last week, and i think mister duncan for the tone of his questions because i do think that the secretary is really doing a good job in the interior department, something that's important for protecting our natural resources in this country. last week was great and the advocacy and local leaders were in talking to all of us who agree with that region as you know and the number one issue that is on everyone's mind is the asian car. we have 20 percent of the world's freshwater as you know the thousands of dollars tied to it about $16 billion recreation industry so protecting the delegates ecosystem that provides drinking water and lord knows drinking water is on
everybody's mind it sustains more than 3500 species of plants and animals to the presence of a single carpet in the lakes could disrupt the entire ecosystem and caused serious damage to the lakes as you know. the fish and wildlife service, the us geological survey are all involved in the fight and others species and your budget request was a very modest increase of 669,000 to improve aquatic invasive species prevention how will this plumbing help the department prevent the asian carp from reaching the great lakes which has us all very neurotic and what would happen if this were to be cut and nobody else asked this but is it enough? >> short answer is on this invasive species asian carp and others is not enough compared to the situation we have and i hear it from in both political parties 13,000,000 and a half
dollars for asian carp specifically. the usgs and its work in the dna on early detection, the fish and wildlife service on different methodologies to try and prevent the asian carp from getting into the great lakes. it's a very serious and risky issue. we don't want to get away from us as we have with the zebra and clog the muscles that are infecting many water bodies though this is critical funding to maintain the work we've done.if there was more money we be able to put it to good use as well. >> thank you madame secretary. i want to also applaud the fact your budget proposes a significant investment in our national refuge system which again, i think a lot of people are not appreciating the fact that these refuges are a national treasure that has a network of lands and water that have been established for conservation management and we are appropriate restoration of fish and wildlife and plant resources so i we are protecting these habitats for generation to generation. though i was shocked when i read your testimony last night and saw that more than 400
staff positions have been eliminated since 2010 or have been lost.your proposal to increase funding by $25 million for the refuge system would go a long way toward making the investmentswe need to be making in the system . what kind of principles have you seen from the elimination of these jobs to invest adequate resources in the system and how will you use these increased resources you are proposing and i hope we are going to give you? >> i will give you a specific example from one particular refuge i visited which had a staff of 16. go down to about six. they had a volunteer coordinator that burned out because it's really a full-time position so they couldn't even harness the volunteers necessary to continue the education programs and this is a refuge located close to an urban area. the budget we've got does prioritize urban refuges in particular to begin give some
of these children so disconnected from nature in urban areas and opportunity to understand what's at risk but it doesn't even go close to addressing the issue of where we were a few years ago in terms of providing access resources , invasive species control, hunting, fishing access and so on which is important to people in refuges so i appreciate your support. we will put it to good use, largely around the visitor experience and the urban refuge partnerships but it's nowhere near where we were just half a decade ago. >> you madame secretary. i had a question on cold shell bonding but i'm respecting your time limitations and would request asking a question for the record. >> thank you. you're just in dental pain, that's the reason you're doing it right? >> that's right. i don't recommend it.it's more fun than this though. >> probably more productive also. mister lemieux thought, i'm sorry.
>> thank you mister chairman. we appreciate you being here today. notwithstanding the intensity of questions day, they're very important because we had the same intensity in my district where the glowing poll numbers on blm and parks isn't the same as the people that live next to them when they are subject to burning forests, wolf introduction, alliance and all this other stuff they have to live with next door to and giving up their livestock, pets and families so it's a little bit different when you live next to these areas as it does in the cities that they get the polling information from so that said, i do appreciate you coming here and asking the hard questions as we have to in our district. four years there's been an effort to address water supply issues in la plata. we worked with folks up and down the region who are impacted by the situation so i will ask my colleagues and mister waldman offered a draft bill that i think would have
gone a long way toward resolving these issues and providing the water supply certainty to those folks in the region so now what we have is a pressing forward of the dam removal. what i have here is a copy of an agreement in principle that you signed this last month in which the department of the interior agrees to work with california, oregon, to create a so-called nonfederal entity. this is to engage in the removal of the four dams. this focuses on dam removal alone leaving the water supply the issues at the basin unresolved. and they are doing so without the approval of congress or consultation. so is this nonfederal entity you agreed to create subject to open government and freedom of information act requests question mark in the sense my time is short i will ask you for a compact answer along the yes, sir no lines. >> the nonfederal entity has not been formed yet. subject to and freedom of information it will depend on how it's structured.
i don't know the answer to your question now. >> in terms of federal involvement with your agencies. >> it will be a nonfederal entity formed by the state of california and oregon. >> but you are signers on the agreement . >> the principal in which will create this nonfederal entity by the state of california and oregon. >> this seems like a front company for a process to avoid public scrutiny. my own staff had to work hard to get involved in the sacramento meeting and we asked to be part of what's going on in portland today and they didn't get back to us but they will be there anyway so that sounds like a note to me because there doesn't seem to be an opportunity for open government freedom of information. >> i have another document here. the confidential settlement communication discussion draft. which was circulated at that meeting i mentioned last week in sacramento. this document specifies the
nonfederal entity must be created due yesterday. was there a signature made by your office yesterday on the creation of this entity. >> mark the target date was february 29. x no signature by our office. >> very good. this was a month, again after the first document, the aip and did congress authorized the administration to create a nonfederal entity? >> administration is not creating a nonfederal entity, congress authorizes it is not creation of the administration. it's a creation by the state of california and oregon or oregon as contemplated by the agreement. there's been a desire to have the federal government removed from the dam removal process. i understand that was an issue that was one of the reasons why the administration agreement legislation was not, you're taking the federal government
out of the dam removal process. ess. >> now here's administration involvement including this being a budget hearing that unless you are doing a pro bono is going to have impact on your budget as well. so the very fact you are involved and signed an agreement indicates we are spending federal dollars in this process. is this a pro bono process? >> there has been significant environmental analysis done on the question of dam removal and the bureau ofrecommendations . >> nobodyis spending money from your agency toward this effort. >> through the analysis associated. >> the answer would have to be yes because you are spending your time, agency hours and people . >> that is correct . >> so they don't feel it's important that they need authorization from congressto participate on this project even though we are supposed to budget for it >> there is authorization for dam removal through the federal regulatory committee and that
is the process the committee will go through . >> the process of creating a nonfederal entity , a shell corporation basically? >> that is not part of the circulatory process. desecration by the states of california and oregon. >> i'm out of time miss chairman, thank you. >> you mister chair and thank you madame secretary for being here and answering all our questions i want to talk about cold . and i want to thank you for pushing the pause button on federal cold leasing while you take a long overdue review, long needed review of the program. you said before that this sort of thing, this kind of pause has been done multiple times in the past and i believe my republican administrations. is that right? >> yes, that's correct, both under nixon and reagan. >> so both under nixon and reagan it's been done before. we've had high partisan precedent for this pause and you made it clear that this will not impact existing operations, even with the pause
in new coal production, since coal companies hold approximately 20 years worth of coal on their lease but i think it could be more than 20 years based upon current amounts of production. that coal use as you indicated earlier today is actually on decline and according to information i have from the energy information administration, coal production in 2015 was 10 percent, less than in 2014 and that our use of cold to produce electricity in the united states is now less than 30 percent. i think that's great for the climate. i think, i hope that number gets even smaller as we move forward and that we work with the department of interior to develop more renewable sources for energy rather than coal. can you tell us in your words again why is coal production
down in the united states? >> largely, coal production is down because of a change to natural gas and electricity production. we are the largest, world's largest producer of natural gas. natural gas is both a cleaner burning fossil fuel than coal as well as less expensive to construct new plants and we have seen a significant transition. that, plus renewables and other conservation is the large reason why coal has declined. >> is it also true that other countries are now becoming less interested in purchasing coal and wood also rather purchase more natural gas, is that not true also? s, that's correct also. we've seen declines for example in china. >> i think it's really important for us to get on the record to say that these changes in coal production are not due to administrative policies but they are really
due to the marketplace and that the marketplace now is driving down coal production, not administrative processes or policies. actually, i think we have unfairly, i think then subsidizing coal production from the powder river basin, and letting coal be produced or mined at rock-bottom prices so i'm glad you're taking another look at how we lease coal, that we don't give it away to cheaply madame secretary but while you are doing this revie , i'm just wondering, are you going to include some of the external costs that burning coal produces on our environment and our public health? >> it our intent in the program eis to look broadly at the coal program which will include the environmental impacts of the mining and burning of coal and that will be scoped as we continue with this process in the coming months.
