`[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S
                      FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR
                      THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                             INTERIOR

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                              BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         Wednesday, May 1, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-116

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILBLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-587 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               
          
                    
                    COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                   
                              ----------                                

                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 1, 2024...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     1

    Kamlager-Dove, Hon. Sydney, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Haaland, Hon. Debra, Secretary, U.S. Department of the 
      Interior, Washington, DC...................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    19

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        New York Post article, ``City Hall vows to probe 
          `lawlessness' following Post report on spike in crime 
          around Floyd Bennett Field migrant shelter,'' January 
          14, 2024...............................................    44

        The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat Resolution No. 2024-01 
          Opposing the Proposed Rule for the Management and 
          Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 
          February 13, 2024......................................    49

        CRS Report: Federal and Indian Lands on the U.S.-Mexico 
          Border, February 21, 2018..............................    60

        HNR Committee list of open document requests from the 
          Committee to DOI.......................................   127

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Letter from Senator Sullivan (R-AK) to Secretary Haaland 
          on ANWR FOIA dated May 2, 2024.........................   137

        Email exchanges between North Slope Trilateral regional 
          leadership and DOI asking for a meeting regarding both 
          the ANWR and NPRA announcements........................   104

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        NPR-A Rule Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporation 
          Engagement--overview...................................    43

        Native News online op-ed: Trump's Tribal Record: The 
          Destructive Era, August 22, 2023.......................   130

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stansbury

        ICT News, South Dakota Searchlight article ``Tribe 
          worries about police staffing, not cartels,'' April 5, 
          2024...................................................   123

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Kamlager-Dove

        New York Times article, `` `Migrant Crime Wave' Not 
          Supported by Data, Despite High-Profile Cases,'' 
          February 15, 2024......................................    34

        Defend Brooks Range--one-pager on Ambler Road, Critical 
          Minerals Fact Sheet....................................    66

        University of Utah and University of Colorado White 
          Paper: A Legal Analysis of BLM's Public Lands Rule, 
          April 19, 2024.........................................    83
        Senate Indian Affairs Press Release, ``Fact Checking the 
          Trump Administration's Attempt to Re-write its Native 
          American Record, False Promises to Tribes,'' October 
          23, 2020...............................................   133

        CRS Report: National Monuments and the Antiquities Act, 
          January 2, 2024........................................   126

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Dingell

        CATO Institute Blog, ``Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. 
          Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum Seekers,'' 
          September 14, 2022.....................................    94

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Natural Resources Committee Republican Staff; Ashley McManus 
        (Ashley.McManus@mail.house.gov; x5-9297) and Aniela Butler 
        (Aniela@mail.house.gov; x6-7736)

Date:     Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Subject:   Oversight Hearing on ``Examining the President's FY 2025 
        Budget Request for the Department of the Interior''
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Committee on Natural Resources will hold an oversight hearing 
on ``Examining the President's FY 2025 Budget Request for the 
Department of the Interior'' on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, at 10 a.m. in 
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Sophia Varnasidis 
(Sophia@mail.house.gov) and Madeline Bryant 
(Madeline.Bryant@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, April 29, if 
their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     The Department of the Interior (DOI) has played a key role 
            in the Biden administration's war on American energy and 
            mineral security. Secretary Haaland has banned the 
            development of one of the nation's most promising copper-
            nickel deposits in Minnesota's Iron Range, severely 
            restricted oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, 
            and locked up resource-rich lands in Alaska. The Department 
            has recently issued several rulemakings that will only 
            further impede domestic energy development. These actions 
            are driving up energy prices for the American people and 
            making our nation more reliant on China, Iran, and Russia 
            for critical resources.

     The Biden administration is continuing its attacks on 
            America's public lands and waters by restricting access 
            through preservationist land designations and rulemakings 
            in furtherance of its 30x30 agenda. This puts the lands 
            that feed and fuel our country and the rural communities 
            that depend on their multiple uses in jeopardy.

     Our federal lands and waters are feeling the full impact 
            of President Biden's border crisis. Some of the most 
            dangerous areas along the U.S.-Mexico border are the 
            estimated 693 miles that abut federal land and the illegal 
            dumping of trash threatens wildlife, destroys habitat, and 
            damages natural resources. International criminal cartels 
            target tribal communities for the distribution of dangerous 
            and illegal drugs due to the high-profit margins that can 
            be attained in these areas, the general lack of law 
            enforcement across vast expanses of rural lands, and 
            jurisdictional conflicts between tribal and local or state 
            law enforcement agencies.

     The Biden administration has taken actions that severely 
            restrict access to our nation's lands and waters and have 
            weaponized the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to a great 
            extent. Proposed rules by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
            would completely tie the hands of refuge managers and 
            potentially remove well-established practices such as 
            cooperative agricultural management and predator control on 
            Refuge System lands. New rules are reversing the 
            significant progress made during the Trump administration 
            to streamline how the ESA is implemented. Additionally, new 
            species listings have the potential to put a complete stop 
            on responsible land management and resource development 
            across vast swaths of the landscape.

     House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans are 
            committed to achieving American energy dominance, 
            strengthening domestic mineral supply chains, securing our 
            nation's borders, ensuring access to our natural resources, 
            conservation with a purpose, and holding the Biden 
            administration accountable.

II. WITNESSES

     The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department of 
            the Interior, Washington, DC

III. BACKGROUND
Budget Top-Line

    Secretary Haaland is appearing before the House Committee on 
Natural Resources (Committee) to defend the Biden administration's 
budget request for the Department of the Interior (DOI). DOI's fiscal 
year (FY) 2025 budget requests $34.5 billion in discretionary funding, 
a decrease of $524.4 million (1.5 percent) over FY 2024 annualized CR 
levels. In total, the budget requests $37.08 billion, a 6.6 percent 
increase over FY 2024 levels.

