express my frustration and try, try to achieve some positive results for the people of alaska and really for the good of the country because as an energy producing state, this is what we do. we share these resources with the rest of the country. i want to be very clear today that it's not just me that is banging the table. i don't think that i am overreacting. i think i am speaking clearly and articulating the concerns of most alaskans. we had an opportunity last week to be in a northwestern community and the second joined us. the entire alaska delegation, all three of us, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the leadership of the house and of the senate numerous native

leaders and it was very clear that there is no daylight amongst the elected leaders in terms of how they are viewing these decisions coming out of the administration. so i just want to make again very clearly enunciate very clearly that i oppose this administration's decision on anwr i oppose its decision offshore, i oppose its costly restricts and endless decisions within the mpra and oppose what it's doing to our plasser miners and timber industry and many other resource producers ready to provide good jobs to hard-working alaskans. the state of alaska was actively ignored. the north slope bureau, alaska native corporations and many alaskans all of whom asked for an oil and gas alternative in

interior's anwr plan by claiming that it requires an act of congress even though an act of wilderness requires the very same. the actions from this administration seem destined to shut down our trans-alaska pipeline weakening our economy, forcing our state to make steep budget cuts and really violating the promises that were made to us at statehood and then since then. now, madam secretary i hoped interior's budget would not make this situation worse but it fails to clear even that low bar and violates the budget control act, ignoring the statutory caps and proposing new spending as if we'd already lifted sequestration. but i think that amounts to wishful thinking and not responsible governance.

it would impose billions of dollars worth of new fees and higher taxes on oil, gas, coal and mineral production and eliminate offshore revenue sharing which many of us believe should be expanded. the department did not identify realistic offsets for its spending requests and proposed no serious reforms. i personally was stunned to see interior's request increase by almost $1 billion on a net basis with no funding dedicated to cleaning up abandoned legacy wells which were drilled by the federal government. they walked away from it, and they walked away from the mess and the responsibility and we have been trying now for decades to get that cleaned up. beyond energy, there's king cove, still totally unresolved. yesterday marked 14 -- 14 months since this road was rejected and yet again we see nothing in this request to help those whose lives are in danger.

i see a request for about $40 million for adaptation projects for tribal communities, but my calculation, that's about 12 times less funding than was requested for international adaptation projects just this year alone. so what i can't 4 figure out why the needs of americans are coming second. interior interior's decisions are hurting alaskans. you're depriving us of jobs, security, revenue and prosperity but alaskans aren't alone in this and i want my colleagues to understand that i think what we're seeing in alaska is a warning for those in the west and the fact is almost every other western state already has multiple legitimate complaints against the interior. in wyoming it's the sage groce. in utah and colorado, it's interior's refusal to facilitate oil shale development. in arizona, it's the permitting

of new copper mines. across our states, except for alaska, where there is no production on federal lands it is the significant decline in apds and oil wells that are drilled on our federal lands. this administration is actively impeding many of the best economic opportunities in the west. it's depriving thousands who live in our states the ability to find a good job, earn a good wage and live a good life. as chairman of the committee and the appropriations subcommittee with control over the interior budget i do want to work with you, secretary jewell. i do. i want to work with others in the administration. my complaint, you hear from us but you don't actually hear us. and in looking at the request, i don't see a substantive effort to work with congress. instead what i'm seeing is a

disregard for enacted law and i think that has to change and the challenge really is to find common ground working together. but what we have seen is very, very discouraging. with that, i will turn to the ranking member. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you for holding this hearing. i'm pleased to see secretary jewell here and to be able to have a conversation with mr. connor, as well, on the president's proposed budget for the department of interior. in my view this represents a balanced and forward leaning proposal. it creates jobs and long-term economic opportunity, it bills strong partnerships when it comes to managing our infrastructure and ecosystem and resources. it invests in public lands for the next generation of americans to enjoy. it probably no surprise that the chairwoman and i do have different views on a variety of issues being discussed here this morning. and many of those do relate to the administration's energy and

conservation proposals and the arctic and secretary jewell, i know you have a very tough job. one of the reasons i think the president appointed you is because you did have a background as an executive in the oil industry as an engineer. so it does involve striking an appropriate balance between increasing in energy's production both onshore and offshore in the united states as well as being sensitive to environmental areas. so i have long supported the arctic national wildlife refuge and especially in the coastal plain. and so the fish and wildlife service recently released a comprehensive conservation plan that takes an important step of recommending the significant portion of the refuge to be designated as wilderness. so this plan required by law and had not been updated for a quarter century, the new plan is more an accurate reflection of the values of which the wildlife refuge was designated.

there's been criticism in the new five-year leasing plan for the caughter continental shelf for excluding too many areas from potential development and others have opposed the secretary's decision to open up areas that have been up until now off limits from oil and gas development, where the environmental damage would be extreme. so the secretary has done her best to balance these competing interests. likewise, the department's recent decision to approve oil and gas development in the national petroleum reserve was criticized on the one hand for approving development near an area that they proposed for protection and criticized on the other hand for requiring conoco phillips to require measurements because of those sensitive areas. yes, you have a tough day job. protection of these ecological treasures such as the anwr is of national importance. i thank you and the administration for making these decisions. as a whole the president's

number represents a 6% increase and proposes significant funding increases for many of the important concentration programs including the land and water conservation fund and national parks centennial initiative, both very important. i know there's many people on this committee that believe that protecting these public lands and increasing recreational opportunities are greatly important. america's public lands generate over $40 billion of recreation and use every year so whether you're visiting a national park or hunting or fishing the opportunity on these lands are important and can enjoy the protection of the national special places while still maintaining a high level of energy production on federal lands. the president's plan, i'm pleased to see the department is increasing production of renewable energy resources on public lands. i want to bring up something that is missing. secretary jewell is taking an important step in proposing

reforms on how coal royalties are collected on federal resources. but i am concerned the discussion end there. you can typically lease a lot of coal off federal land for $1 or less. the taxpayers get $1. then years later we have to deal with almost two tons of carbon dioxide from that one ton of coal and the government's current best guess is that two tons of carbon pollution will cost the american public over $70 in damages. so our fossil fuel leasing laws are passed long ago before we knew how bad the impacts were so i tend to follow up on this issue. i know my colleagues, senator wyden and murkowski, the gao, the interior specter, i'm sorry, interior -- interior inspector general and i'm concerned we consider the real impacts of climate change on our public lands. this isn't an issue that is