>> i thank you. i think it's important that we take this overarching careful look at coal. i also want to commend you and your department for taking a number of other positive steps. for example, the recent methane venting and flaring draft rule is in my opinion a win-win for both the environment and to taxpayersus last week , gina mccarthy said the oil and gas industry is admitting far more methane than was previously assumed so i think this rule will be timely and it's critically important. i also want to thank you for the proposed rules to strengthen oil and gas oversight in national parks and wildlife refuges. i know ranking member holly and the tsongas and i sent to the assistant secretary schneider with over 50 of our colleagues asking for her to finalize those rules as soon as possible. and the last question i have
is, there was a proposed remote renewable energy competitive leasing rule published almost a year and a half ago. when might we see that finalized, that rule? >> mike may have the answer to that. >> you got on second>> sorry, we will get back to you on that. i can't scramble through the book inthe time . >> thank you and i yield. >> mister graves west and mark . >> thank you mister chairman. secretary jewell, thank you for being here and i commend you for including the conservation fund in the budget request. seeing some of the projects you can participated in across the united states and i think when you acquire land from willing sellers you make sure you're using the right investment rituals and acquiring land that provides value to the country and preserves opportunities for recreation. i think it's the right move and i want to commend you for
funding the program. but i want to pivot on that a little bit. land and water conservation fund as you know is derived from offshore energy production. and so while you are proposing to conserve lands in the west primarily and protect lands in the west primarily, you are taking money from offshore energy production which is primarily in some years up to 90 percent of our offshore energy production of the coast of louisiana. as you know your budget request further slaps the gulf coast in the face by proposing to take those funds to fund land and water conservation and at the same time proposing to diaper our gulf of mexico energy security act funds and get those to alaska. and i talked to mister young earlier and told him that i wasn't going to say anything offensive about alaska. i understand there are severe coastal problems in the community.
he threatened tonight me if i didn't put that caveat in there. he assured me it would be a nonessential part of my body but i'm having trouble reconciling this. so let me take the synopsis here. you are taking funds from energy production off the coast of louisiana and other gulf states. your farming land and water conservation fund in western states to protect their environment to conserve lands. then you're proposing to take other funds due to the gulf states and you are proposing to give it to alaska which i'm not doubting there's merit there and they should have revenue-sharing but why is alaska more important than the gulf coast and wire the western states more important than the gulf coast? let me be clear on this that our position is that the offshore gas and oil revenues collected from federal waters belong to all americans. >> and if i can quote you you just said the flare gases in response to a question previously, what you are talking about on shore, flared gases were also a resource that
all americans enjoy. as you know, for all production under revenue-sharing in the leasing act, up to 90 percent of revenues, 90 percent of the revenues that belong to all americans are sent back to those states through the reclamation fund and revenue-sharing so this whole argument about it belongs to all americans and trying to treat onshore and offshore differently, it doesn't hold water. >> let me say talking about federal waters and state waters, obviously the state gets the revenues on lands that are within state boundaries. they have a 50 percent revenue share. the offshore is owned by all americans. it's in federal waters. it's not in state waters. >> your saint onshore is not owned by all americans because you saidflare gas was all americans. i thought those landmark lands within state boundaries . >> public lands are owned by all americans. >> and the mineral resources on those lands are also owned by all americans.
>> that's correct and when it's within the boundaries of the state there's revenue share. went outside the boundaries of the state as indicates to the outer continental share there is not a revenue share until the mesa. >> is that because the offshore production doesn't affect our coast like in the example of the dew point horizon where we had 600 miles of louisiana. is that the reason? >> your impacted both from environmental consequences and also economic opportunities there's $17 billion i believe for gulf coast restoration . as a result . >> i'm sorry. you raise the same thing last time. that is because of law. you can't you say we lose money because bp is now paying their fines and penalties. you can have a maintenance and revenue swap. to madam secretary, i'm offended. i really am and a lot of people in the gulf coast are offended. but let me take it a step further. if you look at what's happening right now we have lost 25
percent of our oil and gas workforce in the state of louisiana. 25 for percent in the last 14 months. to add insult to injury you proposed rule, and god bless the people that work offshore and energy is complex and technical. the rule they have written, they fundamentally don't understand the technology associated with offshore energy. i don't pretend to understand it as well as industry does, i can tell you it's flawed. you're proposing a tax at the same time we lifted export bands. how in the world are we going to compete on a global basis if you were increasing the tax on domestic product by anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of the price? it doesn't make sense. >> well control well will be finalized soon and i think you will find significant changes have been made. >> thank you. now we know all we have to do is brandish a knife to control him. >> thank you mister chairman and thank you all for being here.i'd like to add my support to mister cartwright's reclaim act which is bipartisan and mister cartwright is the lead democrat on it.
i would like to clarify, the doctor has left but we said nice things about his praise for the fish and wildlife service . the judge set aside that listing because as part of the fish and wildlife delisting they made it contingent on the states developing typically managed plans for the walls and those plans inhabit. we found the wholesale slaughter of the wolves, poisoning, trapping, anything other than recreational hunting so we will see how the court case goes and how it goes in the senate. i wanted to start with three thank youse.thanks so much for every kid in the park initiative. i think it's great to hear all these fourth-graders. we are taking fourth-graders from mount vernon woods elementary to the great falls. it will be a very exciting for them. i think it will perhaps change their lives to think about the outdoors in a different way. thank you for putting in your budget all the efforts to save the coalminers pension fund. i know there's 100,000 coal miners affected by this . when the whole thing went bankrupt, there's a lot of
people that are just desperate in southwest virginia and across the country. they spent their lives mining coal who suddenly had no pension or health benefits look forward to so thank you very much for that. and thank you or putting the 2 billion in four coastal resilience project. again, the east coast, the atlantic is so heavily affected by it. i'm sorry mister young has left because i was impressed to see in your written testimony you said this coastal climate resilience program would address the unique impacts of climate change on alaska. for rising seas, coastal erosion and storm surges are threatening native villages that must prepare for potential reallocation. so one quick question. it looks like the 2 billion may not be approved. is there any merit in looking for a smaller pilot project, five 10 million that would continue the national fish and wildlife foundation's work on coastal resiliency?