    Specific agency breakdowns are below: (note: only main accounts are 
included, for a full breakdown, please contact Committee staff):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Change From
                                                               FY 2024
       Agency          FY 2023      FY 2024       FY 2025    Annualized
                        Actual   Annualized CR    Request     CR to FY
                                                                2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land        $1.99      $2.03 billion  $2.06       +$31.5
 Management (BLM)      billion                   billion     million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Ocean       $183.4     $163.0         $183.4      +20.4
 Energy Management     million    million        million     million
 (BOEM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Safety and  $174.4     $162.1         $170.4      +8.3 million
 Environmental         million    million        million
 Enforcement (BSEE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Surface     $1.48      $1.50 billion  $1.58       +86.3
 Mining Reclamation    billion                   billion     million
 and Enforcement
 (OSMRE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Geological       $1.61      $1.57 billion  $1.65       +81.1
 Survey (USGS)         billion                   billion     million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Fish and         $4.24      $3.79 billion  $4.0        +214.0
 Wildlife Service      billion                   billion     million
 (FWS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park         $6.24      $4.72 billion  $4.81       +89.1
 Service (NPS)         billion                   billion     million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian      $2.81      $2.92 billion  $3.51       +593.4
 Affairs (BIA)         billion                   billion     million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Trust       $1.83      $1.91 billion  $1.99       +74.0
 Funds                 billion                   billion     million
 Administration
 (BTFA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Insular     $656.3     $717.6         $2.07       +1.35
 Affairs (OIA)         million    million        billion     billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of             $3.83      $3.86 billion  $3.56       -$299.6
 Reclamation (BOR)     billion                   billion     million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total DOI             $36.7      $34.6 billion  $37.08      +2.45
                       billion                   billion     billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    This memo discusses the Department of the Interior's FY 2025 
proposed budget within the context of four main Republican policy 
themes: 1) Ensuring American energy dominance and securing mineral 
supply chains; 2) Defending America's national security; 3) Promoting 
access to our natural resources and conservation with a purpose; and 4) 
Holding the Biden administration accountable.
Ensuring American Energy Dominance and Securing Mineral Supply Chains

    Federal Onshore and Offshore Oil and Gas--President Biden has waged 
a war on American energy production since his first week in office. 
With Executive Order 14008, the President halted oil and natural gas 
leasing on U.S. federal lands and waters.\1\ The U.S. District Court 
for the Western District of Louisiana placed a preliminary injunction 
on the leasing ban in July 2021, yet the administration did not resume 
leasing until June 2022.\2\ The first onshore sale only offered 20 
percent of the parcels originally included and implemented a 50 percent 
royalty hike.\3\ The Biden administration has consistently failed to 
offer the acreage sought after by operators, jeopardizing the future of 
the onshore leasing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Exec. Order 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 19, 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021).
    \2\ Partlow, Joshua and Eilperin, Juliet. Louisiana judge blocks 
Biden administration's oil and gas leasing pause. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/15/louisiana-judge-
blocks-biden-administrations-oil-gas-leasing-pause/.
    \3\ Energy in Depth, FIRST BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ONSHORE LEASE SALES 
BRING IN NEARLY $22 MILLION, 7/1/22, https://www.energyindepth.org/
first-biden-administration-onshore-lease-sales-bring-in-nearly-22-
million/.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    *All onshore lease sales in FY 2021 were conducted by the Trump 
administration \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Bureau of Land Management, State Oil and Gas Lease Sales, 
https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/
regionallease-sales.

    The Biden administration also canceled offshore Lease Sale 261, 
prompting Congress to direct the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
(BOEM) to hold the sale in the Inflation Reduction Act.\5\ Before the 
sale, the administration attempted to reduce the acreage offered in the 
sale and impose vessel speed restrictions on operators. The U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered the Biden administration to 
hold the sale without those restrictions,\6\ and BOEM eventually 
conducted Lease Sale 261 on December 20, 2023, receiving 352 bids on 
311 tracts covering 1.7 million acres. High bids totaling $382 million 
show strong interest in continued energy leasing offshore.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Offshore Magazine. (n.d.). BOEM postpones Lease Sale 261 due to 
litigation. Retrieved from https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-
reports/us-gulf-of-mexico/article/14301031/boem-postpones-lease-sale-
261-due-to-litigation.
    \6\ American Petroleum Institute. (2023, November 15). API 
statement on Fifth Circuit decision on Lease Sale 261. Retrieved from 
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2023/11/15/api-
statement-on-fifth-circuit-decision-on-lease-sale-261.
    \7\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Lease Sale 261. Retrieved 
from https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/lease-sale-261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BOEM's FY 2025 budget request includes planning for future lease 
sales under the 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 
Leasing Program (National OCS Program), which includes only three 
sales--lower than any previous program.\8\ The National OCS Program 
notably does not include a sale in 2024, making it the first year since 
1958 that the U.S. has not conducted an offshore lease sale.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2024). Fiscal Year 2025 
Budget Justifications and Performance Information (p. 54). U.S. 
Department of the Interior. Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/about-boem/FY2025_BOEM_Greenbook.pdf.
    \9\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2024). Summary statistics 
for all offshore oil and gas lease sales (February 2024). U.S. 
Department of the Interior. Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/about-boem/All%20Lease%20Offerings%20%28 
February%202024%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden administration has continued its war on American energy 
by promulgating regulations that increase costs and red tape on 
domestic producers operating on federal lands. These include a new 
supplemental environmental assessment (EA) analyzing greenhouse gas 
emissions that could impact 3,600 oil and natural gas leases sold 
between 2015-2020,\10\ seven new Instruction Memoranda related to 
leasing on federal lands,\11\ a final rule regulating emissions from 
oil and natural gas production on federal lands,\12\ a final onshore 
leasing regulation that would significantly increase fees and reduce 
available acreage,\13\ resource management plan revisions that would 
prevent oil and gas exploration and production on large swaths of 
land,14,15 a cancelation of leases in the 1002 Area of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,\16\ and a rule that would lock up over 
half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).\17\ These 
regulations will restrict leasing lands and increase operators' costs, 
which will be passed along to American consumers. Additionally, these 
regulations will especially negatively impact small businesses 
operating on federal lands and jeopardize critical revenue streams for 
states and rural and Indigenous communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ BLM REQUESTS PUBLIC INPUT ON REVISED GREENHOUSE GAS LEASING 
ANALYSIS, Nov. 9, 2022, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-requests-
public-input-revised-greenhouse-gas-leasing-analysis.
    \11\ The BLM issues updated oil and gas leasing guidance, https://
www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-11/
Fact%20Sheet_Oil%20and%20Gas%20Leasing%20Guidance_%2011.21.22.pdf.
    \12\ 89 FR 25378, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/
04/10/2024-06827/waste-prevention-production-subject-to-royalties-and-
resource-conservation#::text=On%20November 
%2030%2C%202022%2C%20the,gas%20from%20venting%2C%20flaring%2C%20and.
    \13\ RIN 1004-AE80, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
2024-04/BLM-Fluid-Minerals-Leasing-FinalRule.pdf.
    \14\ Draft RMP and EIS for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming, 
88 Fed. Reg. 56654, August 18, 2023, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/
2023-17787.
    \15\ Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan 
and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River 
Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management 
Plans, Colorado, 88 FR 51855, August 4, 2023, https://
www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-16598.
    \16\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Biden-Harris Administration 
Takes Major Steps to Protect Arctic Lands and Wildlife in Alaska, 9/6/
23, https://doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-takes-
major-steps-protect-arctic-lands-and-wildlife-alaska.
    \17\ RIN 1004-AE95, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
2024-04/BLM-NPR-A-Final-Rule-1004-AE95.pdf.