important to places like washington and alaska, to many places in our country than tacoma news tribune recently pointed out many of the related climate impacts at mt. rainier national park. and in the past decades about glaciers melting and snowpack decreased as much as 18% between 2003 and 2009 so these are real issues everything from mud slurries to floods to repairing park infrastructure and we all know that historic drought conditions in california and the west have demonstrated climate-related change are present challenges to businesses, to the government, to families and because of this, i'm pleased that the budget includes a 15% increase for climate-related research. so i hope that this will help us bring bitter understandings about how to prepare for these issues, similar wildfire impacts throughout the community, our state experienced one of our worst wildfire, carlton complex which the destruction represents

i think 7% of all wildfire destruction last year. in just this one fire. 156,000 acres burned in 24 hours. so that's like five acres a second. again, the micro climates and changes are things that we're really starting to understand the grave impacts of all of these things. so my western colleagues have had in recent hearings brought up various stories so i hope we can get though those but i strongly support the president's plan to get a mandatory funding stream beginning next year. this is something, as i said, many of our colleagues here on the committee agree with but every year congress appropriates only a fraction of the authorized funding. and right now the inappropriate balance is almost $20 billion so i hope that since this fund expires in september that we will -- we had a pretty good vote on the senate floor about this, that we'll work

together in a bipartisan fashion to address these issues. when i get a chance to the "q" and "a" i'll ask you about the yakima river basin watershed and the area to protect it. after years of negotiation, users of irrigated water such as farmers and ranchers along with tribes and conservation groups plan to develop and utilize better -- in a better fashion the resources of the yakima river watershed in a time of increased demand and growing scarcity. i believe this effort will be successful and i also believe that as a model for how other watersheds in the west are experiencing these challenges and how if they work together and we work with them, that we can have better resolution of these issues so i look forward to discussing these and many other issues when we get to the questions but, again, i appreciate your commitment and the president's to creating jobs and building partnerships and investing in our public lands

for future generations, thank you. >> thank you, senator cantwell. thank you and good morning. >> good morning. chairman murkowski, representative cantwell, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the budget request. joining me mike connor who certainly is no stranger to this chamber or the senate. i've submitted a detailed statement for the record that discusses a number of investments we're proposing so i'll be relatively brief in these opening remarks. this is a forward-looking budget that provides targeted investments to grow our domestic energy portfolio, creating jobs at home, to build climate resilience and revitalize our national parks as an approach to their 100th anniversary and investing in science to help us understand natural resources on landscape level and to apply that understanding to better manage america's assets for the long-term. importantly the budget also helps fulfill our nation's commitments including a much-needed and historic to improve education for indian

children. i want to talk about our investments in the lands and historic places that make our nation proud and serve as economic engines. on the 50th anniversary of the land and water conservation fund act, the budget proposes full funding of $900 million annually for lwcf programs. this is dollar for dollar one of the most effective government programs that we have. next year we mark another important milestone in our nation's history, the national park service will celebrate its 100th anniversary and this budget makes investments to launch a historic effort to celebrate and revitalize national parks and public lands. the discretionary and mandatory portions include $100 million matching fund to leverage private donation parks and $859 million to provide critical maintenance in high priority assets. additional funding of $43 million will provide staff to improve the visitor experience, and support the expected influx

of visitors during and after the centennial. third milestone we commemorate this year is the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act. the budget proposes $50 million to highlight key sites that tell the story such as selma to montgomery. one of my top priorities is connecting young people to the great outdoors and our history and culture and engage the next generation to be scientists, henge near engineers and stewards as 40% of the workforce is soon to be eligible to retire. it provides opportunities for our nation's youth to play, to learn, to serve and to work on public lands. we will accomplish this through cooperative work with youth conservation and schools and organizations like the ymca and national league of cities, and

enlightened private businesses that are supporting our efforts. next i want to talk point administration's continued commitment to tribal self-determination and strengthening tribal communities. i recently visited arizona to launch the native american youth listening tour to give young people in indian country the opportunity to engage with cabinet members directly about the challenges they face. they're helping their classmates cope with personal challenges. across the federal family agencies are committed to working together, to better coordinate our services to more effectively serve american indians and alaska natives. this budget holds the promise for a brighter future for indian youth through education. for nature ev american communities through economic growth and social services and improving the stewardship of trust resources. we're requesting $2.6 billion for indian affairs and increase of 12%, which includes full funding of contract support costs, the tribes incur as they deliver direct services to

tribal members. when it comes to powering our nation, the budget continues to invest in both renewable and conventional energy, so we can diversify our domestic energy portfolio portfolio, cut carbon pollution and decrease our dependence on foreign oil. this budget also invests in science and technology initiatives that will support energy development, create economic opportunities, and help communities build resilience. the budget includes $1.1 billion for research and development activities that range from scientific observations of the earth to applied research to better understand problems like invasive species and coastal erosion. the budget also includes a total of $147 million to help to fund programs that help coastal communities, such as alaska where i visited recently and heard directly from residents about how their concern for their personal safety as encroaching storms threaten to

wash away theirvilleage. finally, i want to touch on two other specific areas that are impacted by a changing climate. water, and fire. first as part of the bureau of recly ly reclamation, the water smart grant program would receive $58.1 million to address drought and another water supply issue across the west. and new funding framework, similar to how the cost for other natural disasters are met. this is a common sense proposal that would help ensure that usda and interior don't have to rob our budgets for fire prevention to fight the nation's most catastrophic fires. this is a smart and balanced budget that enables the

department to carry out important missions. i look forward to discussing the issues and many other proposals dure your during your questions. thank you. >> thank you, secretary. we will now go to a round of questions here and i'll direct my first question relating to production on alaska lands. as i mentioned in my opening statements, i'm frustrated. i'm very frustrated with the delays, the denials, the restrictions that we continue to see from the department of interior. when you came before us as a nominee back in march, of 2013, you made a specific commitment to me. you said, and i'm going to quote you here, that we are supporting the desire that we discussed to continue to keep the alaska pipeline full. do you know where we are in

terms of the maximum capacity of the trans alaska pipeline versus what we're seeing go through the line on a daily basis? are you aware of that? >> yes senator, i am. >> you're aware that we're less than half full? >> i am aware of that. >> and i guess the question is pretty direct. do you believe that the actions that we've seen out of the department of interior, of late, are helping to keep the alaska pipeline full? when npra withdrawals have moved forward? when the direction in the end of january to put anwr in the 1002 area and 98% of anwr into wilderness area with indefinite

withdrawals in the ocs? do you think that that's consistent with trying the keep trans alaska oil pipeline full? >> senator, i am fully committed to supporting the efforts in alaska to keep the transalaska pipeline full. as you know, i worked on that pipeline. as a college student. as a petroleum engineer i understand how fields peak and prudo bay have been past their peak production for some time. i'm aware of that. we have, as you know, the support of development of the natural petroleum reserve. 72% of what is estimated to be the recoverable oil is in areas that are open for leasing. we have doubled the frequency of leasing in the npra lands under this administration. and we have recently approved conocophillips preferred proposal for drilling in the national petroleum reserve. offshore, 90% of the estimated recoverable oil and gas will be available for leasing.