>> coastal resilience is a big issue. it's certainly on the atlantic coast, alaska as you mentioned, also on the gulf coast mister graves which was part of the intent on the redirection of the goal mesa money to coastal resilience. funds did not exclude the gulf, that's very much included. we have a problem with coastal resilience across the united states and if we are not successful in this particular program we are going to have to find ways to support these communities that are very much impacted. in your own state the impact on jamestown is very significant, both in terms of historic artifacts, archaeological artifacts because we see a dramatic increases in sea level rise and storms associated with climate change and that's true alongthe atlantic seaboeaboasd it is in alaska and the gulf coast . >> and we've seen the rising water levels and not in the last 10 years affecting the naval base. i'd also like to mention an effort to quantify outdoor
recreation as contributions. and once again, it's a bipartisan bill called the wreck act. the recreation and economic enhancement act.it was by senators garner and shaheen and now we are putting the other representative riker, representative morris rogers, can you tell us about how you will work with the department of commerce and labor to make sure this kind of the economic data is comprehensive and gives us the tools we need to stimulate the outdoor recreation question mark. >> i'm going to turn to chris because we are working closely with the economic folks on this right now. >> as i hope to work with the department of congress to better economic analysis and the department of labor to capture how beneficial the recreational, outdoor recreation is to our economy, that would be something all of the land management bureaus would work with those entities. the hope is to create what they call a satellite account to
supplement what we have in terms of data on economics from outdoor recreation. >> thank you. we only have 35 seconds left. we spent a lot of time in this committee talking about the endangered species act. can you go one step further because i know you've got a lot on conductivity. can you talk more about connectivity efforts nationally? >> the key to habitat in general for species is looking at the landscape more holistically and that means connectivity. one of the biggest challenges we had has been fragmentation and so you can have little pockets and islands and support species so the pine forest in the southern states, the great lakes ecosystem, the chesapeake bay, these are all important. >> mister warehouse. >> thank you mister chairman. welcome secretary jewell. i've got three questions to ask and i'm going to try to talk fast and i appreciate do the
same. the state we both call home the last two years as suffered from record-setting catastrophic wildfires and my district certainly has been the case. since 2000, the department's budget for fighting wildfires was less than their actual cost and i know about the ten-year average system for this suppression efforts. after these last two fire seasons, do you think a ten-year average is the most practical way to allocate funding for fire suppression, even with your proposed 290 million adjustment to the? additionally what will likely happen to other critical activities such as forest fuel management, health and resiliency projects, should more funds be required to fight fires in the coming year and as a follow-up, what do you believe the interior department and forest service could do to
ensure adequate forest management and rehabilitation occurs in order to get a head of this cycle we put ourselves in. >> thank you very much for pointing out the vicious cycle. we do not have adequate funds in our budget to continue the work rangeland and forest health as well as fighting fires. it's moreacute in the forest service than it is for the department of the interior but it's acute for both of us. i was on the caldwell reservation , i am a red carded so i was able to go out on the fires themselves. these fires are burning hotter and longer because we are not doing fuel treatment.we don't have the money to do that we would welcome eight ex. we put in place in our budget the fix that was recommended by congress and on both bodies and we hope that passes. certainly we could use more for fuel removal and would people put people to work and we would welcome the opportunity. >> i want to thank you for addressing the elephant in the room in your opening comments about the recent protests that shine a spotlight on federal
management of lands in the west with what happened in oregon. one of the issues i hear from my constituents is regarding back hurting, the practice of back burning and you are familiar with that. certainly in the case of the hammond family they are being prosecuted and using an anti-terrorism statute for trying to protect their private property which i find somewhat concerning. that seems like it's over prosecution, especially since the federal government uses the same practice and it's not unusual for those fires, the federal government starts to spread on private lands with no compensation to thelandowners so to answer your position on the use of back burning , what would you have me tell my constituents who have to decide whether to protect their land or face an anti-terrorism charge if they do? x let me separate these a
little bit. back burning is absolutely an important practice for fuel management on private and public lands and when there is aninadvertent spread which does occasionally happen , it's typically not a criminal prosecution. the situation with the hammonds was different and there was other activity, poaching activity specifically that was being covered up . that came out in that criminal prosecution which hasn't hit the media but there's no question back burning is important and i would suggest yourconstituents work closely with the federal land management agencies to coordinate those efforts and i think we do that frequently across the landscape . >> thank you. one more question real quick. given that there's ample evidence to support the listing of the gray wolf, do you believe the wolf has been adequately recovered and should be delisted and additionally,
why has the department of the interior and fish and wildlife service failed to finalize this proposed rule and move forward with delisting? >> the fish and wildlife service as recommended delisting of the gray wolf due to recovery. we had that action stayed by the courts. so we cannot move forward as a result of that but we have recommended for delisting due to recovery. >> so you support delisting. we look forward to working with you on making that happen. thank you mister chairman, i yield back. >> miss secretary i don't know what your schedule was. we have roughly 40 minutes of questions still here on the panel. that would take us untilquarter till . are you want to dropdead schedule here? >> know, i'm willing to stay until quarter till . >> miss torres. >> thank you. the chairman, i'm happy to be having at least an initial discussion on a budget process here in this committee. secretary jewell, thank you for being here. as you know the indian health
service to its annual appropriations provides contract import cost to indian tribes in tribal organizations to offset the costs of administering ihs, the funded program under self-determination contracts. indian tribes and tribal organizations have raised concerns about the contract of support fundings shortfalls and note that these shortfalls have resulted in reduced services or decrease efficiency for tribes with contracts. my first question to you is do you consider the fiscal year 2017 request of 278 million for contract support costs adequate to help tribes as they work to provide effective health services and secondly, because we don't have a lot of time, how would tribes consulted and their program needs consider when coming up with the 270 $8 million budget?
>> let me just answer generically. the indian health services were hhs so that's not my budget but we do have contract support costs for all the self-determination contracts we have in the interior. we are supportive 100 percent of contract support costs and that is what we anticipate the level to be that is reflected in our budget. we did settle the raiment litigation which was around past nonpayment of contract support costs. that's a resulted in close than $1 billion of payouts to tribes for us not living up to our obligations in the past. this budget reflects our intent to pay full contract support costs both for indian health service and those contracts within the interior and other agencies. x so my second question was how did that process look like. what did it look like? were you consulting with tribes to ensure that their needs were met?
>> the short answer is yes. there is a tribal budget committee that meets in conjunction with our policy management budget. this tribal consultation throughout. >> we work closely with the tribes in looking at the program costs in this issue and another thing we did this year is adopted what the congress provided in 2016 which is an indefinite count to make sure there is sufficient funds for contract support costs and we continued the proposal from last year asking or full mandatory funding in 2018 for this purpose. >> thank you. going back to the question mister graves asked , can you help me understand that process of funding or taking funds from international waters which we be considered for the entire country and areas where it's within a state and what does that look like?>> so in 1964, congress passed the law and water conservation act and that said, we are going to allow to $900 million from oil
and gas activities in federal waters to support land conservation across the united states. so that was authorized and roughly about 50 percent of what was authorized has been spent over the years. that is because those are in the out outer waters that belong to all americans. it's about 1.7 billion acres. onshore within the boundaries of the states there is a 50 percent revenue sharing so when blm typically does oil and gas activities by private companies, those companies pay a royalty to the federal government. half of that goes to states when it's on shore. that is not true offshore with the exception of this goal mesa proposal in the gulf of mexico energy security act i believe which starts to ramp up in 2018 and directs money from revenue
sharing from the gulf of mexico production to fourstates only . the president's budget recommends that the repealed and that money used for coastal resilience projects across the country. >> sothe only way to change that formula would be through the legislative process question mark. >> that's correct. >> chairman, i yield back. >> mister goza . >> one of president obama's signature pledges on the campaign trail was to run the most transparent administration in us history.in fact his commitment to create an unprecedented level of hopefulness still stands probably at the top of the white house is open government webpage. you believe in transparency and honoring that pledge? >> i do. >> does your agency typically comply with the freedom of information request and what is the average turnaround time? >> we do comply with requests, that's done by career staff. i don't know what their response time is.