    Coal Leasing--On August 15, 2022, a federal judge fully reinstated 
the moratorium on new coal leasing.\18\ In February 2024, the Ninth 
Circuit vacated this decision.\19\ Despite this ruling, DOI has failed 
to reverse course and resume proper review of coal operation expansion 
plans.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Clark Mindock, ``Judge reinstates Obama-era coal-leasing 
ban,'' Reuters, August 15, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/
litigation/judge-reinstates-obama-era-coal-leasing-ban-2022-08-13/.
    \19\ Hannah Northey and Niina Farah, ``9th Circuit ruling axes 
Obama-era freeze on coal leasing'', E&E, Feb. 21, 2024, https://
www.eenews.net/articles/9th-circuit-ruling-axes-obama-era-freeze-on-
coal-leasing/
#::text=The%20appellate%20court%20panel%20found,moratorium%20on 
%20new%20coal%20leasing.&text=A%20federal%20appellate%20court%20on,coal%
20leases%20 on%20public%20lands.
    \20\ Hannah Northey, ``Coal Company sues Interior over delayed 
leasing,'' Mar. 7, 2024, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/
eenews/2024/03/07/coal-company-sues-interior-over-delayed-leasing-
00145339.

    Critical Minerals--While no recommendations for streamlining the 
permitting process for new hardrock mines are included in the budget 
request, DOI issued a report from the Interagency Working Group (IWG) 
on Mining Reform in September 2023.\21\ Many of the recommendations in 
the report--like imposing a royalty on production and shifting the 
mining claims system to a leasing system--would discourage hardrock 
mining on federal lands.\22\ Despite the Biden administration's 
acknowledgment that the U.S.'s ``over-reliance on foreign sources and 
adversarial nations for critical minerals and materials [pose] national 
and economic security threats,'' \23\ DOI continues to shutter domestic 
mineral development. In January 2022, the Biden administration canceled 
the two-decades-old mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota. The 
administration also withdrew over 225,000 acres of mineral-rich land in 
the same area from mineral development,\24\ effectively barring new 
extraction of minerals, including copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and 
iron ore. On April 19, 2024, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
recommended the ``no action'' alternative in the Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ambler Mining District 
Industrial Access Road (Ambler Road) in Alaska.\25\ BLM's decision to 
refuse a right-of-way permit on the small section of the proposed 211-
mile Ambler Road that crosses federal lands impedes access to an 
estimated $7.5 billion in copper and other minerals such as zinc, 
cobalt, silver, and gold \26\ and hinders development that could create 
over 65,000 jobs, $5 billion in wages, and $1.3 billion in local and 
state revenues for Alaska.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Report 
Outlines Reforms Needed to Promote Responsible Mining on Public Lands, 
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-report-
outlines-reforms-needed-promote-responsible-mining.
    \22\ NMA, Press Release, IWG Recommendation on mining Unworkable 
and Unreasonable, https://nma.org/2023/09/12/iwg-recommendations-on-
mining-unworkable-and-unreasonable/.
    \23\ White House, Press Release, FACT SHEET: Securing a Made in 
America Supply Chain for Critical Minerals, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/22/fact-sheet-securing-a-
made-in-america-supply-chain-for-critical-minerals/.
    \24\ DOI, Press Release, Biden Administration Takes Action to 
Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed, https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-
boundary-waters-area-watershed.
    \25\ DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Takes Critical 
Action to Protect Alaska Native Subsistence, Lands and Wildlife, 
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-takes-
critical-action-protect-alaska-native-subsistence.
    \26\ Lisa Friedman, ``Interior Said to Reject Industrial Road 
Through Alaskan Wilderness'', N.Y. Times, Apr. 18, 2024, https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/climate/ambler-road-alaska-interior.html.
    \27\ DOI, Press Release, Trump administration Supports Alaskan 
Infrastructure Development to Mine Critical Minerals, https://
www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-supports-alaskan-
infrastructure-development-mine-critical.