we took 25 miles off the table because of oil migration based on a request from native communities. the hanna-schulla area, which has a handful of existing leases which will remain. the balance of it we took off the table because it is very, very sensitive, ecologically. and we took other areas in the barros canyon and off kaktobik because of village concerns about subsistence, largely whaling. >> but you would recognize, secretary, that particularly as it related to the hanna-shull, in terms of consultation, most specifically, with the whalers who use that area, that they saw no consultation there? that that is part of the frustration. that areas are then put into indefinite withdrawal are done so without consultation. that it's more than just making leases available, that if access

is denied to those leases it doesn't make any difference whether or not you have sold those leases. it's all about being able to access them. let me move to a second question here. and this relates to my on going frustration on behalf of king cove. you made that decision to abandon the opportunity for a roughly 300 to 1 exchange to facilitate a 10-mile, one-lane gravel noncommercial use road so that isolated community could gain access to an all weather airport. you made that decision december 23rd of 2013. do you know when king cove saw its most recent medevac? >> i'm not aware of their most recent -- >> it was sunday. sunday night. do you know how many medevacs have been carried out so far in 2015?

>> i do not. >> there's been five. 23rd of february now, there's been five. do you know how many were carried out last year? >> no. >> there were 16. six were coast guard, ten were noncoast guard. do you know how many have been carry out since you rejected the road? >> no. >> 21 medevacs. seven coast guard, 14 non-coast guard. now, as you and i know, it's not the coast guard's mission to provide medevac services. but they do it because they are the only ones that are available to get in. and the easiest and most direct way to help save these lives would be this one-lane, gravel, non-commercial use, 10 mile road. that you continue to just ignore. the question to you is, what

have you included within this budget to help the people of king cove? what have you actually done over these past 14 months to fulfill the promise that you made because you said that you have concluded that other methods of transport remain that could be improved to meet community needs. what has been done to help the people? >> may i have a few minutes to answer? >> please. >> as we talked, senator, we have engaged conversations with core of engineers about alternatives. negotiating an mou with them. it is i think approximately 40 miles between king cove and cold bay, if you drive there, ten miles through the refuge. the balance -- >> already have most of that road built. >> and as i have spoken with people in the community when you and i were both there it is very difficult in harsh weather conditions to move around that territory, period.

so i have worked with the core of engineers, we're looking at alternatives, such as helicopter services between cold bay and the end of the road that is built as you referenced because the topography is quite different from the king cove airport. we are willing to work with the community on other water base 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 as other lands acre for acre 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, to provide for medevac service, is not realistic. it is not rational. the coast guard knows that and

you know that. and to suggest that 14 months now have gone by we don't have anything in the budget to address it as you have promised that you would do and in the meantime, 21 medevacs, 21 medevacs 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 1998, we appropriated $187 million to provide a hovercraft. 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 western states this issue of -- and i don't know, maybe mr. undersecretary conners wants to address this issue. because i know that i'm pretty sure you visited with congressman hastings and myself and then, interior secretary to this yakima basin project. but it does reflect so much of what we're asking people to do. integrated plan is part of an ongoing water enhancement program, through the bureau of

reclamation. 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, but 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 the san joaquin issue. so what do we need to do knowing that we are facing serious drought in these areas? >> thank you, senator cantwell. 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 reclamations 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 is a $3 billion to $5 billion over a 30-year period. but over that time frame, hopefully, and we know the state has stepped up to the plate very significantly in the yakima basin with over $100 million that it appropriated to the effort reclamation is increasingly incrementally investing more of its resources in addition to i think a couple of years ago long-standing yakima enhancement program now funding studies and activity related to a couple of the storage and fish patches projects. but the bottom line is it is hard to see where the whole sum

of the resources are going to come with respect to yakima or california or colorado river basin, rio grande all these areas that need large number of investments. it's going to be a combination of states increasing their support for water resources infrastructure. state of california has recently passed an $8 plus billion bond. reclamation 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 infrastructure investments that need to be occurring. but it's pretty daunting, overall. reclamation gets 1 to $1.1 billion a year. it's got a $6 billion backlog in its programs. whether it be river restoration

activities, new infrastructure, dam repair and rehabilitation that needs to be doing, as well as the conservation initiatives that are yielding and leveraging substantial amount of nonfederal dollars. we're making steady progress, 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 it is a balanced approach. take the basin. we're looking at water supply projects. i think the integrated plan came out of the black rock dam proposal. and looking at it and evaluating the feasibility and whether people could pay for that it was a questionable from a feasibility standpoint. the parties went back to the table and developed a collective set of actions that deal with environmental issues that deal with fish passage issues that deal with storage and deal with water delivery and it is that mix of projects and the yakima basin, colorado river basin in

california, that are going to be the key to moving forward on a, you know, you're never going to get 100% consensus in water issues, but make progress by bringing a number of people to the table. >> i guess my point is this, what we have 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. >> senator barrasso. >> 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 testified that wyoming has, quote, great sophisticated hydraulic fracturing recession lagss. since then wyoming has only strengthened the hydraulic fracturing regulations. we now require baseline ground water 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. i question the need for blm's role for states like wyoming

which already have hydraulic fracturing on public land. will blm allow wyoming and other states to apply for and obtain a variance from its rule so it can avoid duplicating state regulations? >> thank you, senator. and standby my comments. wyoming has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward-thinking. 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, that 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 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

it's certainly something i ask 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 for federal and tribal lands we're looking at baseline standards, learning from folks like you. >> let me move to the endangered species act. the endangered species act states that you, the secretary of interior, shall, by regulation, determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 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 greater sage grouse. that's what it says. but last month in a letter to matt mead, you wrote that the

appropriations bill, quote, does not affect fish and wildlife services court ordered obligation to make a determination by september 30th of 2015. as to whether the greater sage grouse does or doesn't warrant protection under the endangered species act. so with all due respect, 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 court order to make a determination whether a listing is warranted or not through the fish and wildlife service. we would not have any funding to prepare 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.

with the states involved in the sage grouse. but if a listing were warranted, the fish and wildlife service could say a listing is warranted, but they could not 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 write 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. as part of that strategy, the

blm plans to issue 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 permit gathering lines in a timely manner. so do you know if bl 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 thing 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 jewell i want to thank you for your extraordinary commitment to protecting, in particular, i do represent hawaii. hawaii's natural and cultural treasures in the president's budget, 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 are the number one land acquisition projects for the national parks service and the u.s. fish and wildlife service in fiscal year 2016. this effort has taken us a long time to get to the point where these projects are the -- the top priority ranking. i want to commend you for working with us over a period of time to get to where we need to get to. i realize that the president's budget calls for full funding of this fund. i wanted to ask you, how important is congressional action in making sure that the lwcf funds are more consistent because you keep asking for full funding, we keep not giving you full funding. full funding is about what? $900 million?