>> but my understanding is you try to respond within 30 days, true? i don't know. >> i find it interesting yesterday that at 4 pm your agency sent me 140 three pages of crap responding to a four-year request from eight members of congress made three months ago about information related to potential monument designations. in our request we asked for all federal land units under your jurisdiction that have been considered, analyzed and designated as national monuments since january 20 2009. we know your agency sent us a crap sandwich comprised entirely of other members written questions to you during last year's budget hearings without your response. a third grader could have provided this. shame. and you wonder why we have problems. your agency is intimately involved in carrying out the national monument designations,
right? >> that's a presidential powe . we are asked to weigh in on recommendations. yes, we are involved sometimes. >> your agency requested 43 million, $9 million increase for such activities in this year's budget. since you haven't responded to our four-year request from the eight members of congress i'm going to give you one more chance today. how many more new national monuments does this administration plan to designate this year? what are the names and geographiclocations of potential monuments being considered? >> that is entirely up to the president of the united states . there are many people that come through the doors saying we'd like you to look at monuments. there are assessments that happen from across the country of interest. they go directly to the white house. >> let me stop you there. so the present hasn't given you any detailedleanings one way or the other. >> the president has not. >> absolutely zip . >> absolutely zip. >> let's move on.
have you ever visited mesa flats i've been to the apache tribe. >> but you haven't. >> i've flown over it. >> you haven't been on the ground. okay. once again the same type of thing. in december 2014 you stated in a poorly worded press release the oak flat area as significant cultural, religious and architectural value. if you never visitedthere how can you make such a claim? >> i sat in a room in a nursing home with elders from the san carlos apache tribe, all of whom were in tears over the potential . >> i'm glad you said that. let me interrupt. so miles, current member of the san carlos tried and a former tribal historian recently wrote a full-page op-ed stating that oak flat campground had never been a sacred site and by the way, here's a copy for your records so that you can read this. three times representative
patrick and i have sent the park service a bipartisan letter asking the agency to withdraw fundamentally flawed historical place nomination for oak flat. the first time this nomination was published in june 2015 there was no notification to my office door mister patrick. initial nomination was redacted. included no maps and was listed under a misspelled city not even close to the proposed location. just yesterday park service finally utilized the name oak flat and published a new listing notice in the federal register allowing five days for public comment. does this sound like a transparent process to you? asked there are many many properties that, for national register listing. >> so five days of public comment for people there is an adequate statement right?
>> i'll have to look intoit. i don't know the specifics. >> this gets old and old and you talking about back burning and forests. when are we going to start taking the load out of the forest so we don't have these exorbitant catastrophic fires ? for fire initiative is one of those applications where we're supposed to be thinning the forest so we don't have these horribly despondently on scientifically based problem of birds. >> review is a common denominator here and i will start pushing common sense. thank you. >> mister paul's . >> thank you mister chair. i want to actually follow up on a bill that i have with mister gosar that asked the question. we know renewable energy development of public land has great opportunity. since 2009 there's been over 50 large-scale energy products on public lands. but the siding and permitting process around getting those projects going is frequently
stands in the way and i recently heard an anecdote from a company yesterday that abandoned the project after seeking permitting for several years and when we compare this oil and gas that seems to be able to get on our public lands without any notice or any process, without any process or anything else. they just go drill. i wonder we can do to make it more of a level playing field. i've introduced the public lands renewable energy development act. as an overseer of 20 percent of our nation's land, can you commit to pushing for more renewable energy development and facilitating and expanding the opportunities to move through the process around use of federal right lands for renewable energy? >> let me start by saying we do a process any time we do activities on federal land including oil and gas but it's our intent to help facilitate renewable energy development and the best examples of that
have been in california and nevada which have been desert renewable energy conservation plants. landscape level look and the solar energy zones within the state of nevada so we welcome the opportunity to do more of that and accelerate the potential that we have on our public lands. >> are you saying the drilling establishing a drilling rig on public land requires the full process? >> we do nepa when we do the leasing process. i don't know each individual rate would require that. once we issue a permit that's within the broad nepa development for those areas. >> once land is least there's no need forprocess around the siding of the well . as you know i represent a district that has great tourism economy and of course one of the types of lead you oversee are on national parks and of course congratulations on the centennial, we are excited about that. we had a number of festivities in rocky mount park. we had our own centennial last year for that part
it's also an economic lifeline for our area . 3 million visitors generating hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity, thousands of jobs and of course it's your responsibility to maintain those treasures and of course rocky mountain national park alone faces a maintenance backlog of $68 million. do you believe the national parks service as the efficient resources to manage its natural assets across the ecosystems and what can congress do to help ensure that nps can help maintain this vital investment in keeping economic prosperity in regions where our economy relies on a national parks? >> thanks for recognizing that an investment in national parks drive a great return to the american taxpayer, it's about four dollars return for every dollar spent. the budget we have on the discretionary side begins to chip away at the maintenance backlog but we need a longer-term solution and we put on the table a proposed
centennial legislation that would do that and clear up the high-priority maintenance backlog within 10 years so we appreciate support from this body to make that happen. >> thank you and thanks for mentioning, i was going to ask you about the return on investment or public lands. you mentioned 4 to 1. in addition to that return it's crucial that we make sure all americans including diverse populations and underserved communities and youth have opportunities to experience nature, benefit from our public lands. what can your department do to connect people especially to underserved populations with the great benefits of the outdoors and our public lands question mark . >> we got about $100 million spread across the department with everything from internships to every kid in the park. the every kid in the park program, every fourth-grader in america has access to america's public lands. we are giving up our training for that. we are raising private money supplemented with our money to get title i schools access to go to those places and there are many other programs that we
are doing philanthropic he as well as with our own resources to ensure that next generation is introduced. >> my final question is around interstate transmission lines like trans west and gateway south. there's been concern that they were given preferential treatment even though they have huge impact on habitats as well as other areas of wilderness character. what are you doing to ensure the transmission lines won't cause degradation to our public lands. >> that was factored into the analysis. we know these are important lands and we took that into account with the state trust land. >> for the record mister syncing. >> thanks mister chairman. you mentioned the driver behind the lack of cold mind was the market but also also the punishment that cole has taken on regulation also has an impact. my question really is about the moratorium. you said in statements the
other day it would not affect jobs. what have you done an economic analysis of the jobs and states like alabama, arkansas, colorado, kentucky, wyoming, north dakota, oklahoma, utah and montana on the effect of jobs in the moratorium on cold? >> the pause we are putting on cold leases had a number of exclusions to them, exclusions for metallurgical coal recognizing that existing coal mines have nearly 20 years or more than 20 years of coal under lease but exceptions also so that if a mind is at risk of shutting down that we can consider that an exception. if a powerplant is at risk of shutting down. we also grandfathered a number of projects that were in the pipeline and nearing completion and have provided an ongoing ability for people to conduct their nepa analysis so they
continue their efforts during the time we are doing the pis so we believe we've made accommodations to where there will be no impact on cold jobs. >> do i have your commitment then if a mine company applies for one of these exceptions your agency will work to ensure the processing of those requests and an application is done before they have to shut down. >> mark. >> yes, they got to come to us with sufficient time. they can come the day before the shutdown but as long as they come to us and work with us will happy to work with them to support the exceptions we put in place. >> thank you. i turned to buffalo which is a big issuein montana . as i went out to montana to tour across and there's concern about places with the buffalo and the argument is this. the cattlemen that lease the land are required to have a certain amount of animals for per acre. the required have fences, required not to graze year-round.