    Plugging Orphaned Wells and Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands--The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) included $4.7 billion to 
plug orphaned wells and authorized separate programs to clean up 
orphaned wells on federal and tribal lands, as well as grants to 
supplement existing state orphan well programs. Last year, DOI issued 
guidance \28\ on implementing these orphaned well provisions. This 
guidance exceeds the statutory authority of the IIJA and creates 
unnecessary administrative burdens, which will result in less funding 
for reclamation activities.29,30 DOI's Phase I formula grant 
awards to states have included requirements for Endangered Species Act 
and National Historic Preservation Act compliance, straining state 
resources, delaying projects, and ultimately resulting in fewer wells 
being plugged. Further, the budget requests $175.8 million for the 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (AMR), $6.9 million above the FY 2024 
Continuing Resolution levels.\31\ This is in addition to the funding 
provided by the IIJA, which included $11.3 billion in AML reclamation 
grants to states and tribes,\32\ of which approximately $725 million in 
funding is being distributed each year.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Sec. 40601 Orphaned Well 
Program: Phase 1 (Fiscal Year 2023) State Formula Grant Guidance, 
United States Department of the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/draft-state-formula-guidance-2023123-eop-final-for-eop-
approval .pdf.
    \29\ Soraghan, Mike, ``Texas Slams Interior Plan for Plugging Oil 
Wells,'' EnergyWire, March 3,2023, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/
article/eenews/2023/03/03/texas-protests-well-plugging-rules-00084843.
    \30\ Railroad Commission of Texas, Letter to Kimbra Davis Director 
of the Orphaned Wells Program Office, February 24, 2023, https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=00000186-9a04-d967-a396-
de6c45290001.
    \31\ FY 2025 Budget Justification and Performance Information, p. 
71, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/FY25-OSMRE-
Greenbook_1-4.9.24_0.pdf.
    \32\ Public Law No. 117-58, Sec. 40601.
    \33\ OSMRE, FY 2025 Budget Justification and Performance 
Information, p. 2, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/inline-
files/FY25-OSMRE-Greenbook_1-4.9.24_0.pdf.

    Tribal and Insular Energy--Rather than support full tribal self-
determination through an all-of-the-above energy approach, the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget request continues to highlight only 
clean energy and climate-change-related focuses. In the BIA's FY 2025 
budget request, $33.6 million is requested for Energy and Minerals 
activities which specifically mentions investment in the deployment of 
clean energy in tribal communities.\34\ The Tribal Climate Resilience 
Program, which focuses on climate preparedness rather than addressing 
environmental changes in communities, proposes a $48.8 million budget 
request, a $13.8 million increase over the annualized FY 2024 CR 
allocation.\35\ Overall, the BIA budget request includes an 
approximately $26 million increase over the FY 2024 CR for all programs 
addressing ``critical trust natural resource activities and investing 
in climate resilience and environmental justice.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-ES-3. https://
www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/fy2025-508-bia-
greenbook.pdf.
    \35\ Id. at IA-TNR-5.
    \36\ Id. at IA-TNR-5 to IA-TNR-6; See also, FY 2025 Bureau of 
Indian Affairs-Bureau Highlights. https://www.doi.gov/media/document/
fy2025-bureau-indian-affairs-bureau-highlights. p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FY 2025 Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) budget justification 
continues to pick winners and losers in the energy sector by promoting 
taxpayer money for renewable energy development only, irrespective of 
which energy sources best meet the needs of individual insular areas. 
While there are no budget increases associated with the $15 million 
budget request for the Energizing Insular Communities (EIC) Program, 
the administration continues to bypass the all-of-the-above-energy 
strategy prioritizing ``clean/renewable energy strategies'' and 
transitioning the territories to a ``clean energy future.'' \37\ The 
Committee believes this program should be expanded to include all forms 
of energy sources for electricity generation, ultimately supporting 
Insular Area self-determination and the ability of each insular area to 
develop the mix of energy sources that best meet their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 56. https://
www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2025-office-insular-affairs-greenbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted in the budget justification, OIA's EIC Program has and 
will continue to ``adjust accordingly'' to assist in the Biden 
administration's efforts to transition the territories to renewables, 
such as solar and battery power.\38\ Unfortunately, this provision 
would also force Insular Areas to increase electricity generated from 
renewable sources while ignoring liquefied natural gas (LNG), nuclear, 
biomass, and other options that are more reliable than intermittent 
renewable sources. Additionally, there is no mention of addressing 
energy security and the reliability of baseload energy sources for 
Insular Areas that suffer from frequent outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defending America's National Security

    Biden Border Crisis--Almost immediately upon taking office, 
President Biden heeded the far-left's open-border platform by weakening 
America's immigration laws and reducing border security through 
executive action. President Biden's ongoing abuse of executive 
authority has caused major operational challenges along the southern 
border and allowed international criminal cartels to thrive across our 
nation.\39\ Some of the most dangerous areas along the U.S.-Mexico 
border are the estimated 693 miles that abut federal land, representing 
approximately 35 percent of the total 1,965 miles of the southern 
border.\40\ Although the federal government seeks to protect the 
ecological and recreational value of these lands, such areas are often 
targeted by criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers because 
they are remote, thinly populated, and less frequently patrolled.\41\ 
Under the Biden administration, illegal immigration into the U.S. has 
reached an all-time high, embroiling the nation in an unprecedented 
crisis. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports approximately 
9.1 million encounters with illegal immigrants since President Biden 
took office, including more than 7.5 million illegal crossings along 
the southern border.\42\ Despite this staggering total, CBP data shows 
the migrant crisis is only worsening each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Jessica M. Vaughan, Biden Border Policies Are Working Fine--
For the Cartels, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES (Feb. 5, 2024), https:/
/cis.org/Vaughan/Biden-Border-Policies-Are-Working-Fine-Cartels.
    \40\ Note: This estimate ranges from 632 miles to 820 miles. 
Federal and Indian Lands on the U.S.-Mexico Border, Congressional 
Research Service, February 21, 2018, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
IF10832.
    \41\ Statement of Brandon Judd on behalf of the National Border 
Patrol Council, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations Republican 
Forum: ``The Biden Border Crisis: Environmental and Humanitarian 
Consequences'', May 27, 2021, https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/brandon_judd_testimony_biden_border_crisis_forum.pdf.
    \42\   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are devastating environmental consequences of illegal 
immigration. Illegal immigrants leave behind trash, including human 
waste, medical products, abandoned vehicles, and other refuse. The 
illegal dumping of trash threatens wildlife, destroys habitat, and 
attracts disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes and flies. Human 
waste contaminates the drinking water of nearby residents. Illegal 
trails and wildfires sparked by cross-border violators' (CBVs) 
campfires contribute to the destruction of wildlife habitat throughout 
federal borderlands. The violence associated with high levels of CBVs 
deprives the public of access to federal lands and causes significant 
damage to local environments.
    Despite the increasing severity of the Biden Border Crisis, the 
word ``border'' appears just once in the entire 260-page DOI budget 
document, specifically with reference to a $1 million investment in 
water infrastructure along the Texas border and a $11 million reduction 
in requested funds for ``United States/Mexico Border Issues--Technical 
Support.'' In contrast, the word ``climate'' appears 128 times, and the 
word ``justice'' appears 33 times.\43\ Securing the border and 
combating illegal immigration will take a whole of government approach, 
and the federal land management agencies should be held accountable for 
their role in the failure to combat the consequences of illegal 
immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ DOI, Fiscal Year 2025 The Interior Budget in Brief, March 
2024, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy2025-508-bib-entire-
document.

