exact same low numbers on it with an original lesson 2000 and it was $20,000 over 10 years. jeb bush refused to do anything. so to president obama. -- so did president obama. i've can vacation with all these offices. i've records that were not in my name. host: we appreciate the story. want to give you a last minute or so to respond. -- we want to give you a last or so to respond. is this a situation you have seen? guest: we have heard so many horror stories about this. we are trying to get word out about this. that is why it the title of our story is "the secret world of debt collection." a lot of people do not know about this and a lot of people do not know that these rules

apply and a lot of people are getting hit with these huge bills that they do not know about. a lot of the consumer advocates that we talked to said that lawmakers really need to step up on this and take some sort of action to close the loophole in the overall law for debt collection so that it does include government debt collection as well as consumers -- consumer debt collection so that everyone is on the same playing field and that consumers do not end up in these situations. host: the story can be found on cnnmoney's pace. the headline is "the secret world of government debt collection." i want to thank both blake ellis and melanie heck of a for joining us as one. guest: think you very much. host: we're taking it to the senate energy and natural resources committee. there is a hearing their. -- there is a hearing there. we'll see you right back here at 7 a.m. eastern, for pacific on

"washington journal."

>> call the hearing to order this morning. we are here this morning with secretary jewell and mr. connor, thank you both for being here. we are here to review the president's budget request for the department of the interior for fiscal year 2016.

aim going to spend a little bit of my time here this morning in opening comments to talk about the many ways in which this administration and the actions are having impact, negative impact in hurting my state. secretary jewell, you and i have had many opportunities to visit one-on-one as well as your trip to alaska, which i appreciate you making last week. and i don't want to make this personal, but the decisions from interior have lacked balance and instead of recognizing the many opportunities alaska has with regard to resource production, you have enabled an unprecedented attack on our ability to responsibly bring these resources to market. the president has withdrawn over 22 million more acres of alaska

from energy production just in recent weeks, and that has occurred on top of many other restrictions and regulations being imposed on us. it's occurred despite the tremendous energy opportunity and potential in those areas. despite our no more clause. despite the pressing need to refill our pipeline. and despite strong opposition from most alaskans. the map that i have -- math i have behind this is one my colleagues are going to become familiar with because i'm going to be pointing it out quite frequently. the colors on the map represent those areas that are withdrawn from any development opportunity whatsoever. some are, in fact, proposed critical habitat areas so they are not fully withdrawn at this point in time. but we have the anwr new

wilderness proposal. the presidential withdrawal off shore, the n.p.r. withdrawal on shore. the north aleutian basin off shore. then the critical habitat. the wilderness that is already in place. the national parks areas as well as the federal lands. i just remind my colleagues this is 1/5 the size of the united states of america. so when you take off all of these areas for any development at all how do your states operate? what do you do? what do you do? i have expressed my frustration privately and in public, and i will continue to 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 for most alaskans. we had an opportunity last week to be in northwestern community and the secretary 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 off shore. i oppose its costly restrictions and endless delays within the npra. i oppose what it is doing to our plaster miners, timber strirks and many other resource producers who are read ready to provide good jobs to hardworking alaskans. the state of alaska was actively ignored, the north slope burrough alaska native corporations, and others all of whom asked for an oil and gas alternative by claiming that it requires an act of congress, even though an act of -- active wilderness requires the very

same. the action from this administration seem destined to shut down our transalaska 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. . madam secretary, i hoped that interior's budget would not make this situation any worse, but it fails to clear even that low bar. it violates the budget control act. ignoring the statutory tasks and proposing new spending as if we already lifted sequestration, but i think that that amount, too, is 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 regardless of the consequences. and it would eliminate offshore revenue sharing, which many of us believe should be expanded. the department did not identify realistic offsets for its spending requests such as the

national park centennial, it's proposed no serious reforms for land and water conservation fund. 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. 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 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 by 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 figure out is why the needs of americans are coming second. interior's decisions are hurting alaskans. you're depriving us of jobs, revenues security, and prosperity. but alaskans aren't alone in this. i want my colleagues to understand that i think what we are 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 and idaho it's the sage grouse. 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's a significant decline in a.p.d.'s and oil wells 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. 's chairman of the committee and the appropriation -- as chairman of the committee and the appropriations subcommittee with authority over the budget, i do want to work with secretary jewell i do. and others in the administration. my complaint here is that you hear from us, but you don't actually hear us. 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. i think that that has to change. and the challenge really is to find common groundworking together. but what we have seen is very,

very discouraging. with that i will turn to the ranking member. >> thank you madam chair. thank you for holding this hearing. i'm pleased to see secretary jewell here and be able to have a conversations with mr. connor as well on the president's proposed budget for the department of interior. in my view this budget represents a balanced and forward leaning proposal. it creates jobs and long-term economic opportunity. it builds strong partnerships with states and tribes and local communities 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's probably no surprise that the chairwoman and i do have different views on a variety of the issues that are being discussed here this morning. and many of those do relate to the administration's energy and conservation proposals in the arctic. 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 energy frougs both on shore and off shore -- production both on shore and off shore in the united states as well as being sensitive to environmental areas. i have long support the-led the art national evennarbled wildlife refuge. -- arctic wildlife refuge. a significant portion of the refuge will be designated as wilderness. this conservation plan required by law and had not been updated for a quarter century i believe the new plan is more an accurate reflection of the values of which the wildlife refuge was designated. similarly there has been criticism in the new five-year leasing plan for the outer 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 in alaska was criticized on the one hand for approving development near an area that the npra proposed for protection and criticized on the other hand for requiring cono foe phillips to incorporate mitigation measures because of those sensitive areas. you have a very tough day job. protection of these ecological treasures such as the arctic national wildlife refuge is an arab issue of natural importance so i thank you for making these important decisions. as a whole the president's investment represents roughly a 6% increase over current funding levels. proposes significant funding for many programs including the

national park centennial initiative. i know there are many people on this committee to believe protecting these public lands and increasing recreational opportunities are greatly important. america's public lands generate over $40 billion of recreational use every year. whether you're visiting a national park or hunting or fishing, the opportunities on these federal lands are important. and we can also enjoy the protection of our national special places while still maintaining a high level of energy production on federal lands. the president's budget reflects a strong commitment to increasing energy development and i'm especially pleased to see the department is also increasing the production of renewable energy resources on public lands. i want to bring up something, though that is missing in the budget. secretary jewell is taking an important step proposing reforms in how royalties are collected on federal resources but i am concerned that the discussion ends there. you it typically lease a ton of coal off federal land for $1 or

less. the taxpayers get $1. then years late 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 america public over $70 in damages. our fossil fuel leasing laws were passed long ago before we knew how bad these impacts were. i tend to follow-up on this issue. i know my colleagues, senator wyden and murkowski, the g.a.o., interior -- interior inspector general, many press articles have been raised about this issue and i plan to raise my own concerns about this as well. similarly, i'm concerned that we adequately consider the real impacts of climate change on our public lands. this isn't an issue that's important to places like washington and alaska, to many places in our country it was recently pointed out many of the related climate impacts at mount