and there are a number of us fish and game areas that have been identified for grazing not to accord. the fear is when the buffalo came and it seemed like we scraped all those rules away. that the proposal is that buffalo don't have to have a number of buffalo per acre. fences are going to be removed because buffalo arche ethical to keep in the fence. year-round grazing and you talk about the nepa process. if were going to make a change of that scope would you agree that the same environmental impact statements would apply to cattle as they do to buffal ? in fact if we are going to make this scale of change? >> i know there's a national bison plan , i'm not specifically familiar with how bison raising range versus
cattle raising range. all that would be taken into account if we took federal action to impact that but we are happy to get back to you with more information on that. >> the national bison plan is by a group that, i've never had a problem on public or private land when you do it as long as there are provisions in place with the cattle and buffalo can live in a relative area of harmony but on public land, they were obligated to have the same environmental review on it and if there are problems they need to be addressed and the buffalo plan to my knowledge has never been through the state of montana where it affects. lastly,the question is parks. i'm sure we all agree on the importance of our parks but looking at your budget , we all know you are behind and i just got to talking to the superintendent of yellowstone. i know the superintendent of glacier. i grew up in the backyard but you and i both have toured the
parks within your budget it doesn't seem like it you prioritize the infrastructure so if the infrastructure is so important on road maintenance, why isn't it at the top of the list on your budget as far as national parks? >> infrastructure and beginning to deal with the backlog is a very high priority in our budget so it's in there not only in the discretionary budget but our recommendations for the centennial initiative which would clear up the high-priority maintenance backlog over 10 years. >> would you say if the top priority because as you look through it there's a lot of other programs in their that should be infrastructure first i would think before some of these other education programs, some of these ones that are less on the list. >> in our centennial year, the visitors experience is also important. >> i think we are almost a quarter till and i said that. i've got four or five witnesses left. if i could ask them, i don't know about your time. i feel bad about this but if i
can ask us to voluntarily limited to three minutes instead of five for the next? can you stick around that long? i'm sorry, mister glaser . >> there is one issue that supports rural counties in arizona and across the west. in fact, arizona receives the fourth largest pill cam and in the country. copies of the funds to provide party services thatreally , they provided every year but they are struggling without permits for funding from congress in terms of long-term funding. the voluntary they faced during the budget process is cost counties to withdraw money from the reserve accounts to pay for essential services and the continued state only will eventually lead to layoffs of ancestral employees in these county areas. could you talk about the importance for congress to secure a guaranteed future funding and how it impacts services on public lands question.
>> thanks for the question. we do not believe that pill should be subject to the vagaries of this process every year. we know it's essential for 9/11 services, for many county services, education and so on so we are supportive of a long-term solution to this and we would welcome this body working with us on that.thank you. >> thank you. were you done? >> mister adam back. >> thank you mister chairman. secretary jewell, thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to be here today. i know you've got a demanding job and i appreciate the work you do. as you know, every year a little over 22 million is provided to americans by the office of insular affairs for the operations of the local government, you just sherry and
lbj hospital. the people of american are very grateful for the assistance the united states provides and we cherish our relationship as demonstrated by the rate of enlistment into our nation's armed forces. which is higher than any other state or territory. however as you may know this level of funding has not changed since its inception over 20 years ago despite inflation. a growing population and federally mandated wage hikes. on page 19 of fy 17 budget justifications for oia, it's noted that american far more does not have significant revenues to fund the entire operating cost of its government. also within that section it's noted that a secondary object of the deepening program for americans is to promote self-sufficiency. by maintaining the operations funding at a constant level, requiring american farmer to absorb the cost of federally
mandated wage hikes and inflation does not lend itself to self-sufficiency. actually quite the opposite. by maintaining a consistent funding level since its inception, the government of american samoa has been forced to play catch-up which has caused real and needs on the island.for instance, the hospital cannot serve our local veterans to the fact they do not meet va standards forcing them to fly to hawaii which is like flying from los angeles to dc every time they need hospital care. an increase in this funding would go a long way to resolving those issues at the hospital. the asc operation funding provided currently represents approximately 13 percent of ast's general fund revenue and 11 percent of lbj's revenue. parks outside the control of our constrained local government and parks that
prevent our people from resources that could be needed could be used to further other initiatives such as badly needed energy infrastructure projects and climate change initiatives. i look forward to continuing to work with the department to ensure the people of the united states territories and particularly american samoa are not left behind and are allocated the same resources and opportunities as their counterparts in the states. mister chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mister harding. >> thank you madame secretary for being here along with your deputies. each year we hold budget hearings and we hear about the massive backlogs and currently it's about $19 billion. at the same time each year the congress receives request to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on acquisition of new lands gives me grave concern with condit i heard a few minutes ago that we acquire these lands to close access to our lands. that was your words when the
question was asked. it's hard for me to understand and square the circle when he's extra dollars so to speak, i understand we have massive bureaucracy that already cannot manage the enormous land currently in its possession and can ask that more money to buy more land gives me concern. either we manage the land we have or let someone else i can take care of it. but let's say the department of the interior gets this $20 million that is requested in the president's budget. that's 11 percent increase. can the american people expect a 11 percent decrease in our backlog with that 11 percent better management across the board and especially given the fact that the budget requests are funding another 1100 new full-time employees? >> let me start with the first part of your comments.
we have money in the budget to increase access to the land and water conservation fund. there's money there that would be used for sportsman's access for conservation easements across private land. there's nothing we do . >> mistress thompson asked you about why we acquire these lands and your words were it helps us to close access. >> i don't believe i said that. >> is on the record. >> in answer to your other question? i just want to be clear. in terms of the $18 billion figure that includes permanent and mandatory funding. the fair comparison is the 13.3 that is in discretionary funding compared to the . >> the answer should be yes in my opinion so i want to go to another thing stated here by mister polis from the other side of the eye. you asked the question and said the 4 to 1 return was on those public lands. is that the case? >> that the national parks service number.
>> he said public lands, you said park service. with that we should expect we shouldn't need a budget, we should be able to finance it yourself getting that kind of return. >> return goes to local communities, places like the park incolorado , like utah so it's not a return to the parks service. it's a return to the local communities largely. >> i really would like to ask the question on face about the bill indicates its be able to focus on revoking the withdrawals that are no longer needed with this intended purpose at the time the announced 10 million acre mineral withdrawal dui officials went on record as saying the withdrawal areas do not appear to have highly prospective mining . on what information were such statements based as there are abundant usps state data indicating otherwise? >> i've been unfair trying to
cut these laughs off early so we will give you a chance to answer that. >> the 10 million acres of proposed lands for mineral withdraws are 10 million acres that are critical habitat for stage route. there are areas that have mining potential, most of them do not. we are working through this process, the two-year segregation process with states, with mining companies, with companies and other interested parties to identify areas where they believe they should not be part of the withdrawal. there are active discussions for example going on in nevada. we will continue to work with states throughout this process. >> thank you.mister walden. >> thank you mister chairman, madame secretary and secretary connor thank you for being here. i will try to move through these quickly. if you know the malhuer wildlife refuge in my district and i appreciate the work of the people who do their in the bln and i understand what they have been through. but i want to get to the issue of the monument.