    Public Safety and Cartels Targeting Indian Country--Criminal 
cartels, such as the Sinaloa and the Jalisco New Generation cartels, 
target Indian Country, particularly reservations located in Montana and 
Wyoming. These areas are targeted due to the higher prices for drugs in 
these areas compared to other areas of the U.S.,\44\ the vast expanses 
of rural and often unpatrolled lands, and ongoing jurisdictional 
challenges that complicate law enforcement responses.\45\ The impact of 
cartel activity is alarming among the Indian reservations in Montana 
and Wyoming and felt by every person in those communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Lisa Cavazuti et al., Mexican drug cartels are targeting 
America's `last best place', NBC NEWS (Feb. 10, 2024), https://
www.nbcnews.com/news/mexican-drug-cartels-are-targeting-americas-last-
great-place-rcna130822.
    \45\ Methamphetamine in Indian Country: An American Problem 
Uniquely Affecting Indian Country, The National Congress of American 
Indians (November, 2006), https://www.justice.gov/archive/tribal/docs/
fv_tjs/session_1/session1_presentations/Meth_Overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Office of Justice Services (OJS) within the BIA is charged with 
administering public safety and justice programs to fund law 
enforcement, corrections, and court services to support safe tribal 
communities. However, questions have been raised about OJS's 
effectiveness, especially regarding drug trafficking in Indian Country. 
Criminal cartels have long targeted rural Indian Country for the 
distribution of their dangerous and illegal drugs due to the high 
profit margins in these areas, the general lack of law enforcement 
across vast expanses of rural lands, and jurisdictional concerns 
between tribal and local or state law enforcement agencies.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BIA budget requests $651 million for FY 2025 (an increase of 
$71.5 million over the FY 2024 CR amount).\47\ Most of this funding 
would be focused on criminal investigations and police services, with 
BIA stating that this increase would go towards increasing staff for 
both direct services and tribally run law enforcement programs.\48\ Law 
enforcement is often stretched thin over vast expanses of rural land in 
Indian Country, particularly in Western States.\49\ For example, in 
Montana, the Northern Cheyenne tribe relies on just ``two federally 
funded Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) tribal police officers per shift 
to patrol more than 440,000 acres of land that are home to roughly 
6,000 residents, according to the tribal council.'' \50\ Similarly, the 
adjacent Crow Reservation, the largest in Montana, has ``four to six 
police officers per shift to patrol a swath of land the size of Rhode 
Island.'' \51\ The cartels know how to identify and exploit ``social, 
economic and justice vulnerabilities that each tribal nation has,'' 
\52\ including the long-standing jurisdictional concerns between 
federal, state, local, or tribal criminal justice agencies that further 
complicate law enforcement efforts.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-PSJ-1.
    \48\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-PSJ-2.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Cavazuti, supra note 44.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Addressing the Harmful Effects of Dangerous Drugs in Native 
Communities: Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114th 
Cong. (2015) (Statement of Darwin St. Clair, Chairman, Eastern Shoshone 
Tribe).
    \53\ Methamphetamine in Indian Country, supra note 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The cartels have shifted their attention and resources to rural 
areas that tend to attract significantly higher prices for narcotics, 
making states such as Montana and Wyoming prime targets for criminal 
cartels. In Montana, pills can be sold for ``20 times the price they 
get in urban centers closer to the border.'' \54\ A counterfeit 
fentanyl pill coming over from Mexico sells for around ``$3 to $5 in 
cities like Seattle and Denver where drug markets are more established, 
but up to $100 in remote parts of Montana.'' \55\ On the Fort Peck 
Reservation in Montana, law enforcement officers report that ``an 
average opioid user's daily dosage is between 10-20 pills'' and the 
``average cost per pill is $120.'' \56\ These high prices contribute to 
increased crime on Indian reservations, as opioid addicts often turn to 
dealing drugs themselves or committing other harmful crimes in their 
communities to support their expensive habit.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Cavazuti, supra note 44.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Fentanyl in Native Communities: Native Perspective on 
Addressing the Growing Crisis: Hearing before the Senate Comm. on 
Indian Affairs, 118th Cong. (2023) (Statement of Bryce Kirk, 
Councilman, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the BIA budget justification states that the requested 
increase for public safety and justice ``would impact both direct 
service and tribally run programs in a large number of locations where 
violent crime rates are well above the national average'' there is no 
indication of specifically how these funds would be focused to address 
the pressing issue of drug cartels infiltrating and exploiting tribal 
communities.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-PSJ-2.

    Compacts of Free Association--The United States holds compact 
agreements with three sovereign Pacific Island countries, the Federated 
States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), 
and the Republic of Palau (Palau), collectively known as the Freely 
Associated States (FAS). Through the Compact of Free Association 
(COFA), the U.S. gains exclusive access to the security and defense 
rights of these nations in exchange for U.S. economic assistance and 
defense guarantees.\59\ These rights allow the U.S. to establish 
military facilities on the islands and to exercise strategic denial, in 
which the U.S. can deny foreign military access to FAS land, air, and 
maritime territory. The importance of these rights and relationships 
cannot be understated as the FAS maritime space provides a critical 
buffer between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. These 
compact agreements are integral to the United States' ability to 
exercise peace through strength with our allies to counter increasing 
global threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The economic provisions of these agreements were renewed through 
the passage of H.R. 4366, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2024.\60\ Under the renewed COFA, the three FAS countries will receive 
a total of $6.5 billion in economic assistance from FY 2024 through FY 
2043. The U.S. Postal Service will also receive $634 million for 
providing postal services to the FAS for the next 20 years. The budget 
justification for the OIA includes $1.57 billion in mandatory funding 
for COFA.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Public Law 118-42.
    \61\ OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promoting Access to Our Natural Resources and Conservation with a 
        Purpose