rainier national park. in the past decades about glay shears melting -- glaciers melting. floods repairing park infrastructure and we all know that historic drought conditions in california and the west have now demonstrated climate related changes are present challenges to businesses, to the government families, and because of this i'm pleased that the budget includes a 15% increase for climate related research. i hope that this will help us bring better understanding how to prepare for these issues. similar the issues of wifled impacts throughout the community. last year our state experienced one of the worst wildfires at the carlton come politics. the destruction there represents 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 microclimates and the changes are things that they are -- we are really starting to understand the grave impacts of all these things. my western colleagues have had -- have in rerecent hearings brought up various stories. i hope we can bring up those issues. i support the president to provide a permanent mandatory funding stream beginning next year. this is something many of our colleagues here on committee agree with. every year congress only appropriates a fraction of the funding and right now the unappropriated balance is almost $20 billion. 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 get to the "q&a," i'll ask you about the yacamaw river basin water shed anti-area to protect. after years of negotiations,

users ever irrigated water such as farmers and ranchers, along with tribes and conservation groups plan to develop and utilize better -- in a bert fashion the resources of the river water shed. in a time of increased demand and growing compares it. the reason i believe -- -- spares scarcity. the wreen i -- reason i bring this up is i believe it be successful. we can have bert resolution of these issues if we work together. i look forward to discussing these and many other issues when we get to the questions. i appreciate your commitment and the president's to creating jobs and building partnerships, investing in our public lands for future generations. thank you. >> thank you senator cantwell w. that let's turn to the secretary for your -- can't well, with that let's turn to the secretary for your comments. >> good morning. thank you ranking member cantwell and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the department

of interior's fiscal 2016 budget request. joining me is deputy secretary mike connor who is certainly no stranger to the senate. i submit add detailed statement for the record that discuss as number of important investments we are proposing so i'll be relatively brief in these opening remarks. this is a forward-looking budget to grow our domestic energy portfolio, creating jobs here at home, to build climate resilience and revitalize our national parks as they approach their 100th anniversary. it invests in science to help us understand natural resources on a 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 to american indians and alaska natives. including a much needed investment to help improve education for indian children. i want to first talk about our investments in the lands and historic place that is make our nation proud and serve as economic engines for local communities. on the 50th anniversary of land

and water conservation fund act the budget proposes full funding of $900 million annually for the 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 investigation jer and mandatory portions of the budget include $150 million matching fund to leverage private donations to parks. and $859 million to provide critical maintenance investments in high priority assets. additional funding of $43 million will provide staff to improve the visitor experience and support the expected influx ever visitors during and after the centennial. the third milestone we commemorate this year is the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act. the budget proposes $50 million to restore and highlight key

sites across the country that tell the story of the struggle for civil rights such as the selma to montgomery national historic trail and the martin luther king jr. national historic site. one of my top priorities is connecting young people to the great outdoors and our rich history and culture. we need to inspire and engage the next generation to be scientists engineers, and stewards of our nation's most prized assets, particularly as 40% of the department's work force is soon-to-be eligible to retire. this budget proposes over $107 million for interior's youth programs to provide opportunities for our nation's youth to play, learn, serve, and work on public lands. we will accomplish this through cooperative work with youth conservation corpses schools organizations like the ymca and enlighten private businesses supporting our efforts. next i want to talk about the administration's continued commitment to strength yening tribal communities. i recently visited arizona to

launched gnative american youth listening tour. to give young people in indian country the opportunity to engage with cabinet members directly about the challenges they face. my recent trip to the arctic also included a meeting with youth leaders who are 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 alaskan natives. this budget holds the promise for a brighter future for indian youth, and for improving the stewardship of trust resources. we are asking $2.6 billion for indian affairs, an increase of 12%, which includes full funding of contract support costs that 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 that we can diversify our domestic energy portfolio cut carbon

pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. a total of $658 million for conventional energy programs. 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 such as invasive species and coastal erosion. the budget also includes a total of $147 million to help -- fund programs that help coastal communities such as alaska where i visited recently and heard directly from residents about how they are concerned for their personal safety as encroaching storms threaten to wash away their village. tribes since lar areas communities, and land management agencies use this science and technology to strengthen climate resilience. finally, i want to touch on two

other specific areas impacted by a changing climate. water and fire. first, as part of the bureau of reclamation $1.1 billion proposed budget to fund indian water right settlements, healthy water sheds, and sustainable secure water supplies, the water smart grant program would receive $58.1 million to address drought. another water supply issues across the west. second this budget renews the call for new funding framework for wildland fire suppression similar to how the cost for other natural disasters are met. this is a commonsense proposal that would help ensure the usda and interior don't have to rob our budgets for fire prevention to fight the nation's most stresk fires. in closing this is a smart budget to carry out these important missions. i look forward to discussion these issues and many other proposals in this budget with you 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, madam secretary, relating to production on alaska lands. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i'm frustrated. i'm very frustrated with the delays denials 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 transalaska pipeline versus what we are seeing go through the line on a daily basis? are you aware of that?

>> yes, senator, i am. >> you are aware we are 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 have 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 into the 1002 area and 98% of anwr into wilderness area with indefinite withdrawals in the o.c.s., do you think that's consistent with trying to keep the transalaska oil pipeline full? >> senator, i am fully committed to supporting the efforts in the

north of alaska to keep the pipeline full. as you now i worked on that pipeline as a college student, as a petroleum engineer i understand how fields peak and prudhoe bay oil field and related fields have been past their peak production for some time. i am aware of that. we have as you know supported development in the national petroleum reserve. 72% of what is estimated to be the recoverable oil is in areas open for leasing. we have doubled the frequency of leasing in the npra lands under this administration. we have recently approved conknow could he phillips preferred proposal for drilling in the national petroleum reserve. offshore 90% of the estimated recoverable oil and gas will be veilable for leasing in the bow for the -- beaufort seas. we took 25 miles off the table based on native communities.

the hannah shoal area, which has handful of 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 because of village concerns about subsistance, largely whaling. >> you know, secretary, that particularly as it related to the hannah shoal, in terms of consultation most specifically with the whalers who use that area that they saw no consultation there. that is part of the frustration. that areas are then put into indefinite withdrawal are done so without consultation. that it's important than just making leases available, that if access is denied to those leases 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 ongoing frustration on behalf of the people of king cove. you made that decision to abandon the opportunity for a roughly 300-1 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 23 of 2013. do you know when king cove saw its most recent medevac? >> i'm not aware. >> 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. 23 $of february. now five. do you know how many medy vacs were carried out last year?