and we give you $300, $400. so how important is it for us to provide you with more consistent and better funding over a longer period of time to allow the department to plan and execute these projects effectively. >> thank you very much, senator. there's no question that 50 years ago, congress was very visionary when they passed the land water conservation fund act. they recognized as we drill for oil and gas in federal waters offshore, that there is some impact. they believe that impact should go to benefit all states through the lwcf. 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 reauthorize of the land water 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 migrants and compact agreements. hawaii is the state that's the most impacted by the free association that the united states has entered into with the federated 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 palau, however, i am aware that we are to provide some $17 million to palau 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 palau and coming up with a full $17 million 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 million. we would 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, federated states in micronesia, to deal with this. as far as palau 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 the palau compact. i know that there have been various funding sources considered by this body. helium was one of them.

we sent that to other places. we request your support in getting funding to address, you know, our government's obligations to palau. i don't have a lot of influence with the department of defense and the state department. but it's certainly on their radar and on mine. and we would appreciate your help in moving that 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 palau 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 uncreative, i think, in trying to find some solutions. so we'll work on that. senator cassidy?

>> thank you. >> 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 under the gulf of mexico security act. moneys by our state constitution that go to mitigate miss management of our wetlands. now in louisiana, we are experiencing unparalleled loss of land. this red area is what we are losing. down here, this results from channeling 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 the greatest source of wetlands lost in our country. we were told ten years go bipartisan, 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. plaquemines parish. i'll hold this up now. plaquemines parish which lost this much land, now can no longer protect itself with wetlands from that surge. in the upper corner is the fema director looking at the flooded area in st. tammny parish, this all is plaquemines parish. those are working families, 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 leases 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 affected by this have received $4.2 million 4.2%. i don't know how the administration got to this goal and i'll point out that the gulf coast states and the offshore waters have over the last few decades produced billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet but with that there's a cost associated and for to us support this infrastructure we need to rebuild our coastline. now to speck of the infrastructure ignores the individual family that just lost everything. now, the obama administration's goal to take this away reminds me of a quote from joseph heller. mankind is resilient.

the atrocities that horrified us a week ago become acceptable tomorrow. if way back when this was channelled we knew these homes would be destroyed because of that land loss maybe we wouldn't have done it. now it becomes acceptable to take that money away and to allow these families to don't adversely affected. ifts not just it's not just an irate senator. let me read you this. quote, they are disappointed by the budgets proposed version of critically needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal louisiana in the mississippi river delta. this prosed budget under cuts the administration's previous commitments to restore infrastructure and eco systems in the mississippi river delta where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year, a preventable coastal

erosion crisis. these are the environmentalists. when i go back to louisiana -- there was a headline i recently read does president obama hate louisiana? if you're this person in that home that's a question you're asking when 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 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, the onstate waters for the benefit of all american people. >> revisit means take it away from the coastline that will be rebuilt. let me go back to heller's

quote. mankind is red light. an atrocity yesterday is acceptable now. it was an environmental atrocity and now it says let's revisit. these families don't think he cares. why should these families think he cares about them >> madam chairman may i respond? sir, we are balancing the assets of all americans and they can be for the benefit of americans that are greatly impacted. we do have billions of dollars going into gulf coast restoration as you know in large measure of the very unfortunate oil spill. >> that's an unrelated incident that also goes to florida that's unrelated from this 80 year process. totally unrelated. >> if i may sir, i've seen where the mississippi river gulf something or other when it was

closed by the corps of engineers the beaches began to ecrete. i saw that when i was down there with the islands. >> this is mr. go. that is not at all adequate for that. >> understand that, sir. my point is that 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 proposal by the administration for consideration about whether the revenue from the outer continental shelf that are national assets should be focused on four states or should be broader applied and certainly -- >> we're over time so let me conclude by this. thank you for your indulgence. i'll point out through the last three years all the states have received 22 billion and the four

gulf coast 4 million now we're talking about 375 million out of 22 billion. doesn't seem much to ask. thank you. i'll yield back. >> thank you, madam chair. senator from louisiana, i can assure you that this 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 coast down there is an extremely serious problem. i appreciate you raising that issue. madam secretary, just to get back to the budget for a minute. how does this budget line up with the sequester and 2011 budget caps. >> i'll ask mike to take that as we've gone back and forth on who answers what. mike >> thank you. >> senator, yes, the budget would reverse the sequester, undo the sequester and that's the fundamental aspect of what the president is looking for. we certainly have since the 2013

agreement on the budget this economy has started to rebuild restore and grow very significantly. we do not want to go back to sequester. we think the assuredness of the budget and investments strategically that we can make will keep the economy growing very strongly from that standpoint, the president has proposed a budget that would eliminate sequester and help us move forward. >> it would meet the original 2011 budget caps but not the sequester budget caps, is that right? there were budget caps and then a sequester that brought it below. >> does the sequester -- i'm not sure with respect to the budget caps. nominally the budget caps would be lower. >> fine thank you. to go from the broad to the specific, madam secretary we had an experience a year or so

okay at acadia national park, one of the gems of the national park system which is also 100 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 that apparently the bid result was strictly a matter of lower price and past performance and record of performance and local impact and those kinds of things didn't count. 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 high level of performance. shouldn't that be a factor in

deciding? when i go to buy a car i don't look just at the price i look at the quality and past performance of the automobile. shouldn't that be part of the process in awarding these contract? >> senator i'm not intimately familiar with the contracting there as i know you've talked to the park service about. i will say as i've looked into the concession contracts there have been requirements placed on the park service on what they can and can't do in terms of concessioner, over what they owe them over time to change out the contracts. it is not worked the way it might if one was running a business and part of that has to do with the restrictions placed on the park service. >> restrictions placed by congress >> yes i believe so. >> if there are such restrictions you fine frustrating please let us know and we'll try to fix them. this is a place where perhaps we can work together. >> will do. >> second thing about parks and i don't know how many i visited, but a great number. i note in your opening statement