    BLM Public Lands Rule--The BLM announced its final so-called 
``Conservation and Landscape Health'' rule (Rule) on April 18, 
2024.\62\ The Rule will fundamentally upend the agency's long-standing, 
statutory multiple use and sustained yield mandate and cede control of 
federal lands to wealthy elites and environmental extremists. BLM is 
guided by a multiple use and sustained yield mandate under the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).\63\ These uses include 
livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, timber production, 
outdoor recreation, habitat for wildlife, and watershed protection. 
Meaningful conservation work continues to occur simultaneously with, 
and often benefiting from, these multiple uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Public Lands Rule, Bureau of Land Management, accessed April 
18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-04/BLM-
Conservation-Landscape-Health-Final-Rule .pdf.
    \63\ Public Law 94-579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The finalized Rule will broadly allow the BLM to lease lands under 
new and vaguely defined restoration and mitigation leases and change 
standards around land use decisions. If the administration determines 
uses, such as grazing, energy production, mining, or recreation, are 
incompatible with a lease, land health standards, or an Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), those uses would not be allowed 
and could be prohibited indefinitely from those lands. This would 
effectively lock up lands indefinitely from multiple use, including 
potential historic uses of the land. Representative Curtis (R-UT) 
introduced the Western Economic Security Today (WEST) Act in May 2023 
to permanently withdraw the Rule.

    Water Infrastructure--The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was 
established in 1902 and manages federal water projects for agriculture, 
municipal and industrial purposes, and flood control projects across 17 
western states.\64\ Reclamation's efforts support $34.1 billion in 
economic activity and roughly 450,700 jobs.\65\ In recent years, 
Reclamation has received funding through multiple enacted laws. The 
IIJA allocated $8.3 billion for Reclamation, almost five times more 
than their FY 2021 discretionary appropriations, with an additional 
$2.5 billion to the Secretary of the Interior for authorized Indian 
water rights settlements.\66\ Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) included more than $4 billion for water management and 
conservation efforts across the Colorado River Basin.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-1. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Congressional Research Service. Bureau of Reclamation 
Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). 
Updated March 21, 2024. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/
R47032.
    \67\ Congressional Research Service. Bureau of Reclamation Funding 
in the Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169). Updated March 22, 2024. 
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/
IF12437#::text=In%20August%202022%2C%20Congress%20enacted,the%20Departm
ent%20of% 20the%20Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's Budget Request for FY 2025 totals nearly $1.6 
billion for Reclamation,\68\ $200 million more than what was requested 
for FY 2024,\69\ and $300 million less than FY 2024 enacted levels. 
Within this request, Reclamation requests $211.2 million for 
Reclamation's Dam Safety Program,\70\ with more than $182 million for 
dam modification actions.\71\ Reclamation states that the Dam Safety 
Program ``represents a major funding need over the next 10 years,'' and 
that they have ``identified 12 projects with anticipated modification 
needs through 2030.'' \72\ Reclamation also states that it seeks to 
``achieve the best use of its limited resources to ensure dam safety 
and maintain our ability to store and divert water and to generate 
hydropower.'' \73\ At the same time, Reclamation requests and spends a 
substantial amount of its project-specific funding on ESA compliance. 
For example, in Oregon's Klamath Project almost 70 percent ($24.6 
million) of the project's federal funding is to meet ESA-related 
requirements.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-1. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf.
    \69\ USBR, Press Release: President's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget 
Requests $1.4 Billion for the Bureau of Reclamation, March 9, 2023. 
https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/4441.
    \70\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. W&RR-8. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf.
    \71\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-6. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf.
    \72\ Id.
    \73\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-5. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf.
    \74\ FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. CGB-55. https://
www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-
Justifications.pdf.

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service)--The Service 
implements the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Lacey Act, and aspects 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). They manage over 850 
million acres of land and water across the United States, with nearly 
800 field stations, 6 Fish Health Centers, 7 Fish Technology Centers, 
and 51 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices. The Service manages 570 
National Wildlife Refuges, 71 National Fish Hatcheries, and 79 
Ecological Services Field Stations. The Service has approximately 9,000 
employees that work across the United States.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ FY 2025 Greenbook. EX-1. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf#page=24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For FY 2025, the President's Budget Request represents a $163.4 
million increase over FY 2024 enacted levels. Notably, the Service 
requests $1.7 billion for its principal account, Resource Management, 
which represents a $150.9 million increase.\76\ The Service states that 
this budget will help support 9,183 full-time equivalents (FTEs).\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ FY 2025 Greenbook. EX-04. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf#page=24.
    \77\ Id.