you and i had a phone conversation about this. i know you met with judge bresee and commissioner reynolds as well and the malhuer county commission and judge have written you expressing their off opposition to any monument there and i want to reconfirm there is no effort in your agency, no coordination with ceq or the white house you are aware of to do a ye kenya's national monument? >> the concept came from i think he footwear. it's one of those things people have recommended to us but we have not held any community meetings so we have not had any discussions in those communities. people have been actively asking about it. >> but is there any coordination with the white house you are aware of or was ceq , because i would assume they would come to you. >> not that i'm aware of. >> if that happens would you be willing to let me know and the committee know if that process begins? because you and i have talked in the past, there's been some prior administrations because
you have eggs and people i represent real concerns so i appreciate that. second, now that the armed standoff is over at the refuge i hope the bln will move rapidly on complying with federal law regarding the mountain and fencing issue up there on steens. i think you to talk to judge presley about that. >> i talked about that with judge grassley and i went on following up with cl and under the protection act which i helped author, that fencing if it's an issue of doing a caa or gis could be done on private adjacent land and landowners are open to that to that is the plan for the law. the bln was wrong in this case in their initial analysis and i think. you are. thank you for coming out. >> .. you can convert that. thank you for coming out. i am sure you will be disappointed to know one of the environmental group says now sued over that.
this is the frustration. when the collaboration does come together and another group sues and it is frustrating to what we are trying to do out there. that is an issue as well. i want to commend the interior department finally getting done the change in the scenic river status on bowman damn and moving that down. it took far longer than i wanted to, but i commend you for getting that done. as for law enforcement funding call because this was a federal facility and most of the people were not from the county, let alone the state, i hope the federal government will figure out a way to help cover some of the american -- some of the cost. >> let me give you some flexibility.
>> thank you for your time and some particularly for your advocacy of the people of the county. that is something we are happy to have a dialogue on. >> i am happy to have the conversation with you on that and other matters. i look forward to continuing those discussions as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> unanimous consent, try to keep it within three. >> there are three documents i ask, but they have been put in front of you. if you could give those to madame secretary, the 1st document is an agreement.
thank you so much. the 1st document is an agreement between santa fe county. if you would go to page five , you can see that it is signed and agreed to by the tribal council. there is an amendment to issue rights to some of the county roads. i want to read this in the record. pueblo in santa fe county. all rights are as presented in the resolution date june 61989 and si double 08. the purpose of this amendment is to specify the term of rights-of-way. hereby agreed to that the rights-of-way, county road
>> i've been with the bureau of indian affairs a bit of a stone wall. quoting part of the letter from santa fe county the county has always been interested in reaching a more permanent solution, but they asserted the ambiguity. a database that is reviewed. there is something called the pueblo land act that the
congress adopted. all the adjudicated lands were cleared up. patents were issued which is my understanding, the clearest title that you can have in the us. they're trying to sell the land i bring all this to your attention with a little bit of passion because this community needs our help. thanks for the indulgence. in light of the amendment. thank you. >> this is the 1st i've heard of it. my door and phones are
always open. don't feel like you have to come to a budget hearing. >> secretary, a number of social justice issues in california's central valley, areas that will once again have a zero water allocation and 50 percent unemployment, water that will be trucked in, mobile showers, food lines, social justice issues go on and on. one question in particular, three weeks you this committee heard about the non-native fish in the river and adults and elsewhere where they are killing and eating up to 98 percent of the threatened and endangered species. spending so much water on trying to save.
the big conflict is perpetuated by the central valley project improvement act not only are we trying to double the goal of trying to double the engagement but trying to double the goal -- the goal is to double the non-native fish eating 90 percent of what we are trying to save commend the main reason we are pushing this water out of the ocean bypassing the central valley and creating big social justice issues. this federal fish doubling goals and striped bass and i asked you simply to agree with addressing the endangered and threatened species rather than having a conflicting goal that causes a greater imbalance. >> congressman, thank you for raising the issue. many legislative proposals.
this is a constant theme. wewe are happy to take a look at your legislation. the provisions have been essentially stayed. there has been no action on them. having said that, there is a chance to double them. there have been provisions for a demonstration project, provision to undo the provision within the cbp i-a >> deal with predation i will say in front of this committee we have several people testify that have said predation is one of the key reasons we have already pushed out to the ocean in
the last few months. we months. we look forward to working with you on that and rapid response. >> one minute. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> nondisclosure forms in sacramento. the 5 o 1 c 3 that they will call the dam removal. also highlights so far. were you aware that nondisclosure forms are required to be signs to participate in the sacramento and portland hearing? >> yes, i was made aware of that. >> even my office subject when it should be a public process, millions of taxpayer dollars.
>> with respect to those meetings amongst the parties,parties, and so it was the parties themselves seeking nondisclosure. >> they will be seeking federal funding for the record. i will be submitting a frame -- freedom of information request for all these documents related to the portland meeting today and anything else that has come online. i appreciate a rapid response on that and would ask that as we go forward, the most transparent administration with all these secret meetings and no -- and being discussed on the water supply. this is a gem job on my district. sorry, but this is tough business and i yield back. >> i also have a request on
[inaudible conversations] >> the supreme court heard oral argument in a case that questions the constitutionality of a texas law which requires doctors performing abortions and clinics to have hospital admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius. opponents claim it significantly narrows access to abortion services. you can listen tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern here on c-span2. >> every weekend on american history tv feature programs that tell the american story. highlights include saturday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern. association for the study of african american life in history poster 90th annual black history luncheon. the keynote address.
>> i think some of you might remember. i don't remember anything else. they came to help them. but put his hand. they asked. >> and at 8:00 p.m. on lectures in history, confederate veterans during reconstruction and how many southern organizations founded to aid veterans instead put the money toward large war monuments and pro-
confederate propaganda. sunday afternoon at five persian gulf war veteran recounts his participation and operation desert shield and desert storm and describes the soldiers day-to-day activities, harsh conditions. >> we were just a few wiles from the border so we went up as fast as we could and underneath the ground was shale. and so we are digging our positions 6 inches in the ground to withstand an iraqi onslaught. >> then at 630 the race for the 2,004 democratic nomination between
massachusetts senator john kerry the complete american history tv schedule go to c-span.org. >> first, the space program, discussing how budget uncertainty, international competition, and the declining workforce is impacting the us role in space exploration. this is just under an hour. >> welcome to our new speaker this morning. chairman of the new speaker committee and on behalf of our president and members of the national press club we
are delighted to have you here. i am also delighted to say that not only a journalist but just became deputy chair of our committee. and this is a very special newsmaker today. during the year we have been looking at issues that we think will become issues, not only for the next -- during the presidential campaign but certainly the next administration and perhaps a critical issue in that area is space, space exploration has been the great human adventure of modern times, and during the next administration will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of when we landed on the moon. i think our speakers today are going to discuss that
and how we can ensure us stays the leader in space. we don't allow a lot of time for questions. in addition to reporters gathered in the room and welcome all those live on c-span, but a large number of reporters on the line from around the us. keep the introduction is relatively sweet. following the remarks we will help with questions for probably about a half-hour. first, our 1st bigger will be eliot poem, ceo of the space foundation. followed by a former space shuttle astronaut and current executive director of the american institute of aeronautics followed by eric stallman, president of the commercial spaceflight federation. and so i will be back with
me get to the q and a period i will let eliot take it from here. >> thank you for being here this morning. this is a day we have been looking forward to, the coalition of groups, and it is all about ensuring the us leadership in space continues. we all no we are in the middle of an election year. we thought it would be a good time to have a platform of information out there that all candidates can refer to, learn from, and take to heart as they plan their campaigns and plan their policies and administrations going forward. terribly important for a
number of reasons. it is an instrument of technology development that has given us the technology base that we enjoy today, help us to be a technology leader in the world, provides the advantages we need to keep the nation secure in the military and defense since providing opportunities for students wanting to advance their careers, learning what is out there in the great unknown and also the essential infrastructure of our time. most people don't think of it that way. c-span or friends on the phone lines, all these networks are interconnected. everything that runs the world is essentially on the backbone of the space systems we put in place.