your department is essentially self-funding. you collect $16 plus billion in fees and proposing a budget of $16.2. i believe there's a lot of money left on table in terms of collection of fees at park. for example in acadia local mr. chants it's difficult to sell park passes and impossible to buy park passes online so we've actually had visitors say we would like to pay but we don't know where or how. i would hope and urge you to have the park service visit the whole question of fees how they are collected, bring it into the 21st century in term of online sales, swipe cards at access points, because it would be a shame to be cutting park service in a not doing maintenance, if, in fact you have customer if you will, who aren't paying and perhaps would even like to be paid. >> i just quickly will say that the director of the park service

has revisited the fees charged in a number of parks. they have been static for quite a number of years and is considering some fee increases. >> i'm not recommending fee increases. i'm brave but not stupid. but i am suggesting methodology for collecting fees because my impression from working with these issues is there are a lot of fees that are already in place that aren't being collected. and as i say we've had people in bar harbor say visit jobs i've had merchants say we've had visitors stay at our inn i want to pay to visit acadia i don't know how or where. i'm talking with the mechanics of collection rather than the level. it may be the level if you're leaving 20% of the money on the table, it may be that the level isn't as relevant as how it's collected. i've got several other questions which i'll submit for the

record. thank you, madam chair. >> i'll continue on this parks discussion and i appreciate what senator king from maine was talking about in terms of enhancing southeast opportunities to get some more money into the parks to help with the clearer issues you've identified in your budget. i want to back up though, and talk a little bit about the centennial challenge. we talked about 2016, 300th anniversary of the park we can do exciting things to generate more interest in the parks and to deal with the budget challenges. in 2007 we launched this cente

already n cententenn impbcentent empb centente cententennial program. we hoped to raise substantial funding to go cords these maintenance backlog. never realized never passed congress and i'm pleased to see in your budget you're proposing something like this. i guess my question to you if you can explain briefly to the group here why you think this mandatory federal funding is important to incentivize some of the partners. >> thanks senator portman and thanks to your commitment for the national park. i did work with my predecessor on this trying to encourage congress to pass the centennial act. the national park service is the most recognized and valuable brand within the federal government and certainly a place where people are very, very interested in providing support and research has shown that there's a tremendous interest in private philanthropy. we also know and identify done a

lot of fundraising 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 would do so too. so the budget has in the discretionary part $50 million for a match and additional 100 million in the mandatory proposal. we're confident with a match we can multiple that several times over. i think there are parts of the park service where people will want to give private philanthropy and other areas like some of the deferred maintenance which are going to be less conducive to that. our budget focus our resources on those that are less accessible to fundraising like the deferred maintenance and would concentrate those matching funds on areas like gettysburg would be a good example where private philanthropists have stepped up to help. >> it's exciting opportunity. on a bipartisan basis this committee would be very inned in

working with you on that. i'm concerned about the backlog and some of the deferred maintenance you talk about. it's a real problem that many parks, like cuyahoga valley national parks one of the top ten parks in the country. we're very proud that. my question is how do you square the backlogs and funding what we have with 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 often years would clear up the maintenance backlog on the facilities, on our highest priority assets. those are that are going to see the most visitors those that are in the most difficult condition. for example the many glaciers hotel is very popular has wire tube wiring which is not safe. so we have in this budget a

proposal to make progress often years on cleaning all that up. about half of our backlog is in roads, require the department of transportation funding for that. the other half this will address the highest priority assets and give us a good shot in that centennial year. it's a path forward because we recognize that we have not kept up, the budget has not kept up. >> i would say also your transportation budget which is not under your agency but does not provided equate funding for roads and bridges and other infrastructure you need. a lot of it is transportation infrastructure. i hope you pushed for that. >> we do. >> that those efficiency people at omb told you no. you need to push for that. let's say that somebody in cleveland, ohio wants to make a contribution to the cuyahoga county national park to add a

new roof and there are situations like that in all of our parks. how can they do that? under the current challenge can they assure the money they give to the park bill go to fix that roof. >> yes, we can do that. we do it through the national park foundation or if cuyahoga valley has their own friends group they can go through that mechanism. >> they do. the woman in charge that's been. 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. >> that's something we should work on as part of this centennial. i'm over time but i would like to issue some questions for the record with regard to permitting process. i think this is an area where we have a great opportunity to do some work on a bipartisan basis, again, senator king and i have introduced legislation on this. let me put a concern on how we're dealing with the long eared bat and in particular you folks at u.s. fish and wildlife

proposing to list the bat as endangered and what that means for commercial activity has nothing to do with issues on the bat. i would like to work with you. >> may i answer that very briefly. it looks likely the listing is threat jepd. there's a broad 4d rule which would allow the same economic activities to go forward if that's the case. so that's where we are. we recognize white nose is in droem is an issue. >> it's not broad enough for what people care about in eastern ohio. so we need to broaden that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, chair. i want to thank you, secretary jewel for your leadership on this issue around the arctic national wildlife refuge. in my view there are many places in our federal estate where oil

and gas development are highest and best use of our federal lands. i believe wildlife refuge is not among them and i want to thank you for recognizing that unique wilderness resource that frankly belongs to every american. we got two new national park service units in my home state of new mexico. that passed in the last public lands bill. and the local communities that host these new units are incredibly excited to see these places finally come to fruition after literally of decades of advocacy. one of these management is moving from an unsuccessful are experimental model to a more traditional national preserve model under park service management. 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 scientifical driven research manager that the delegation certain lie myself feels it should continue under the new management model. the preserve has been a 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 the preserve doesn't present a fire athlete to its neighbors and as management transitions to the park service i want to know that we can count on this critical restoration work continuing and wanted to ask the park service if in particular

the park service can continue network with the preserve's existing partners including neighboring tribes to finish this important forest health project? >> i'll certainly ask the team to take that into consideration. i think had there's really good restoration work going on the ground we have a lot to learn from it. i do know budget wise it's a bit squeezed as a lot of things are. we need to make sure we have a source of funding. >> there is a source of funding. the funding comes -- we saw this transition coming. there's legislative authority largely administrative issue of making sure this moves forward. there's funding there. there is legislative authority that senator udall led the effort on last year in the budget. so we look forward to working with you on this project. it's absolutely critical. it's unusual in the fact that you have sort of a co-mingling of management between agriculture, department of agriculture and interior as this transition occurs. >> they have been working with

us closely on this transition. looking forward to working with you on that. >> i want to go back to the backlog that senator portman mentioned. we hear a lot about backlog on maintenance of our public lands, especially national parks. some say we shouldn't protect new places like the manhattan project national historic park because of the backlog and one of the things i wanted to point out is that oftentimes that deferred maintenance doesn't come out or shouldn't come out of the interior department budget or even the forest service budget but is actually related 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 responsibilities for transportation ways that just happen to be on park service real estate. can you talk a little bit about what proportion of the park