    National Wildlife Refuge System--The President's Budget Request 
includes $602.3 million for FY 2025 for the National Wildlife Refuge 
System (System),\78\ including $160.1 million for Refuge Maintenance 
and $63.4 million for increased law enforcement capacity.\79\ As the 
Committee noted in a recent oversight hearing with the Service,\80\ 
these proposed funding increases coincide with proposed cuts to 
important programs with bipartisan support like the North American 
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). For FY 2025, the Service's Budget 
Request proposes cutting funding for that program by nearly one-third, 
from $49 million to $33 million.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ FY 2025 Greenbook. EX-12. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf#page=24.
    \79\ Id.
    \80\ House Natural Resources Committee hearing, ``The National 
Wildlife Refuge System at Risk: Examining the Impacts of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Proposed BIDEH Rule.'' April 10, 2024. https://
naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=415815.
    \81\ USFWS Budget Table for FY 2025. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
fws_fy_2025_summary_table_nwrs_breakdown.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The funding request for the System comes as the Biden 
administration seeks drastic changes to the way the System is managed. 
On February 2, 2024, the Service issued a proposed rule to ``ensure 
that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 
(BIDEH) of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) are 
maintained.'' \82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wildlife Refuge 
System; Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health. 
Proposed Rule. February 2, 2024. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/02/02/2024-02076/national-wildlife-refuge-system-
biological-integrity-diversity-and-environmental-health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The proposed rule would alter how refuge managers operate on System 
lands, creating a new ``default position'' that prohibits certain 
management practices unless a full analysis of the environmental 
impacts of the proposed activity is conducted in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additional scientific peer 
review would also be required. These proposed changes would impact 
cooperative agricultural management practices on System lands, along 
with pesticide usage and predator control efforts, among other issues. 
The Committee held an oversight hearing on this issue on April 10, 
2024.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ House Natural Resources Committee hearing, ``The National 
Wildlife Refuge System at Risk: Examining the Impacts of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Proposed BIDEH Rule.'' April 10, 2024. https://
naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=415815.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)--Since taking office, the Biden 
administration has taken several actions that weaponize the ESA. In 
response to this overreach, over the course of the 118th Congress, the 
Committee has sought to hold the Biden administration accountable 
through legislative initiatives, letters, oversight efforts, and 
hearings. Recently, the Biden administration finalized three 
rulemakings that were proposed in June 2023. These new rules reverse 
reforms that were made during the previous administration, which sought 
to change how federal agencies consult with the Service under Section 7 
of the ESA and how critical habitat designations are conducted.\84\ A 
third rule recently finalized reinstated the ``blanket 4(d) rule,'' 
which reverses changes the Trump administration pursued to ensure the 
Service treated endangered and threatened species differently in 
accordance with congressional intent.\85\ Notably, the Service states 
in its Budget Request for the Ecological Services program that, as 
recommended in the America the Beautiful Report, ``the Service is 
moving away from managing species by species to focus on place based 
recovery plans that include considerations of changing climates.'' \86\ 
For FY 2025, the President's Budget seeks $23.9 for species listings 
under the ESA,\87\ a $1.9 million increase from the FY 2024 enacted 
level of $22 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ House Natural Resources Committee. Westerman Blasts ESA Rules 
That Reverse Critical Reforms. March 28, 2024. https://
naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx? DocumentID=415804.
    \85\ Id.
    \86\ Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 
2025.'' The United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Page ES-28. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf
    \87\ Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 
2025.'' The United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Page BG-1. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf.

    Ecological Services--The President's Budget Request for FY 2025 
includes $338.2 million for the Service's Ecological Services 
program,\88\ which is a $49.9 million increase from FY 2024 enacted 
levels. This request includes $146.6 million for Planning and 
Construction,\89\ and notes that environmental reviews ``constitute a 
large and growing workload for the Service,'' \90\ and that the Service 
is ``continuously seeking ways to improve the efficiency, consistency, 
transparency, and effectiveness of environmental review and permitting 
development projects.'' \91\ However, as Republicans on this Committee 
have continuously noted, delays and burdensome requirements under NEPA 
continue to impact environmental protection and restoration efforts 
across federal agencies. Notably, the Service's FY 2025 Budget Request 
for Ecological Services includes a proposed reduction of $500,000 and 3 
FTEs for NEPA Permitting, stating that ``the decrease will reduce 
technical assistance for agencies in support of the National 
Environmental Policy Act.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 
2025.'' The United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Page EX-5. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf.
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 
2025.'' The United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Page EX-6. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf.
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 
2025.'' The United States Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Page ES-15. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf.

    Forest and Rangeland Health and Wildland Firefighting--The DOI 
budget requests $1.3 billion for the Wildland Fire Management Program. 
Of this, $100 million is identified for a legislative proposal to 
provide a permanent increase in pay for wildland firefighters. While 
our brave wildland firefighters deserve fair pay, the budget request 
fails to identify any long-term funding sources for this pay increase. 
Further, the budget fails to pair firefighter pay reforms with the 
forest management reforms that are necessary to protect wildland 
firefighter health and safety by decreasing the scale and severity of 
the wildland fire on the landscape. DOI's budget requests substantial 
increases in funding for hazardous fuels reduction without actually 
committing to treating any additional acreage of fire-prone lands.
    Approximately 2.7 million acres of land burned last year, with 
roughly 23 percent being lands administered by DOI.\93\ To address the 
growing wildfire crisis, on April 4, 2022, DOI announced its ``Wildfire 
Risk Five-Year Monitoring, Maintenance, and Treatment Plan'' as a 
complement to the U.S. Forest Service's 10-Year ``Confronting the 
Wildfire Crisis'' Strategy.\94\ However, unlike the Forest Service's 
strategy, DOI did not set a goal of additional acres to treat annually 
despite identifying more than 7.1 million acres of DOI lands in 
firesheds with a high or very high likelihood of wildfire exposure.\95\ 
For the second year in a row, the budget justification for Wildland 
Fire Management makes no explicit mention of DOI's five-year plan and 
requests $287.6 million for Fuels Management to support treatments on 
approximately 1.8 million acres of land. Concerningly, this is a 
decrease in the amount requested, and DOI plans to treat less acreage 
than was reflected in its FY 2023 plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ National Interagency Coordination Center, ``Wildland Fire 
Summary and Statistics Annual Report,'' 2023, https://www.nifc.gov/
sites/default/files/NICC/2-Predictive%20Services/Intelligence /
Annual%20Reports/2023/annual_report_2023_0.pdf.
    \94\ DOI and U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``Wildfire Risk Five-
Year Monitoring, Maintenance, and Treatment Plan,'' April 2022, https:/
/www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/bil-5-year-wildfire-risk-mmt-
plan.04.2022.owf_.final_.pdf.
    \95\ Id.

    30x30 Initiative--The Biden budget continues to support the 30x30 
Initiative, which underwent a failed re-brand as the ``America the 
Beautiful Initiative.'' On May 6, 2021, DOI and other federal 
departments released an ``interim'' report titled ``Conserving and 
Restoring America the Beautiful,'' which outlined a 10-year campaign to 
preserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.\96\ Despite years 
of unanswered Congressional inquiries, the administration failed to 
address basic, fundamental questions about 30x30. The administration 
recently released its ``American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas,'' 
nearly three years late, despite the fact that DOI has already been 
implementing 30x30 without clear goals or definitions and in whatever 
manner it considers convenient on any given day. This is a continued 
threat to working lands, private landowners, and multiple uses of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\ DOI, ``Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful,'' 2021, 
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-
restoring-america-the-beautiful-2021.pdf.