to do that we did something rather unprecedented, together a group of our organizations in a way that had not been done before. the idea for doing this comes from the very surprising place for most of you, it actually came in a board meeting at the space foundation from p.j. o'rourke, and many of you know him. and he said, you know these people have a really short attention span and we ought to put something together that is short and concise. if p.j. had had his way we would have had a one sentence paper that said spaces good, keep investing. however, with a number of organizations that we do have involved, we want to be more specific and layout greater rationale which is
one of the great achievements if you look at the dozen organizations that are involved in this project , all of us took to heart that this needed to represent the entire space community. all of the organizations, board members had a chance to have their inputs in. what we have is a rather unprecedented consensus of space community in the us from academia to corporate to government offices. it is a splendid, energetic community you have all
managed to come together and put together this document which we are in the process of sharing with the presidential campaigns and will continue as we go forward and leave this out into campaigns of people who are running for the house and for governors offices and so forth to try and have a good base of understanding on a national level just how important spaces. there have been, as there always are, some people who have really, really shouldered a biga big burden, as you can imagine trying to coordinate input. my colleagues here, i want to thank sandy and eric my team with the camera in the
double-breasted suit. we think that paper speaks for itself. as a paper that addresses pretty much every sphere of influence the space touches. thank you for your interest in the project are being here today, look forward to having your questions. i'd like to turn it over to sandy. >> am delighted to be here. we have been working hard on this for many months. a lot of input from all over. across the industry about what we think is important because of the way our political process works we
really want the momentum that has been gathering to continue. there are exciting things going on. i describe it, it is a big bubble. a lot of knowledge and experience since we started launching in the 60s. the baseline level of knowledge is out there and available the college students who are doing amazing things. baseline level of knowledge and fundamental understanding of what it is like it is enabling the larger population to engage, but the way technology has developed such that when you think about what your smart phone can do and so that's
also creating accessibility. we have an entrepreneurial sector that understands the risk reward. the leveraging all the great experience that is allowing nasa to expand the bubble of exploration. expand the bubble, expand the knowledge to create industry, economic advantages for people to come along. getting people engaged in aa way that may be is not so connected directly with government funding. this is a fragile transition it could take 20 years.
and that is what we are excited about. >> a tough act to follow. the organizations that we are doing. a range of different organizations and it is quite the venn diagram, the overlap. believer going to go to work every day. it is a great opportunity for so many and i cannot think of a better industry to be in batches now been the future. and that is what we are talking about, the investments we're making in space today, long-term, not
just with the federal government is doing but the private sector and the investments they are putting forth. ten years ago ideas we had not thought about. >> i adamantly oppose. no matter who the candidate will shape up to be it is an interesting question. we want to make sure that my all the other issues they have to deal with, spaces at the forefront of the ideas that they are focusing on. all of us collectively, space is the gateway to the
21st century, innovation, technology being developed is really propelling an industry that there are no boundaries to all we can do. doing a breaking through on technological barriers that have not been touched, and it is also the bubble that we had the space program with tremendous, to a tremendous accomplishments, some people felt left out and that we could do more. especially with the anniversary of the lunar landing, and it is exciting to see companies across the board working on these fantastic innovative ideas and projects and it is great to work with the associations we work with because it brought forth a
lot of the interest we have an from different perspectives and corners. it is exciting. we tried to cover as much as we could. energize the youth, the industry, and certainly the decision-makers that can have an impact on what we do keep the path forward. and with that i will turn it over to you for questions. >> so, we will go to q&a. i have done a lot but have never made a family affair. my son william is on break from college. he will pass around the microphone. if you could devote you have a question raise your hand.
some of the questions from phone as well. >> good morning, space news. lots of white papers. what are you doing to get this to the candidates, particularly the presidential candidates who said very little about space policy so far and get them to take more of a position on what they would do as president in the area of civil, commercial, military space policy. >> so, as i mentioned in my remarks, we really do want the candidates. one of the strengths is that there is no one organization sphere that can reach all candidates, but among us we can.
and so we have already begun the process of socializing this with the campaigns. each of useach of us have different contacts and so we have figured out how to work them. the last candidate we are having trouble getting to, the very last candidate should be receiving a copy today. and so we will continue to follow up with staff to keep this alive, but it is an interesting question because to some extent the purpose of this is not to have space bar come a big presidential issue. i would be perfectly happy if no one on the campaign trail said anything stupid about space. we love everyone understand that it is important. it is assumed this is part of being american and a candidate for the highest office in the land that you embrace the space program.
>> just to kind of follow up on that, space has become kind of a joke in presidential politics. and i notice in your presentation you did not mention the presidential candidates. how do you avoid this serious issue being drawn in to the clown car debate that is going on? >> is this for any particular panelist? >> well, as elliott mentioned the reason we got together as we wanted to create a very, very strong consensus about what was going on in the industry such that it became a nonissue. that because space typically does not come to the top of national politics when you have a presidential campaign , one way to
continue it, take it off the table was stresses importance was have a huge industry broad coalition, this is what we think is important, have these great things going on, and therefore is sort of continues on its own momentum, as it were because it is sort of the bus leaving the station and let's not mess with it. since it is already typically unfortunately not a national issue we chose to turn that into an advantage to make sure the momentum continues and we don't end up with discussions that take us in the left or right field, especially when there are so many great things right on the horizon. >> you know, to add on to the feedback, too often when space becomes the issue it is a regional issue. what does this mean for jobs in florida?
i know frank's organization has fantastic character -- fantastic statistics that can tell you the space touches all 50 states. it really touches all 50 states, the universities, the students, the innovative fabric of our country really , so it is not this one program. someone coming out with a wacky idea. what is going on right now and what do we see in the future and not just thinking regionally but nationally. a program that is not just limited the government programs. that is how we want to address this. >> other questions for the room? >> what do you see as the biggest threat to mac. >> kim song with aerospace
american magazine. what do you see as the biggest threats to ensuring the country's leadership in space? >> so, threats come in different forms. i would say that malaise is probably the chief threat we are trying to address. we don't fall into some sort of malaise. there are, of course, threats from around the world to us leadership in space, but most of those are also tremendous opportunities. one of the great aspects of space leadership is what political scientists would call soft power, the ability to create an atmosphere where other countries around the world want to work with you and cooperate and learn. so i think that it is also a
great opportunity for diffusing some of the threats that might be out there. so conquering any malaise, allowing ourselves to be driven forward by the optimist some visionaries and not by people who are just bitter and, you know, being strong enough in our space leadership to be confident that we can use it in ways that benefit us tremendously as a nation but can also help with piece, with political understanding, humanitarian relief and other things around the world,, which i think also raises our stock as a nation. >> yes, in the back. >> what do you think are some of the reasons for that malaise you just referenced?