>> there were 16. six were coast guard, 10 noncoast guard. do you know how many medevacs have been carried out since you rejected the road? >> 21 medevacs. seven coast guard, 14 non-coast guard. 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, most direct way to help save these lives would be this one lane gravel noncommercial 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? >> i'm over time. as we talked, senator, we have engaged conversations with corps of engineers about alternatives. negotiating an m.o.u. with them. it is, i think, approximately 40 miles between king cove and coal bay if you drive there. >> we 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. i have worked with the corps of engineers, we are continuing to do that to look at alternatives. such as helicopter services between coal bay and the end of the road that is built as you referenced, because the toe

poggrapher is quite different -- toe poggrapher -- topography is different than the airport. we working to cover that six miles from the end of that road to cold bay. but, senator to suggest that the refuge is the same as other lands acre for acre is inaccurate. >> 300 to one. and, madam secretary in all respect, to suggest that you're going to be able to count on the coast guardle to establish some kind of a base there in cold bay , to provide for medevac service, is not realistic it's 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 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 10-mile, one lane gravel noncommercial use road could help save these lives. we have to keep working on this, madam secretary. >> senator, i recognize this issue and also having been there i recognize 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. >> that is true. there are many villages, but there are none, none with -- that have ready access to an all weather airport right there. >> i think we should talk to the senator that has the appropriations interior committee and talk to her. but i'm just pointing out that in 1998 we appropriated $37 million to provide a whoever craft linking cove and cold bay.

i think that was something senator stevens and the clinton administration worked on. maybe we need to look at something in that area for the future. i want to turn to this issue that we are seeing in so many western states, this issue of -- i don't know maybe mr. -- undersecretary connor 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 yackmaw -- yacka maw basin project. but it does reeffect so much of what we are asking people to do. the 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 -- to implement this plan through the department of

intouror, but providing adequate levels of funding not just for projects like the yacamaw basin but other areas. can you say the same of the klamath, you could say the same i'm assuming california has more than the san joaquin issue. there's many of these issues. what do we need to do knowing that we are facing serious drought in these areas? >> thank you, senator cantwell. you're absolutely right. yacamaw is a great model what we need to doing from a strategic standpoint. the federal government working closely with the state and all the different constituencies in developing a plaven action in dealing with the long-term imbalance between water supply and demand in the basin. i think the bureau ever reclamation basin studies program, which helped fund a lot of the planning activity with respect to them, developed an overall strategy that when implemented i think will benefit environments tribes, as well as

agriculture that exists in the basin itself. as you highlight it is very expensive plan. i think overall it's $3 billion to $5 billion over a 30-year period. over that time frame hopefully -- we know the state has stepped up to the plate very significantly in the basin with over $100 million that it's appropriated to the effort, reclamation is increasingly incrementally investing more of its resources in addition to i think a couple years ago its long-standing yacamaw enhancing program. it's funding studies and activity related to a cusm storage projects. the bottom line is it's hard to see where the whole sum of the resources are going to come from with respect to yacamaw or california or the colorado river basin, rio grande. all these areas that need large

number of investments. i think it will be a combination of states increasing their support for water resources infrastructure, state of california's just recently passed $8-plus billion bond to increase infrastructure. 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 planning in the infrastructure investments that need to be occurring. but it's pretty daunting overall. i think reclamation gets about $1 billion do $1.1 billion per year. it's got probably a $6 billion-plus backlog in its areas programs whether it be river restoration activities, new infrastructure dam repair and rehabilitation it needs to be doing, as well as the conservation initiatives that are yielding and leveraging substantial amount of nonfederal dollars. we are making steady progress,

but we are not making progress by leaps and bounds. >> do you think that some of the solution that is are being talked about are positive solutions? >> absolutely. i think some of the solutions -- i think more and more it's a balanced approach. take the basin, we are 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 of it, it was a question from a feasibility standpoint. the parties came back to the table and developed a collective sets of actions that deal with environmental issues, fish passage issues, deal with storage and water delivery. it's that mix of projects in the basin, the colorado river basin in california that would be the key to moving forward on a -- you're never going to get 100% consensus on 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 native americans in oregon for saying, even though we -- they want -- they are still willing to agree to work together as a community. that's the most positive thing. tribal leaders farmers, everybody are working together. at the same time we have seen these drastic changes in climate and more droughts. i don't think these solutions are yesterday's solutions, i guess that's why i asked but 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. i know many of my colleagues on this committee have issues in their states, so i hope that we can look at this further. i know my time's expired, madam chair.

>> thank you, madam chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being with us. in 2013 you testified that wyoming is, quote, a good example of a state that is doing an effective job regulating hydraulic fracturing. you testified that wyoming has quote, great sophisticated hydraulic fracturing regulations. since then wyoming has only strengthened its regulations. for example we now require base water ground water testing before and after hydraulic fracturing. it requires additional disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids. b.l.m. is soon going to issue a final rule for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. i question the need for b.l.m.'s role in states like wyoming which already regulates it on federal land. my question, will b.l.m. 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 barrasso. i stand by my comments. wyoming has done a very good job in providing regulations that are forward thinking. we have learned from wyoming as well as some other 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 in some elements you referenced in wyoming. i don't know that there is anything in our proposed rule that is more stringent than wyoming's rule. i have to look into whether a variance would be even on the table as it relates to wyoming, but i think that we want to provide certainty to industry. we don't want to make the regulations complicated. if that's something the state would want us to consider, it's certainly something that i'd ask b.l.m. to look a the goal however, is to provide minimum baseline standards. many states are not ficted -- sophisticated like wyoming.

their regulation vs. not kept up if they have them at aw. for federal and tribal lands we are really 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 threatened species. last year congress passed the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill. 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 is. last month in a letter to wyoming governor matt meade, you wrote that the appropriations bill quote, does not affect fish and wildlife service court ordered obligation to make a determination by september 30 of

2015 as to whether the greater sage grouse does or doesn't warrant protection under the endangered species afpblgt with all due respect i can't make sense of your letter and i find your plans to ignore federal law troubling. the question s. please explain how you can list the sage grouse without first issuing a rule. >> i know these are -- there are legal nuances i'm learning my sefment we are required under court order to make a determination of 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 have to make a determination by court order, but we cannot -- if we make a determination whether it's threatened or danger, believe me i hope we won't get there because of the great work going on with the states involved, 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.

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? >> is it your view then that this so-called determination would be legally binding? >> i have to defer to the solicitor. 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. i am working very hard to support the state's efforts and the federal government efforts so that a listing is not warranted so we don't have to call to question on this issue. >> final question on this -- president obama's so-called strategic to reduce methane emissions. is part of that strategy the blm plans to include new regulations on federal land. absent a strategy is any effort to make it easier to get permits

to -- of natural gas gathering lines, gathering lines are the pipelines which can collect and then transport that natural gas from wells to processing plants. they are necessary to reduce the venting and flaring of natural gas. we have introduced legislation in the past to make it easier to do those sorts of things. a principal reason why it's vented and flared in the west the blm is failing to permit gathering lines. if the b.l.m. gave the permits for the lines, that would reduce the flaring on and off federal lands. do you know if b.l.m. is trying and doing all it can to expedite the permitting of natural gas gathering lines and what specific steps have been taken? >> we are very committed to gathering the gas and not to resorting to venting and flaring as is happening. i am not aware of circumstances where permits have been slowed down by the b.l.m. i will say our resources are

constrained. we are asked to inspect wells, we are asked to approve permits to drirblings and we have had a real challenge in our budget with sufficient resources to do what's expected of us. i would appreciate any support that you could provide in making the case for why it's important that we resource b.l.m. appropriately because we completely agree that the best thing to do with this natural gas is gather and sell it in the market. >> thank you madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chair. secretary jewell, i want to thank you for your extraordinary commitment to protecting, in particular, i do represent hawaii, natural and cultural treasures in the president's budget, using the land and water conservation fund which you highlighted in your testimony saying that the fund supports 105 projects in 39 states, including in alaska and hawaii. particularly for hawaii, the hawaii volcanoes national park

and the forest national wildlife refuge are the number one land acquisition projects for the national park 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 top priority ranking. so 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 and making sure that the lwcf funds are more consistent. you keep asking for full funding. we keep not giving you full funding. full fund something about $900 million, we give you maybe $300 or 400. 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 hirono. there is no question that 50 years ago congress was very visionary when they passed the land water conservation fund act. they recognized that as we drill for oil and gas in federal waters off shore there is federal impact. they believe that impact should go to benefit all sits states through the lwcf. not only does every doll sar invested 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 lands they have. important areas for ecosystems that you referenced like those talked about in hawaii. this has been used successfully over 40,000 times. it has been fitted 98% of the counties in this country.