service backlog is actually transportation issue that needs funding through the highway bill and other responsibilities, other than your budget? >> we have in the park service an $11.2 billion backlog. 5.9 billion is deferred maintenance facilities that we're responsible for and 5.6 billion is transportation. so just slightly less than 50%. >> just under half of that is actually not the responsibility of the department of interior. >> that's correct. okay. thank you. >> he'll leave you with one last issue where congress refuses to leaf you with the assets you need. congress accuses the agency 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 can make a positive and sustainable contribution to the entire american economy. would the president's budget provide the department with the resources it needs to begin to address the broader maintenance backlog? >> do i have time to answer? certainly with the national park centennial we focused a lot of our energy around national parks and addressed the maintenance backlog. there's a small amount in the mandatory portion of the centennial budget that proposes support for backlog on other public lands. 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 country is known for in the natural world and also our history and our culture. so it's not a budget that fixes

all the problems. it's a budget that's a step in that direction. i appreciate your support on that. it is frustrating. i know many hard-working people that are dedicated public servants that are working on our maintenance, working on interpretation and science and law enforcement in a met somebody out at catoctin mountain park which is camp david who was a law enforcement raininger who was cleaning the toilets and actually repairing part of the visitor center and that's where we find ourselves. i won't say this budget helps address that completely but certainly a step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you madam secretary, for your time today. as we talk about the national park service centennial next year i'm excited about the celebration this year of rocky national park and introducing a resolution to celebrate and commemorate the incredible

grandeur of rocky mountain national park and inactivity you to come and heb celebrate the centennial. i want to talk about the arkansas condit. first authorized in 1962 under president kennedy. the project will serve more than 40 rural miccally depressed communities in my state. congress passed legislation in 2009 that provide a funding mechanism to repay the cost of the project and part of the process has been completed. early stages of mapping and design are under way as well. local negotiations have led to significant number of savings by optimizing existing treatment facilities. but this year the administration's budget request was only $500,000. in 2012 president obama went to southeastern colorado, in pueblo, colorado and said it

will be built. why is the request of $500,000. why is this project receiving the kind of priority that it should in order to be completed? >> on issues like this i turn to the expert for the department, that's mike connor deputy secretary. mike? >> senator garner, i had an opportunity to work very closely with your constituents as a staff member on this committee when we passed the legislation as well as 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 the 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, we focused on the fees

feasibility work that needs done. last year we transferred additional $2 million on top of our budget request to try to accelerate work along those lines. the bottom line is we're in a constrained resource environment. but, given the importance of that project, we'll look continue to within the budget and we can move funds over there given the priority and i think this is the second time we've done that now in 2014. we'll move that. we'll try to develop the strategy that i think we've been talking about with the stakeholders there which we'll have a hard time funding the construction. we need to get to the point where we can evaluate all the options and that's completing the feasibility work. state of colorado is thinking of a loan that's sufficient for a

construction activity and we're in dialogue with the administration and your stakeholders looking at other federal programs quite frankly and see if we can't give ten water quality concerns can't make use of epa resource department of commerce resources that can go for water infrastructure. we'll don't work along those lines and try and put a patch work of funding opportunities together with local resources that we can move forward. >> i would love to continue our conversation on this. there's talk about cobbling funding. this has been for 50 years a reclamation project and would like to continue our work together on this. shifting now to the sage grass, potential sage grass listing in december would have significant effects on agriculture, energy, recreation in colorado if it were to move forward and we need to balance the needs of our economy and environment. plans have given it a chance to succeed. i believe it would be best to protect the species in wyoming

where they have stabilized if not grown populations. what do you believe needs achieved to allow states typical pleament their plans for a period of time in order to determine that they are best at protecting the wildlife within their borders? >> thank you, senator. what's happening with greater sage grass across 11 west states particularly the core six or seven states is the unprecedented in the history really of landscape management. states working alongside partners and the reality it's different state by state so no one size fits all. state of wyoming has been doing this for ten years and shown a path forward that's very helpful for other states. state of nevada, 87% of their land is in february public ownership. our plans that are going to dictate the health of the sage grass there and range land fire is the most important thing there. we're trying to strike the right balance every place we are with

the federal plans the 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. so in many states we have executive actions that the governors have taken. that provides that assurance. i've had a he issecretaryal order. our goal is from provide a clear path forward so that grazing and ranching and oil and gas activities can continue. but continue in a really smart way where we know where the most critical habitat is and we know how to proticket. unprecedented end effort that's happening and the two governors co-chair the sage grass task force. so we're doing everything we can with them to reassure the fish

and wildlife service that the bird will be protect. >> a number of questions on this. if i can indulge a number others. is that all right? i'll pass. >> thank you, madam chair. secretary jewel thank you for visiting the school up at leech lake. as you know from before the time you were nominated and i've been raising the alarm about this school, i talked to you about it pretty much every chance i get. thank you forgoing up there. what did you see at the bug school? >> i saw a facility that should not be a school. i saw a facility that was converted from other uses with inadequate sanitation. small hallways.

inadequate heating systems. and a school that did not convey a sense of support the students that were there. i also saw committed teachers. i saw a school that wants to retain the cultural identity of the tribe and nurture that and i saw their use of the great outdoors frankly to do that because i was there when the weather was good. but 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 in overseen by the indian bureau of education that's in poor condition and i want to fix it. i want to fix the bug school and we have a strong commitment in our budget. >> you have 59 billion dollar increase for indian school production in the fy-'16 project and that's improvement.

it's not enough. i'm glad you went there. i thank you, again for doing that. this is just unacceptable. you know our native children have so many challenges that face them and if anything we should be giving them better schools than -- we certainly should be giving them better schools than that. i want to ask you, you know, take about 25 billion -- sorry million dollars to rebuild the bug school. what does the increase in the school construction funding mean for the bug school. >> the short answer is we have several schools remaining on the 2004, so that's now which the time we get to this budget 12 years old that are prioritized. after that we are completely redoing the priority. so i am confident the bug school

will be tonalist of priority schools for addressing. we're working on a set. objective criteria that is being refined. i don't have that list we expect it by the middle of the year which will skbrirtz those and put in place a plan to really begin to address these over time. it will take a long term commitment on the of congress. the bug school is in bad shape and needs to be replaced. i've seen other schools in equally bad shape and it breaks my heart and around the country this is what we do in supporting indian education. we'll let you know where that school is on the list. there's a good chance in this budget that there will be planning and design $for name of

those schools on the highest priority list so key can move them quickly. we're learning from the department of defense because they had a similar situation. in a decade their schools will be brought up to speed. we 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 things i talked to you about was lewis and clark. funding for water rural projects in bureau of reclamation has been frustrate forge me. specifically this project. in your budget last year you suggested if local governments want these projects built faster they should put in more money on top of the legally required

local share and the state of minnesota has done that. giving lewis and clark project $22 million last year which was almost ten times the amount of funding that you included in last year's budget. yet this year you still came back and requested $2.7 million. congress has demonstrated that we can responsibly fund these projects at a higher level routinely increasing funding and appropriation bills beyond your budget request. these local communities have done everything that has been asked. what will it take to get interior to prioritize these 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. we've talked about that before. there's some money in the budget for lewis and clark 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? >> specifically to lewis and clark, yes. we greatly appreciate the additional resources that congress has put in the last two budget cycles. 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 lewis and clark got 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 twin bureau of reclamation, we have not been table allocate funding to the rural water program in the way we would like. these are good projects. 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 is 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 access to foreign markets. they need rail and infrastructure. we're working on the gateway pacific terminal which will allow them access with their cool. i believe it's important that the department works with all the impacted tribes. there's tribes on the west coast that are engaged in this pros. i want to make sure the coe tribe has their voice heard.