>> actually, i think that the malaise is starting to take on a secondary role to the interest and enthusiasm. you talk about -- one of the things my friend neil degrasse tyson talks about his being trapped in low earth orbit for 25 years and the need to expand the bubble. in the very act of doing that helps to address malaise. the other thing i am seeing, socially if you look at what is going on with this new generation of kids coming up , they are essentially the 1st generation to grow up and through all of their lifetime having had access to all the information in the world on the internet they are excited about what they can do with the knowledge they have, you're like they do not have barriers, feel like they
ought to be able to do anything that they want and i think the recent call for applications for astronauts at nasa is an interesting, new barometer. we had 18,300 something applications, the largest group of applicants for nasa astronauts. let's not undo anything that doesn't need undoing. the trajectories there. >> i would just like to 2nd that and comment, it's more complacency. we landed on the moon which cemented in our heads that we are leaders, but there is a lot going on around the world and at the national level making sure leaders and decision makers are
paying attention and we don't establish complacency. there are great activities around the world, and the people in the industry understand, and there is energy that the national level we need to pay attention and make sure we are investing the appropriate amount of research and development across the board and not resting on our laurels, if you will. >> in the area, you mentioned the threats, we see some of the greatest threats, the uncertainty. what we would like to see is the government be there to help, not hurt, whether it means stable budgets for programs for low earth orbit beyond as well as regulatory
issues that the government can be helpful to and has been in the most recent past they are trying to work with industry. a lot of people plan ahead in the industries. when there is that uncertainty, that can be challenging. especially on policies, if we want to shift, radically shift, it can be disrupting. nasa is not the only game in town, and they should be equipped with budgets as well as the faa who is at the tip of the spear and helping the commercial space business. we want to help work with the government in this partnership and not be too
nasa to do certain kinds of explorations but also the regulatory framework to encourage the growth of the space industry. trying to get a read on what you see nasa doing going forward and also i'm curious how you propose making sure their budget stay stable whitewater. >> the presidential candidates. one of the things that has plagued nasa a lot.
>> quite frankly things that have happened in congress. >> it allows us to project out. let's say a decade. this is what we are going to do, stick to our guns and do this despite whether it is republican or democrat, this is our plan. we will execute the plan. now, i realize that is a little bit of a pipe dream, but that is something we should strive for because you never know until you try , and this is an effort to try to achieve that kind of sense of the industry that this momentum is important and we want to continue such that we are dampening the wind factor. >> i mentioned earlier the
reason we can do this is because nasa has been investing for 50 years developing the know-how and technology such that it is so widespread it is somewhat understood the private enterprises trying to do things that are new and innovative and exciting and maybe not dependent upon government funding which is all good because that is what government funding should do, create opportunities and industries and ideas and innovative opportunities for people. the government should continue to do the investments to keep expanding the bubble that the technology that you need to go further, industry can invest in all the technology. >> bringing industry along
people can take that and do innovative things. if it's done correctly what you are doing is allowing the experience to accumulate so that people with great ideas and really creative minds and money to invest can come do things behind because i really -- ideally the government bubble, low earth orbit there will be people engaged in activities that may be nasa won't be. and that is a perfectly good paradigm. investor expand the bubble and do whatever it is you want to do. that is all appropriate. >> just briefly, the partnership with nasa and other government agencies,
it is critical. the investments that have been made and to be able to transfer technology over to the commercial sector so that we are not inventing the wheel and continue to push boundaries, that is a critical relationship with government and the commercial sector need to have to leverage each other strengths and weaknesses and how we can push the envelope forward in the technology realm. >> anymore questions come i wonder if one of our panelists might be able to explain where this white paper that your circulating were people who are watching might be able to find it on the internet. is there a website? >> sure. thanks.
they will post to their website, and as we go about our business we will be armed with this and have a copy in our pocket mba out trying to carry the gospel in space. my website, sandy's, eric's, you will find it. >> other questions in the room on the phone? yes, sir? >> what sort of the future? we you continue to work together through november to disseminate the paper, long-term plans? >> i think that we have really learned a lot from each other through this process. many months of hard work and not just the five people,
the heads of the five leading organizations and i don't know that we are going to build the political coalition which would probably be a bad idea, but i think that it has helped us to open lines of communications so that we would be communicating and collaborating more than we have. they tend to be pretty project specific, but the fact that we are able to reach such a broad consistent -- consensus on such a broad set of issues tells me we will be doing more in the future. before we go to other questions i would like to ask a question. in this document your circulating in the room the last point has to do with trade policy. and whereas i find a lot of issues related to spaces you
describe as bipartisan or nonpartisan is certainly a hot button issue. you discuss having lowering trade barriers to make it more possible to sell more american products abroad. doesn't that also open the door and has not outsourced the space program. >> companies that are us-based companies set up laboratories and other places around the world. for example, because of the
restrictions. what we end up doing is somewhat handicapping ourselves. so i think clearly you have to be aware of the balance. to some extent where we are hurting ourselves by not acknowledging that there is technology development going on, and we need to be engaged in that worldwide effort because some of the laboratories are already doing technology that they can sell abroad. so it is a tricky question, but we certainly do not want to unnecessarily handicap ourselves. >> i will step in. really, one of the things that often happens is through the best intentions we get unintended consequences.
this vast tightening of export controls on us-made equipment, and so since our allies could not buy from us they develop their own indigenous industries. and since we could not sell to them they found out how to buy from each other. there was a time not all that long ago, 1718 years ago when 75%75 percent of the launch capability in the world was built in colorado, 0 percent is now. not -- i wanti want to say 15 years ago 75 percent of the commercial satellites were built in the united states. we need to recognize the unintended consequences of things we set up that we thought were going to protect us that ended up hurting us. they have their own technology and don't need to buy from us. something that is widely
available, why wouldn't you want an american company selling it? >> yes, in the back. >> yes, this is more of a comment. executive director of the aerospace state association, and we have circulated this paper to every state, governor, lieutenant governor as an association of elected officials always support this wholeheartedly. and we applaud the industry for all its work and for the group that represents the mirror today, for all your hard work to get the message out of how important the space program is to america and every state. thank you. >> other questions from the room?
>> something you mentioned was that one of the things, the unintended consequences, some of it wasn't export type thing. i get that you want to sell the stuff that is widely available. i am curious how you square that restricting technology sales to the chinese. there was a huge issue whether or not they were copying satellite designs and the like. i am sort of curious as to how you recognize those two things. it's going to happen. >> is a great question.
>> the amount of business it's not a bad thing. it's a competitive thing, and so we really do want to capitalize on the us industrial base. we would ideally love to see launches coming from the us and understand there is quality foreign competitors from europe and elsewhere. we embrace that and would like to see the capacity become so great that it will open up markets. again, i am partial to see a lot of this happen and develop, i would like to see companies that we represent export products and services around the globe, and we see that the world is shrinking. it is a global market, and the uss fantastic products
and services that we are and should be selling more of abroad. the issue with china and others, that gets into a much deeper national security issue that we need to tread gently on but be aware that they have national space capabilities much like us and we need to work with them and foster dialogue to help the industry and keep the space race as peaceful as it has been without outside actors. >> time for one or two more questions. do we have another question on the phone? >> the christian science monitor. >> thank you very much. following up on the unintended consequences, i wonder where you folks see striking a balance between wanting other countries to be using our launch services and take advantage of our technology? it sort of strikes me as one
of the unintended consequences of the unintended consequences is these countries developing capabilities to the point where we are talking about international cooperation on mars of the moon they have something more to bring to the table other than just money. they have also got -- we have seen this both in unmanned space exploration as well as things like the international space station and now with orion. where is that balance between wanting to maintain a robust, if you will, technology export for space, you know, from the us with helping these countries actually develop their own capabilities that they can then have something to really substantially contribute