and we think it's a brilliant piece of legislation that has worked well. i want to compliment many members of the u.s. senate for their support for re-authorization of the land and water conservation fund. i appreciate the president including full funding not just in this budget request but in the last two, and i would hope that given what we know about the impact of oil and gas activities based on a -- revenue that is we get from the gulf of mexico $14.7 billion in revenue that is this department collected largely from offshore oil and gas that we could have that permanently going to the fund so that those willing sellers know they'll have an opportunity to sell that land. >> you noted there are willing sellers, but they are 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 our compact agreements. hawaii is the state that is most

impacted by the three compacts of free association that the united states has entered into with pa lou, marshal identify lands and federated states of micronesia. our state has tremendously impacted by the compact migrants in terms of our health care education, and housing needs. with regardle to pa lou -- palau, however, i am aware that we are to provide some $17 millionle to palau over the next 10 years to effect -- keep our part of the bargain with palau. and i know that the interior departments has come up -- department has come up with some eight million. how are you doing in getting the other departments, who have been part of the compact, particularly malau with coming up with the full 17 million. i'm talking about the department of defense and state department. >> thank you, senator hirono. compact impacts are very

significant as you point out. hawaii and guam have the biggest hits. wire limited to $30 million. we'd like to see that cap raised. the president's budget mandatory funding for the compact impact and requests that you consider raising that cap because it is a huge impact on hawaii guam, and federated states of micronesia to deal with this. as far as palau is concerned, yes, we want to work collectively with the secretary of defense -- department of defense and 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, including legacy well cleanup. we request your support in getting funding to address our government's obligations to palau. i don't have a lot of influence with the dint of defense and the

state department, but it's certainly on their radar and mine and we would appreciate your help in moving that forward. >> thank you very much. madam chair, i want to say for a nation like ours to not meet our obligations to a small entity such as palau that amounts to only $17 million a year is in my view unconscionable and we should move forward with that funding. thank you. >> thank you. senator hirono, thank you for bringing that up. this is something that we do need to find a resolve for. 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. we'll work on that. senator cassidy. >> thank i. -- thank you. -- secretary jewell, i begin with a statement. i am inconsidered as read blirks i can't enough hyperbole in

front of this, opposed to the department's proposalle to deprive the gulf coast states under the revenue promised under the gulf of mexico security act. moneys that by our state constitution that we receive go to mitigate damage caused by federal mismanagement of our wetlands. in louisiana we are experiencing unparalleled loss of land. this red area is what we are losing. down here this results from channeling leveing the lower mississippi for the benefit of commerce for the rest of the country. now, this has taken a once growing delta plane and -- plain and it's caused the greatest source of wetland loss in the history of our country. we were told 10 years ago bipartisan, we could count on a portion of oil revenue to restore this coastline. can i see the next slide, please. what is at stake? this is the result of that

coastal loss. this parrish where, i'll hold this up now, which has 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. tamm manny parish. this is all plaqueman's parish. those are working families, working in an industry that literally fuels the rest of our country. and they are relying upon this revenue to rebuild this land so that they can continue to live there. 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 you -- by this has received $4 million.

.2%. i don't know how the administration has gotten it -- i will 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 is a cost associated. and for us to support this infrastructure, we need to rebuild our coastline. now, speaking of the infrastructure ignores the individual family that just lost everything. the obama administration's goal to take this away reminds me of a quote from joseph hillard, mankind is resilient. the atrocities that horrified us a week ago become acceptable tomorrow. if way back when when this was channeled we had known these homes would be destroyed because of that land loss, maybe we wouldn't have done it. but now it becomes acceptable to take that money away and allow

these families to continue to be adversely aeffected. it's not just an irate senator. let me read a quote put out jointly by the national wildlife federation national audubon society, and the lake pontchartrain basin foundation, quote, they are disappointed by the budget's proposed version of critically needed and currently dedicated funding for coastal louisiana and the mississippi river delta. this disappointed proposed budget undercuts the administration's previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems 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, in fact there is a headline recently i read, does president obama hate louisiana? if you're this person in that home, that's a question you're asking when the land -- the money we were going to use to

build back that wetlands is being taken away. now, in that is a question. don't you care about these families? it doesn't appear that you do. your thoughts? . 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 impacts. the president's proposed budget says we should revisit the revenues from federal waters offshore beyond state 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 the heller quote, an atrocity a week ago is acceptable now. this is an environmental atrocity and now you're saying let's revisit. i tell you 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 because of the very unfortunate oil spill. >> that is an unrelated incident. that goes to florida that is unrelated from this 40 -- no 80-year process, totally unrelated. >> and if i may, sir i've mississippi river -- whatever it is -- the beaches began to ecrete. and i saw it down there with the chandelier islands and so on. >> and this is mrgo. this is not at all adequate for that

>> i understand that sir. my point is what has happened there has taken many years and it's 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 the proposal by the administration for consideration about whether the revenues 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 just conclude by this. thank you for your indulgence. i'll point out 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 yield back. >> thank you madam chair. the senator from louisiana, i

can assure you this is very important to all of us in the country. i have good friends, environmental friends and family in louisiana and i know that loss of coast down there is an extreme -- 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 with the 2011 budget caps? >> i'm actually going to ask mike to take that as we've gone back and forth on who answers what. mike. >> senator yes. the budget would reverse the sequester, would undo the sequester. i think that's the fundamental aspect what the president's 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 the investments streegically we can make will keep the -- strategically we can make will keep the economy going. the president has proposed a budget that would eliminate sequester and help us move forward. >> so it would meet the original 2011 caps but not the sequester budget cap, is that correct? there were budget caps and then there was the sequester that brought it below. do you know if it meets? >> it undoes the sequester. i'm not sure with respect to the budget caps. >> it will be lower than 2011. >> the budget caps will be lower than 2011. >> ok. thank you. to go from the broad to the specific. madam secretary, we had an specious a year or so ago at acadia national park in maine, which is also 100 years old next year, where there whereas a -- 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 kind 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 a high level of performance. shouldn't that be a factor in deciding? when i go buy a car, i don't just look at the price. i look at the quality and the past performance of that automobile. shouldn't that be part of the process in awarding these contracts? >> senator, i'm not intimately familiar with the contracting

areas, as i know you talked to the park service about. as i looked into the concession contracts there have been requirements put place on the park service with concessions in terms of what they owe the concessioners over time to change out the contracts. it has not worked the way it might as if one owns a business. >> restrictions placed on congress? >> yes, i believe so. >> if there are restrictions that you find frustrating, please let us know and we can try to fix them. this is an area we can perhaps work together. >> will do. >> second thing about parks, i don't know how many i visited but a great number. i note in your opening statement that your department is essentially self-funded. you collect $16 billion-plus in fees and you're proposing $16.2 billion. i believe there is money left on the table for example, at

acadia that's different for merchants to sell park passes and i believe it's impossible -- i may be wrong -- i believe it's impossible to buy park passes online. so we've actually had visitors say we 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're collected, bring it into the 21st century in terms of online sales swipe cards at access points because it would be a shame to be cutting park service and not doing maintenance if in fact we have customers, if you will, who aren't paying and perhaps would even like to be paying. >> i'll just quickly say the director of the park service has revisited the fees charged in a number of parks. they've been static nor quite a number of years and has proposed since the increases being considered right now -- >> let the record show i'm not necessarily recommending fee increases. i'm brave but not stupid.

