can move us forward. but i feel like we had a broad range of things brought forward here today and certainly appreciate the witnesses in this

particular budget proposal. >> thank you. unless a funding deal is reached, the department of homeland security will partially shut down by the end of the week. we'll get an update on our next "washington journal" with congressman henry cuellar. we'll also talk to house foreign affairs committee member mark meadows of north carolina about homeland security funding and immigration. later, a conversation about the recent evacuation of the u.s. embassy in yemen. john hudson of "foreign policy" magazine will join us that's

part of our spotlight on magazine series. you can also join the conversation by phone, facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. secretary of state john kerry testifies before the house foreign affairs committee in a hearing expected to cover the ukraine/russia conflict, ongoing talks with iran and the use of military force against isis. we'll join the hearing live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow new members through the first session. new congress best access on c-span c-span 2, c-span radio and cspan.org. tony abbot announced new security reforms in the wake of the security hostage situation.

it left two hostages dead. his speech to the nation came one day after he released a joint report on the investigation into the event. from the australian federal police headquarters in canberra, this is 25 minutes. >> i welcome you here to headquarters of the australian federal police from the important national security statement from our prime minister. and i welcome the prime minister and ministers, particularly those sitting on the national security cabinet thank you for being here. we find ourselves in australia in a radically different security environment than when we came to office inwxfy 2013. international events, particularly those in the middle east, have unleashed threats that have resulted in the terror alert in australia being assessed as being high for the first time. we can not allow a situation where our