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 consulting with tribes on anything we do that impacts them. >> great. i want to flag it. it's important now as we look at the ability to grow and taking the 50% unemployment rate and not turn it to 80%. i hope you'll take a look at all the treaty rights not only the west coast but the treaty rights of impacted tribes. including the coe. 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. i know you had a chance to experience glacier park. we love the flat head. it will be good to see the challenges out in eastern montana related to economic despair in many ways in these small communities.

we are working on 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 all of the above of these. a third of our hydropower or a third of our power comes from hydro power. more than 50% comes from coal. then we have significant capacity for wind and solar. i'm concerned that all the above energy portfolio that's described sometimes the message from the administration is all of the above except oil and coal 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 encouraged by your comment about the sage grass that senator gardner was talk about. the fact a one size fits all policy is not going to be the best policy. it allows states to have primecy. 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 specific goal? >> i'm going to respond on a couple of other things you mentioned as well. i've been to eastern montana, not just western montana.

i very much appreciate the challenges that many of those tribes face. we're working on a hydro project as well with the tribe of coe. they have some frustrations. the treaty rights i'm committed to that. as it relates to energy development, we don't have a specific goal on what energy development is but we do want to facilitate development on public lands. we have continued to process apds. authorizations for permits to drill in a number of states. what would be helpful is the ability to match supply and demand. where is the drilling activity and can we have the resources so we cannot only write the permits but also do the need 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 -- done has to do with demand from the companies. they are not that much concerned about state lines. we are committed to moving forward with due speed on that. if we have adequate resources. we can spew statistics what the blm has approved. 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 think that will help us speed things up. i will also say coal is an important resource for the country. much of the coal that produces the energy in this country comes from your region more wyoming than montana but certainly you both have those assets. 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. it means conventional energy as well as renewable energy. we're working on both. >> hydro is not renewable? >> hydro is a renewable. >> by federal definition is it? >> yeah, i think so. >> yes. we have testified it is renewable. we cleared it for everybody. >> 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. madam secretary, thank you very much. i want to talk about sage grass of course. you remember the first meeting we had you didn't know what -- you weren't familiar with the sage grouse. 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. the fish and wild life service and the blm. 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. you remember the analogy i used when you head rei you wouldn't allow your marketing department and accounting department to beat each other's throats without the head knock some heads together and say guys resolve this. unfortunately we're drifting again back in that direction. let me say thank you for coming to idaho last october. since the federal government owns two third of the state it's only appropriate that you visit us once in a while. we do things differently. i want to commend your predecessor for inviting 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 a table and worked on a plan. even though the wildlife service signed off, the blm said not so fast. i can't explain to you how incredibly frustrating that is for us that are trying to save the sage grouse. it's a magnificent bird. it deserves the attention of government agencies and needs to be protected. 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 be good. but in any event this is how the letter starts. pursuant to our discussion regarding the federal land management planning process for great are sage grouse, et cetera. we're ready to going idaho. 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 raises 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 to the species persistence within which we recommend 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 plans to move forward. we want to move forward but this again 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 a goal of saving the sage grouse, who have put together a plan that will do that on one side of the table and nut cases on the other side of the table who just want to fight. this is not helping. please use your leadership,

bring this thing together and get our plan finalized where we can move forward with actual work on the ground to save the sage grouse. 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 from you about what your plans are to try to help us move forward. i understand states are all in a different position. this addresses all states. i wish it would have been state by state. i wish they invited the idaho people there to get their hands in on this. maybe we wouldn't wind up where we are. madam secretary. >> madam chairman? thank you. that was october. now we're in february. i will say that incredible cooperation is going on between the various agencies.

it's very difficult in this job and my experience you've got distinct acts under which you operate. the fish and wildlife service about long term protection. bureau of land management. multiple use and sustained yield of the landscapes and sometimes they do conflict. 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 order which your governor was nice about saying words about is a very key element. those are things the fish and wildlife service can ride on. i have encouraged people to stay at the table and not engage in letter writing.

to the competent that they can pick up the phone and call each other. i think you'll find that we're on the cusp of something that's pretty incredible here because this coalition has come together here 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. i feel good about where we are. where the states are. it's been a rocky road to get there. people are at the table working hard. 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.

if indeed that's the case, they don't understand it yet. hopefully we'll get to progress where they will understand it. again i appreciate your leadership on it. please appreciate your problems with this also as we try to move this forward and all of a sudden we get new terms and new focal areas that nobody has ever heard before and it's put on table as we think we're at the goal line. thank you very much. thank you. >> a great deal of passion about the sage grouse. 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. i just had town meetings across oregon over the last week and there's so much support for atlanta 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's a lifeline to resource dependent communities for building schools and police and basic services. 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 for pilt and a lot of rural counties are finding as a result of the complicated pilt formula they're getting less

money. my understanding is that you're in supportive of that, getting pilt to be mandatory linking it to secure rural schools the way we did a number of years ago? is that correct? >> 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 be helpful 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 the basin. we'll have figure out how to ensure fair treatment for the tribes, they 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 a 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 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. >> let's talk about wildfire funding for a moment. as you know the system of funding how we fight wildfires is broken. what happens is prevention gets short changed and then as a

result of prevention being short changed it's gotten drier and hotter and you might have a lightning strike. what happens all of a sudden you have an inferno on your hands and then government borrow from the prevention fund to put the fire out and then the problem gets worse because we're not giving adequate attention to the prevention fund as we know we need to do. there's a bipartisan effort that i and a big group of westerners are part of. tell us how you feel the increased budge certainty provided by this restructuring would help you. as you know we got a favorable score from the budget office because it really shows how valuable it is to preserve the prevention fund because it means you'll have fewer disasters. but how would this increase budget certainty be a value to your agency madam secretary?