i'm suggesting methodology for collecting fees because i think -- 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 -- visitors, i had merchants say we've had visitors staying at our inn, i want to pay to visit acadia but i don't know how or where. i'm talking about the mechanics of collection rather than the level. it may be the level -- if you're leaving 20% of money on the table, it may be that level is not relevant as to how it's collected. i've got several other questions which i'll submit for the record. thank you, madam chair. thank you, madam secretary. >> thank you madam chair. i'll continue on this parks discussion and i have appreciate what senator king from maine was talking in terms of enhancing some of the opportunities to get some more money to the parks to help with some of the clear issues you've

identified in your budget. i want to back up and talk a little bit about the centennial challenge and some of the initiatives there. as you know, madam secretary i've been working with you on this and we talked a lot about how in 2016, 100th anniversary of the park, we can do some exciting things to try to generate more interest in the parks and also to deal with some of the budget challenges. in 2007 when i was -- we launched this centennial challenge where you get the private sector more engaged with the parks. i think your former company was part of that. it seems to make so much sense to me. it's basically you provide a federal match in order to level private sector dollars. we had hope to raise $100 million per year over a 10-year period, substantial funding that would go to these backlogs. it was never realized, never passed congress and i'm pleased to see in your budget you are all again proposing something like this. i guess my question to you is

if you can explain briefly to the group here why you think this mandatory federal funding is important to incentivize nonfederal partners, maybe you can include some of your experience in the private sector. >> thanks, senator portman. and thanks for your commitment to the national parks. did i actually work with my predecessor on this trying to encourage congress to pass the centennial act. the national park service is arguably the most recognized and valued brand within the federal government certainly a place where people are very, very interested in providing support and research has shown there is a tremendous interest in private philantropy. i've done a lot of fundraising myself. a match is a great incentive to get people to give sometimes two, three, four times the amount showing we're putting our money up and individuals would do so too. the budget has in the

discretionary part $50 million for the match and $100 million in the mandatory proposal. we are confident that with a match we can multiply that several times over. i think there are parts of -- the park service where people will want to give private philantropy and some of the other areas like deferred maintenance which will be less conducive to that. our budget focuses our resources to that that are less accessible to fundraising like the deferred maintenance and would concentrate those matching funds on areas like gettysburg for example, where private philanthropists have stepped up here in washington, d.c. >> i think in a bipartisan basis the committee will be interested 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 of the parks including cuyahoga national park in ohio which is the top 10 visited parks in the country and we're

very proud of that. my question to you is, how do you square this backlog and the problems we have which is funding what we have with the fact you all continue to promote more workload for the national park service by expanding the areas of responsibility and proposing more stewardship? >> yeah. well, this budget proposes -- really has a proposal that over 10 years would clear up the maintenance backlog on the facilities on our highest priority assets. those that are going to see the most visitors, those that are in the most difficult conditions. for example, the many glaziers hotel which is a very popular attraction in glacier national park has wire 2 which is not safe. we have a proposal to make progress over the next 10 years to clean all that up. about half of our backlog is in roads. we 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 of the highest of the high priorities in dealing with them. it is a path forward because we recognize we have not kept up, the budget has not kept up. >> i would also say the transportation budget which is not under your agency but does not provide adequate funding for the roads and bridges and other infrastructure you need. a lot of it is transportation infrastructure. i hope you pushed for that. >> we do. >> and that it was -- those efficiency people at o.m.b. told you no but you got to push for that and i'm very disappointed in the transportation budget not having more. let me ask you a question. let's say somebody in cleveland, ohio, wants to make a contribution to the cuyahoga valley national park to improve facility, let's say add a new roof to a building and there are situations like that at all of our parks, how can they do that? under the current centennial challenge, can they make sure that money will go to fix that roof? >> yes, we can do that and we do it through the national park foundation or the cuyahoga

valley has its own fringe group -- >> yes. the woman in charge of it -- how can they do it through the park service? >> i'm not exactly sure the mechanics. >> i don't think they can. >> you don't think so? >> i think it's something we should work on as part of this centennial. i'm already over time but i'd like to issue, if i could some questions for the record with regard to the 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 the table and that is how we're dealing with the northern long-eared bat and in particular, your folks at fish and wildlife who are proposing to list the bat as endangered and what that would mean for commercial activity. it has nothing to do with the issues at the bat -- with the bat. i'd like to work with you. >> may i answer that just very briefly? it looks like the likelihood of

a threatened listing and the fish and wildlife proposed a very broad sweeping rule which would enable a lot of the same kind of economic activities to go forward if that's the case. so that's where we are. we recognize white nose syndrome as the biggest issue. >> it's not broad enough to encompass what -- in eastern ohio which is oil and gas development as well as some other commercial activity so we need to broaden that >> ok. thank you. >> i thank the chair. i want to thank you, secretary jewell, for your leadership around the issue just here at the beginning around the arctic national wildlife refuge. in my view, there are many places in our federalist state where oil and gas development are the highest and best use of our federal lands. i believe wildlife refuges are not among them. and i want to thank you for recognizing that unique wilderness resource that frankly belongs to every american.

we've got two new national park service units in my home state of new mexico that passed in the last public lands bill, and the local communities that host these new units are incredibly excited to see these places finally come to fruition after literally decades of advocacy. at one of those, management is moving from an unsuccessful experimental model to a more traditional national preserve model under park service management. and what drove that was really a lack of adequate public access and recreational opportunities under the previous arrangement. but the preserve has a very strong scientifically driven resource management program that delegation, certainly myself, feel must continue under the new management model. and in particular, the preserve

has been a key partner in a collaborative land force 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 threat to its neighbors and as management transitions to the park service, i want to know we can count on this critical restoration work we're continuing and wanted to ask the park service, in particular if the park service can continue to work 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 when there's really

good restoration work going on the ground there is radio to learn from it. -- there is a lot to learn from it. budget-wise we need to have a source of funding. >> we have a source of funding. we saw this transition coming so there is legislative authority. it is largely an administrative issue of making sure this moves forward. there is funding there and there is legislative authority that senator udall led the effort last year in the budget so we look forward to working with you on this budget. it's absolutely critical. and it's unusual in the fact that you have sort of a combing lane of management between agriculture, department of agriculture and interior as this transition occurs. >> and they've been working with us on this transition. >> i want to go back to the backlog that senator portman mentioned. we hear a lot about of the backlog of mapet assistance on our public lands and especially our national parks. some have claimed we shouldn't

protect new places like the manhattan national historic park because of the backlog and one of the things i wanted to point out oftentimes that deferred maintenance doesn't come out or shouldn't come out of the interior department budgets 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 a 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, that's billion with a b.

$5.9 billion is deferred maintenance of the facilities that we're responsible for and $5.6 billion is transportation so just slightly less than 50%. >> so just under half of that is actually not the responsibility of the department of interior? >> that's correct. >> ok. thank you. i'm going to leave you with one last issue and that's in recent years i've seen sort of a troubling dynamic where congress refuses to provide your agencies with the resources they need to manage our public lands and then when those lands deteriorate because of lack of funding and management, congress accuses the agencies of mismanagement and claims that the states could then 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 have focused a lot of our energy around the national parks and addressing that maintenance backlog. there is a small amount in the mandatory portion of the centennial budget that proposes support for the backlog on other public lands b.l.m., for example, and the fish and wildlife service. these public assets, as you point out, are in many cases the opportunity that people have to breathe and to experience the best of the best of what this 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 and i really appreciate your support on that. i will say that it is frustrating. i know many, many hardworking people that are dedicated public servants that are working on our maintenance, that are working in

interpretation and science and law enforcement. and i met somebody out at a park where camp david is who is a law enforcement ranger who was cleaning the toilets and actually repairing part of the visitors' center and that's where we find ourselves. i won't say this budget addresses that completely but it's certainly a step in the right direction. thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary, for your time today. and as we talk about the national park service's centennial next year, i'm excited about the centennial celebration this year of rocky mountain national park and i'll be introducing a legislation to celebrate and commemorate the incredible incredible grandeur of rocky mountain national park and hope we can celebrate the sen continentalial of rocky mountain national park together. i want to talk about the arkansas valley conduit, a project in southeastern

colorado, first authorized in 1962 under president kennedy. the project will serve more than 40 rural economically depressed communities in my state. congress passed legislation in 2009 that provided a funding mechanism to fully repay the cost of the project and an extensive nepa process has been completed. early stages of mapping, design and other activities are under way as well. local negotiations have led to a significant number of savings to have existing treatment facilities as the project moves forward. but this year the administration's budget request was only $500,000. in 2012, president obama actually went to southeastern colorado in pueblo, colorado, where the project originates and stated that the arkansas valley conduit would be built. he said it will be built. can you help me understand how come -- why is the request only $500,000? what is happening? 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 running the bureau of reclamation and getting the record decision and the nepa work done on 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, after getting the nepa and the record decision done, we focused on completing the feasibility work that needs to be accomplished. i think overall we're looking at this in a bite-sized piece. i think that work is going to take about $5 million to $6 million. we managed to last year transfer an additional $2 million on top of our $500,000 budget request to try and

accelerate work along those lines. but the bottom line is we are in a constrained resource environment. but given the importance of that project we will look -- continue to within the budget and when we can move funds over there given the priority and i think it's the second time we did that now in 2014, we'll move that resources over, try and develop the strategy i think we've been talking about with the stakeholders there which is we're going to have a hard time funding the construction. we need to get them to the point where we can evaluate all the options and that's completing the feasibility work. the state of colorado i think has offered a loan which we're thinking maybe sufficient to initiate construction activity and we're in dialogue now within the administration and with your stakeholders looking at other federal programs, quite frankly, and see if -- particularly given the water quality concerns, if we can make sure we can get water

resources. we can work along those lines and try to put a patchwork of funding opportunities together with local resources that we can move forward. >> i'd love ton our conversation on this. as you know it's a reclamation process. i know there has been conversation about cobbling together resources. this has been 50 years a reclamation project and would like to continue our work on this. shifting now to the sage grass listing in december would have significant affects on agriculture, energy, recreation in colorado if it were to move forward and we need to balance the needs of our economy, the needs of our environment. if given the chance to succeed, i believe will be best to protect the species. we've seen in wyoming where they have stableized if not grown populations. what do you believe needs to be achieved in order to allow states to implement their plans for a period of time in order for them to determine that they are best protecting -- that they are best protecting the wildlife within their borders?

>> well, thank you, senator. what's happening with the greater sage grass across 11 western states, particularly six states, is unprecedented in the history, really of landscape management. states, working alongside federal partners, and the reality is it's different state by state so no one size fits all which is complicated. the state of wyoming has been doing this for 10 years and they have shown a path forward that's been very helpful for other states. the state of nevada, 87% of their land is is in federal public ownership so it's our plans that going to dictate the health of the sage grass there and range land fires is the most important thing there. we are 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 -- have something they can rely on. so in many states we have executive actions that governors have taken that provides that assurance. i've had a secretarial order on range land fire that provide additional assurance for thess in the great basin where fire is an issue. our goal is to 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 protect it. unprecedented effort that's happening and governors co-chair the sage grass task force of governors and we are working doing everything we can with them to reassure the fish and wildlife service that the bird will be protected. >> and obviously we have a number of questions on this. if i could indulge one more questions and then i have a -- is that right, madam chair? >> no. >> i'll pass and have some

other questions we'll follow-up on. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. secretary jewell, thank you for visiting the bugo school up in leach 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. 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 to the students 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 1/3 of all schools in overseen by the bureau of indian education that are in poor condition. i want to fix it over the long term, i want to fix the bug school and the rest of them and we have a strong commitment in our budget to get on that. >> well, you have $59 billion increase for indian school production in the f.y. 2016 budget. and that's an improvement. it's just -- it's not enough. what -- and 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. if anything, we should be giving them better schools than -- what should be giving better schools than that. >> yeah. >> 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 indian school construction funding mean for the bug school? >> so the short answer is we have several schools remaining on the 2004 -- so that's now -- by the time we get to this budget, going to be 12 years old, that are prioritized. after that we are completely redoing the priority. so i am confident the bug school will be on the list of priority schools for addressing. we're working on a set of objective criteria that is being refined right now. i don't have that list, but we expect to have it sometime

along the middle of the year, which we'll prioritize those and put in place a plan to really begin to address these over time. it's going to take a long-term commitment on the part of congress and a long-term commitment on our part to address these challenges. but having seen the bug school you know, it's in bad shape. it needs to be replaced. i will tell you that i've seen other schools that are in equally bad shape and it just breaks my heart that around the country this is what we do in supporting indian education. the prioritized list will be coming out middle of the year. we'll make sure you know where that particular school is on the list, and there is a good chance in this budget that there will be planning and design dollars for a number of schools on the highest priority lists so we can move them forward very quickly. we're learning from the department of defense education organization, because they had a similar situation and they have a pathway forward that over a decade or so their

schools will be brought up to speed and we've hired the person that did that on our team here to do the same kind of long-term game plan for indian schools. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> one of the other things i've talked to you about is lewis and clark. the funding level for rural water projects in the bureau of reclamation has been a frustration also for me. particularly this project. in your budget last year you suggested if local governments want these projects built faster they should just put in more money on top of the legally required local share and the -- and they have done that giving them $22 million last year which is almost 10 times the amount of funding you included in last year's budget.