>> senator 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. it would take the top 1% of catastrophic wildfires and put them off as disasters as they are coming out of the disaster funding cap. that would enable us to work with tribes work with land management agencies to do the important fire prevention and restoration work to prevent wildfires from getting out of control. by not doing that, as has been the case for a number of years, we spent more and more on suppression and less and less on hazardous fuel removal. the fire in alaska prevention efforts which were not federal they were state in that case but

prevention efforts protaektd community so we didn't have to spend as much on suppression from text those homes tore risk those homes going up in smoke. we see this all over the place and rangeland fire is critical to have protection. so there is no question we will put the money to good use which will ultimately reduce the cost of fighting. >> madam chair, can i get one last question in very quickly? on the question of coal and coal royalties. as you know, i've been concerned for some time that taxpayers aren't getting their fair share of coal royalties on public lands and we began when i was chair of this committee and senator murkowski and i co-authored a letter to you all that this information be researched and i'm encouraged by the rule you have put out to stop companies from using subsidiaries to dodge the royalty payments. i think we may need to go further. we're getting additional information, and i think it would be very helpful if you could review a recent report by

headwaters economics on this. madam chair, if we can put that report on the record that would be good and i'll just wrap up with that request, madam secretary, if you and i could have further conversations. >> i would be delighted to. >> thank you madam chair and thank you secretary jewel for all you do. i want to talk about the payment in lieu of taxes on the department of interior website there is an explanation that the pilt program provides payment to offset taxes due to nontaxable federal lands within boundaries, closed quote, and so based on this explanation, i am sure you agree with that definition and that description of the program. based on that you would identify this as not a landout and not a special interest carveout or something like that.

this is a payment we make to local governments in order to help make them whole or at least in some way offset the burden of having non-taxable federal land within the jurisdiction, is that right? >> i agree with that. >> the 2016 budget proposes a year-long extension of the pilt program and then there's a statement there to the effect that while we're doing this we also need to look at a sustainable long-term funding solution and that a sustainable long-term funding solution needs to be developed. can you talk to us about sort of your policy ply orits or how you frame this issue as you look to make this a sustainable program over the long haul and tell me whether you would consider tying some federal resource to this whether it's perhaps revenue from timber harvested 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 pilt and as senator did it's for rural schools. we know this is important. we know many of these communities rely on this money for the public services they provide and also to the visitors to those communities. this budget as i said in the front end is the forward-looking budget. it assumes that we move beyond sequestration. it assumes that we make investments in the future of this country, and i think as you've seen over the last year with continued economic growth in the country when we invest in the country we see a brighter future and people appreciate that. finding a long-term mandatory funding source for pilt is very important. just as, i believe, in the support of the land and water conservation fund which has been talked about in this session.

we have lots of revenues that are collected on federal waters, for example. the funding for the land and water conservation fund was intended to come from offshore oil and gas revenues to collect something like $14.7 billion and offshore from oil and gas revenues. it is possible that that funding source could be dedicated to pilt and secure rural schools and the land and water conservation fund. we believe it should be mandatory. we'd like to work with you on solutions to make pilt mandatory so it's not a worry every single year as we felt inny is sequestration in 2013. >> my personal view is that it's got to be a high priority and while you've got a lot of priorities to manage and that's a difficult thing, i do think that pilt funding and making sure that it's fully funded and

making sure we're making adequate payments certainly ought to be of a greater priority than say other priorities like acquiring more federal land at a time when the federal government owns one-third of the land mass of the united states and more than two-thirds of the land in my state and where disproportionately the land owned by the federal government that is bringing about the economic burdens on states and local taxing jurisdictions and disproportionately in the western united states makes it a high priority. >> on february 10th of this year utah governor gary herbert issued an executive order to further facilitate the protection of the greater sage krauss. the state of utah has developed a conservation fund for the sage krauss one which addresses the competing interests and addresses the most significant

threats to the population. can you tell me whether the fish and wild life service has endorsed this plan and what the department is doing to coordinate with the state of utah? can you also give me your commitment that you will work with governor herbert in giving this a chance to succeed? >> certainly. i have been working with governor herbert and i'll continue working with limb and i'm aware of his executive order and i saw him a couple of days ago at the governor's association and asked if he could remove the 2016 expiration date because the fish and wild life service needs to look over the long term to make sure they can rely on the executive order in order to make their determination and he wasn't aware of that and he would look into it and that's the kind of cooperation we'd have and with all of the western governors and the states as we've been very much at the table multiple times a year to address what's unique to utah and what's unique to wyoming and colorado and nevada

and oregon and montana and the srth states. so you certainly have my word. i'm keeping my teams at the ticker symbol and the blm plans are being finalized right now. i think it will be in the spring that those final records and decisions come out and then the fish and wild life service will have all of that, the state's plans and the blm plans to take into account as they make their final listing determination but they've been at the table all along and no surprises, no secrets, we are finally getting information shared with us from the state which is is very useful including utah because they'll need all hands on deck to make the right decision and we are very very hopeful that the kinds of efforts made by utah and other states will give them the confidence they need to not feel a listing is warranted. >> thank you madam secretary i appreciate that and i have great respect for governor herbert and i appreciate giving him a chance to succeed. >> thank you. >> we will do a quick second

round. i appreciate the time that you've given us this morning, secretary jewel. because so many members have mentioned the sage krauss this is fortunately an issue that we're not dealing with up north but i had, in response to senator barroso's question about the listing, you had said madam secretary that you were bound by the court to render a determination even though congress had banned the issuance of the rule, but isn't it true that the settlement provides that such determinations are subject to appropriations? does that -- because that was the language that we had included in the that was in the appropriations as part of a writer so it's still subject to the approachpriationappropriations.

>> we'll look into the language. fish and wild life service can say we believe a listing is warranted, but not warranted but they have no appropriations to write a rule about that. >> correct. it's subject to the appropriations. anyway, i wanted to just make sure that we had cleared that up because i thought -- i thought as long as it was subject to appropriations and those had not been made you are not able to move forward with it, so we will look at that. i wanted to ask you about the cleanup of environmental contamination with alaska corporations 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 and it proposed a six-point effort to clean up the speed up of the contamination and then in january of last year you sent me a letter that proposed that the department was going to update its contaminated lands survey and then addressed the other recommendations coming out of the 1998 letter. so i'm trying to understand where we are in this timeline. i've been led to believe that the updated list would be finalized by this fall. there were more than 650 sites on the oil list. we haven't received that yet. so the question to you this morning is when might we expect an updated, comprehensive list of the contaminated sites and further to that point, what is the proposal or what is the plan within dol to really facilitate and move forward with speeding up a