yet, this year you still came back and lnl requested $2.7 million for the project. congress is always -- has already demonstrated we can responsibly fund these projects at a higher level. routinely increasing funding in appropriation bills beyond your budget request. these local communities then the state have done everything that has been asked of them and more putting more funding than they were supposed to. what will it take to get interior to prioritize these projects? >> i'm going to talk -- may i madam chair? i'll make my part very brief and turn it to mike for the specifics here. we have way more demands than we have funding. indian water rights settlements have taken priority for us and making sure that communities that do not have access to water are a priority. we talked about that before. there is some money in the

budget for louis and clark to continue to make -- lewis and clark to continue to make progress. there is not enough money to go around and so we have to prioritize. mike, do you want to talk specifically lewis and clark? >> yeah. we greatly appreciate the additional resources that congress has put in the last two budget cycles. we've allocated that funding to substantially three times as much as we had in our budget to allocate the lewis and clark. so i think in this year's cycle, 2015, they have about $9 million that can be coupled up with the local resources and we can make progress overall. >> i don't think that's right. >> we had $3 million in our budget and congress appropriated an additional $30 million. i think which lewis and clark got about $6 million to $6.5 million so that's where i got the $9 million and that was announced about two weeks ago the additional money. you're right about the 2016 budget. we're competing projects within

the bureau of reclamation. we have not had funding to the rural water program that we'd like. these are good projects and we've made some significant progress at that point in time but it's one of those that's strained under the budget, even in a very robust budget with good investments here for the interior department, this particular program is strained and quite frankly if we end up with sequestration it will get a lot worse. >> ok. thank you. and thank you for your indulgence, madam chair. >> thank you madam chair. secretary jewell, very good to see you again here today. montana it was a whole lot warmer in washington, d.c. and i had a chance to spend time with the crow tribe back there in montana. as you know unemployment at the crow reservation will be more than 80% if we did not have the mining jobs there. in fact, the tribal unemployment is already at 50%. they're very, very concerned

what's going on as it relates to coal development as the unemployment will go to 80% without these jobs. it's a significant well-being and hope for the tribe. they need access to some of our foreign markets. they need rail and other infrastructure. we're going to a-- we're trying to allow the crow tribe to get access to their coal. as the gateway terminal going through these permitting process, i believe it's important that department works with all the impacted tribes. there's tribes on the west coast that are engaged in this process. i want to make sure that crow tribe is also having their voice heard in this process. so i really guess the question is -- do you agree we get all the tribes' views on this issue of approval of the gateway pacific terminal? >> senator, i'm not familiar with the gateway pacific terminal but i'll tell you i'm

very committed to consulting with tribes on anything that we do that impacts them. >> ok. great. and i just want to flag, it's really important right now as they're looking at the ability to grow and take the specific unemployment rate and not turn it to 80% which is a very real possibility and i hope you take a look at all the treaty rights, not only the west coast tribes but also the treaty rights of the impacted tribes including the crow. and by the way, next time you come out to montana we may want to take you to the eastern side of the state as well. i know you had a chance to experience glacier park. we love the flathead in glacier. i want you to see the challenges in eastern montana related to economic despair in many ways in some of these small communities. and in light of that, we are working in montana on the all-of-the-above energy strategy as part of our national security and energy strategy. and montana is one of these unique states that really has the ability to play in the

all-of-the-above of virtually every energy resource we have in this country. over a third of our hydropower in montana -- third of our power comes from hydropower. more than 50% comes from coal, and then we also have significant capacity certainly for wind and for solar. i'm concerned though, this offof the above energy portfolio described sometimes we hear from the administration, it's all of the above except for coal, oil and sometimes natural gas. we're very concerned that the administration does not share the same all-of-the-above vision that we share back home. as we look at approval of drilling permits back home, the b.l.m. approved just 26 drilling permits in federal lands in the state of montana last year achieved 269. so an order of magnitude, more were approved in state and private lands than federal lands and yet montanaes that a

third of federal lands. the sage greenhouse, a one-size-fits-all policy will not -- in montana we have a lot of checkered boarding. we have federal lands and i hope you will allow the states to work on that and not have a one-size-fits-all edict coming out -- edict come frgget federal government. does the administration have a plan to increase oil and gas development on federal lands and if so is there a specific goal? >> thank you, senator. i'm going to quickly respond on a number of other things you mentioned before. i bent to fort park. i've been to crow and eastern montana, not just western montana, and i very much appreciate the challenges that many of the tribes face. we're working on a hydroproject with the crow. they're frustrated with the

bureau of land management and the treaty rights are -- i'm committed to upholding those as i'm sure the tribes will tell you. >> yep. >> as it relates to energy development, we don't have a specific goal on what the energy development is but we do want to facilitate development on public lands. we have continued to process a.p.d.'s authorizations for permits to drill, in a number of states and, of course, what would be very helpful to us is the ability to match supply and demand, where is the drilling activity and can we have the resources so that we can not only write those permits but also do the needed inspections. we were written up by the g.a.o. for not doing appropriate inspections on the 100,000 wells that the b.l.m. is responsible for overseeing. so there is a request in the budget to be able to charge a modest fee to industry to cover that as they do already offshore. and i don't think we'd have significant objections. that's something i'd ask of you because that will help us move the drilling permits through,

move the inspections forward so that we can make sure there is 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 we did get -- >> mile city we got one going there. >> we do. and a lot where the permits get done has to do with where the demand is from the companies which they are not much concerned about state lines. but we certainly are committed to moving forward with due speed on that if we have adequate resources. we can spew statistics at you on what the b.l.m. has approved but they are reducing the amount of time for permitting. there's a small amount of money in the budget to automate the permitting process which right now is paper based and we don't think that will help anyone. i will also say that 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 taxpayers and we've been asked by the g.a.o. to look at this and we're looking at this as well. certainly all of the above from my per expectively and i think our budget reflects that, it means all of the above. it means conventional energy as well as renewable energy. >> and hydro is not a renewable energy, is that right? >> hydro is a renewable energy. >> by federal definition? >> yeah, i think so. >> ok. >> we have testified several times that hydro is a renewable energy resource. we've cleared it through everybody. >> a good thing. >> not by law, though, is the point. not by law is not renewable which -- we scratch our heads out in montana we look at thin credible renewable resource called hydro. >> you guys write the law. >> by law it's not. it's something we need to take a look at. >> thank you.

senator. >> thanks much. senator daines, 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 i guess. madam secretary, thank you so much. i want to talk about sage greenhouse, of course. you remember the first meeting we had. you didn't know what a sage -- you hadn't -- you weren't familiar with the sage greenhouse and now you're a lot more -- sage groust and you're a lot more familiar. you remember the criticism i had at the time and that is -- we were perplexed in idaho where you could have two federal agencies at odds with each other under the same head and we just weren't making progress as you recall. your leadership has changed that dramatically and i'm happy

with that. you remember the analogy i used when you headed r.e.i. you would not have allowed your marketing economy and your accounting department to beat each other's throats without the head knocking some heads together and saying, look, guys, resolve this. well, unfortunately we're drifting again back in that direction. and before i get into that let me say thank you for coming to idaho last october. since the federal government owns 2/3 of the state, it's only appropriate that you visit us once in a while and we appreciate that. we do things differently. i want to commend your predecessor, secretary at that time salazar for inviting states to collaborate on the sage-grouse issue. collaboration works but it only works if people work at it. yived accepted that invitation and the governor wisely put together a great collaborative group who sat at a table, worked on a plan and your fish

and wildlife service had a seat at that table as we developed that plan. when you came into office, that was right at a point where even though our plan had been developed, even though the u.s. fish and wildlife service had signed off on it, the b.l.m. said not so fast. and i can't explain to you how incredibly frustrating that is for us that are trying to save the sage-grouse. that's our objective. it's a magnificent bird. it deserves attention of government agencies and needs to be protected. well, here we go again. on october 27, 2014, dan ashe, director of the united states department of interior fish and wildlife service wrote a letter to the blrm. now, i don't understand why they community in such formal fashion. it would seem a phone call would be good. in any event this is how the letter starts. pursuant to our october 1 2014, leerm discussion regarding the federal land management planning process for greater sidge-grouse, etc.

we're ready to go in idaho. we got a plan. we want to work with the federal government on this plan. and i understand that the federal government and the state work at different paces.

finalized where we can move forward with actual work on the ground to save the sage grouse. i apologize for the passion of this.

but i'm telling you we are just -- we are 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, but i'd like to get a brief response for you -- from you about what your plans are to try to help us move forward. i understand the states are all in a different position. this addressed all states. i wish it would have been state buy state and i wish instead at this meeting of october 1, i wish they invited the idaho people there to get their hands in on this and maybe we wouldn't have wound up where we are. madam secretary. >> thank you. that was october. and now we are in february. and i will say that incredible cooperation is going on between the various agencies. one of the things that's very difficult in this job, and life experience, you have distinct acts under which you operate. fish and wildlife service about

long-term protection of fish and wildlife species. bureau of land management, multiple use and sustained yield, and sometimes those do conflict. we have moved a long way since the letter you referenced. the b.l.m. has finalized plans. they have been working closely with the states and official 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 has been done. the secretarial order which your governor has said nice words about is a very key element for idaho for parts of oregon and certainly nevada as well. those are are things that the fish and wildlife can write on. i've encouraged people to stay at the table, to not engage at letter writing to the extent they can pick up the phone and call each other. and i think you can find that we are on the cusp of something that is pretty incredible here because this coalition has come

together. and the states have come together. and we're very close to the goal line and the goal line is not moving. the goal line is the scientific information agreed upon between the states and the fish and wildlife service something called the cop report, and we are going to soon after to turn over to the fish and wildlife service to make their determination. but i feel good about where we are, where the states are. it's been a rocky road to get there. but people are at the table working hard and so i appreciate your passion. i know it has not been an easy journey. >> and first of all, i appreciate your leadership on this. i really appreciate the fact that you understand that you got two agencies, that we really need to bring together. i can tell you the message that you just 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 some progress where they will understand it. and i, again, appreciate your

leadership on it. please appreciate our 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's ever heard of before and it's put on the table as we think we're at the goal line. so thank you very much. and thank you, madam chair. >> obviously a great deal of passion about the sage-grouse. let's go to senator wyden. >> secretary jewell, 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 is so much support for example, for the land and water conservation fund, making it permanent, fully funded and your leadership on that 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 finally have a bipartisan bill on secure rural schools which, of course, was written in this room. it was written in this room in 2000. senator larry craig, i, a whole host of others involved. a real lifeline to resource dependent communities, for funding schools and roads and police and basic services. and it is particularly important that we get mandatory funding for pilt back, because as you know at the end of the year there was this one-year arrangement for pilt and a lot of rural communities are finding that as a result of the complicated pilt formula, they're actually getting less money. it's my understanding that you're supportive of that, getting pilt back to being mandatory, linking it to secure rural schools the way we did a number of years ago, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> ok. second area that is important to my constituents is the

clamouth and we were thrilled you came out for our lunch. we think that not only will this 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? as you know there have been recent things going on in the basin. we want to make sure there's fair treatment to the tribe. the tribe has stepped up. >> i want to compliment you, members of the oregon delegation as well as unprecedented cooperation between the tribes and the ranchers and interests that had been on different sides of the table coming together on the clamouth.

it would be -- >> it's my highest priority for that rural area. they have been so hard hit and to have the farmers come together and the ranchers and the fishing families and environmental folks, i think it cannot just help oregon but be a national model so we appreciate where you are leadership. >> i will say mike was instrumental and will stay very much at the table. >> mike made many treks and we thank you for that. let's talk about wildfire funding for a moment. as you know the system for funding how we fight wildfires is just broken. what ps is prevention gets shortchanged and then -- what happens is prevention gets shortchanged and as a result is it's getting drier and hotter and you get a lightning strike and all of a sudden you get inferno on your hands and government borrows to get the

fire out and the problem gets worse because we're not giving adequate attention to prevention fund as we know we need to do. there is a bipartisan effort that i senator crapo, a big group of westerners are part of, big group in the house is part of. tell us how you feel the increased budget 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're going to have fewer disasters but how would this increased budget certainty be of value to your agency, madam secretary? >> senator, thank you for your leadership. the bill that you put out there with senator crapo and the companion bill with representatives simpson and schrader, we're fully supportive of those efforts. we have in this budget about $200 million of a total $13.2

billion amount that is part of the wildfire funding cap. it would take the top 1% of catastrophic wildfires and put them off as the disasters they really are coming out of the disaster funding cap that wean able us to work with tribes, work with land management agencies to do the important fire prevecks and restoration work to prevent wildfires from getting out of control. -- prevention and restoration work to prevent wildfires from getting out of control. as has been the case for a number of years, we've spent more on suppression and less and less on hazardous fuel removal. a great example is the sunny fire in alaska. prevention efforts protected a community so that we didn't have to spend as much on suppression to protect those homes or to risk those homes going up in smoke. we see this all over the place. and in the case of the sage-grouse, being able to proactively reduce the risk of

rangeland fire is critical to habitat protection so there's no question we'll put the money to good use which would ultimately cost the amount of fighting wildfires. >> madam chair, can i get one last question in? on the question of coal and coal royalties -- as you know i've been concerned sometime that taxpayers aren't getting their share of royalties of coal mined on public lands. when i was chair of this committee, investigation into it senator murkowski and i, co-authored a letter to you all that the issue be researched. i'm encouraged by the rule you have all 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 will be very helpful if you could review a recent report by headwaters economics on this. madam chair if we could put that in the -- madam chair if we could put that in the report.

if you and i could have further conversations on that. >> i'd be delighted. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, secretary jewell, for joining us today and for all you do. i want to talk to you about the pilt program payment in lieu of taxes. on the department of interior website, there's an explanation that the pilt program involves, quote, payments to local programs due to nontaxable federal lands within their boundaries closed quote. and so base on this explanation, i assume you agree with that definition what that description of the -- with that description of the program. based on that you would identify this not as a -- not a handout. it's 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 nontaxable federal land within their jurisdiction, is that right? >> that's correct. i agree with that.

>> now, the 2016 -- >> we will leave this hearing at this point to go to live coverage of the u.s. house today. the house gaveling in at noon eastern for general speeches. members will then meet at 2:00 to open the session. legislative work will get under way at 4:00 eastern today. members are returning from their presidents day recess and today thehouse combected to consider three bills, adding computer science to stem education, consolidating f.c.c. reporting requirements and requiring an e.p.a. plan to deal with algal toxins in drinking water. and now live coverage of the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. february 24, 2015. i here appoint the honorable jeff dunham to act as speaker pro tempore