    Managing Our Lands for Conservation--President Biden has recently 
designated several new national monuments using authorities under the 
Antiquities Act of 1906. Alarmingly, this trend shows no signs of 
slowing down as the budget requests $3.1 million ``in the National Park 
Service (NPS) budget to support recent or potential new designations 
that preserve important places and tell the stories of those 
historically underrepresented.'' In comparison, the entire BLM 
Rangeland Management and Public Domain Forestry Management accounts 
only request $2.7 million and $213,000 increases, respectively. These 
accounts are vital to sustaining the BLM's multiple use mandate, 
promoting forest health, and promoting economic opportunities such as 
grazing. Instead of focusing on locking up new lands, the BLM should 
focus on carrying out its multiple use and sustained yield mission. The 
budget is also full of examples of misplaced priorities justified under 
the guise of conservation or climate. For example, DOI proposes $275 
million to study the impacts of climate change and change land 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
management practices from the federal to the local level.

    Payments in Lieu of Taxes--Federal government land is non-taxable. 
This severely hurts local economies whose tax base is limited due to 
the high presence of federal land. As an attempt to compensate for 
this, federal programs exist to compensate local jurisdictions for the 
presence of nontaxable federal lands, such as DOI's Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes (PILT) program. PILT compensates local governments, often 
counties, based on a methodology including population and acres of 
federal land. In Fiscal Year 2023, PILT paid $578.8 million to more 
than 1,900 counties.\97\ Concerningly, the budget proposes a reduction 
in PILT of $153 million due to ``the need to balance funding 
requirements in a constrained budget environment.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT): Section 6902 Payments, 
Congressional Research Service, June 21, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/pdf/IF11772/IF11772.pdf.
    \98\ DOI FY25 Budget Briefing to Congressional Staff, March 19, 
2024. Comments on file with Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holding the Biden administration Accountable

    Failure to Respect Congressional Oversight--During the 118th 
Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources continues to hold 
the Biden administration accountable in order to protect taxpayers from 
government waste, fraud, and abuse. Since retaking the Majority, the 
Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations have sent a total of 47 oversight letters and held 17 
oversight hearings. Numerous transcribed and/or off-the-record 
interviews with administration witnesses, as well as staff and member 
briefings have taken place, with additional oversight requests and 
letters in the works.
    Republican Members of the Committee on Natural Resources will 
continue to hold the Biden administration accountable for executive 
overreach, inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, attempts to provide 
inadequate responses or evasive answers to Congressional inquiries, 
and/or ignoring deadlines for document production. The Committee looks 
forward to a robust commitment from the Secretary on Congressional 
oversight and document production during the remainder of the 118th 
Congress, particularly given Secretary Haaland's past position on the 
necessity and importance of robust congressional oversight and 
investigations.

    Using NPS Lands for Illegal Migrant Camps: Floyd Bennett Field--On 
August 21, 2023, DOI and NPS agreed to lease Floyd Bennett Field to New 
York City for a migrant encampment.\99\ In response, New York State 
Governor Hochul described it as a ``significant development'' because 
she was working with the Biden administration for ``many many many 
months'' to house migrants on Floyd Bennett Field after DOI and NPS 
said they ``do not allow'' the use of national park land for migrant 
housing.\100\ On September 15, 2023, the parties executed the lease 
(FBF Lease) that enabled the construction of the migrant camp on 
National Park Service land.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Eyewitness News, Floyd Bennett Field to be used to house 
asylum seekers in Brooklyn, Hochul announces, ABC NEWS (Aug. 21, 2023), 
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-migrants-asylum-seekers-floyd-bennett-field/
13680120/; Jon Campbell, White House approves migrant shelter at 
Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field, Gov. Hochul says, GOTHAMIST (Aug. 21, 
2023), https://gothamist.com/news/white-house-approves-migrant-shelter-
at-brooklyns-floyd-bennett-field-gov-hochul-says.
    \100\ Id.
    \101\ FBF Lease, supra note 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite establishing a migrant encampment at Floyd Bennett Field, 
the migrant crisis in New York City has continued unabated. The 
continued crisis led Mayor Eric Adams to state that ``we cannot 
continue to do the federal government's job'' as New York City buckles 
under the failed immigration policies of President Biden.\102\ 
Meanwhile, to help New York City stay afloat, Mayor Adams issued an 
executive order to control when bus companies could deliver migrants to 
the city and requiring bus companies to provide advance notice of 
migrant arrivals.\103\ The migrant crisis in New York City has led to 
increased crime. The widespread reports of criminality in and around 
the Floyd Bennett Field migrant encampment include domestic violence, 
assault, shoplifting, panhandling scams, prostitution, and 
panhandling.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Transcript: Mayor Adams Holds Virtual Media Briefing with 
Chicago Mayor Johnson and Denver Mayor Johnston to Discuss Asylum 
Seeker Crisis with Coalition of Cities, CITY OF NEW YORK (Dec. 27, 
2023), https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/992-23/transcript-
mayor-adams-holds-virtual-media-briefing-chicago-mayor-johnson-denver-
mayor.
    \103\ Jeffery C. Mays and Dana Rubinstein, As Migrant Arrivals 
Surge, Adams Sets Controls on Bus Arrivals, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 27, 2023), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/nyregion/mayor-adams-migrants-
bus.html.
    \104\ Carl Campanile, Migrants' pricey cars towed outside 
controversial NYC shelter in same area where they begged door to door, 
NEW YORK POST (Jan. 6, 2024); https://nypost.com/2024/01/06/metro/at-
least-five-unregistered-vehicles-used-by-migrants-parked-outside-floyd-
bennet-field-shelter-towed/; Georgia Worrell et al., Fear and loathing 
at Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field: Neighbors fuming over migrants' 
`lawlessness', NEW YORK POST (Jan. 13, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/
01/13/metro/brooklyn-residents-fuming-over-migrants-lawlessness/; Sarah 
Goodman et al., City Hall vows to probe `lawlessness' following Post 
report on spike in crime around Floyd Bennett Field migrant shelter, 
NEW YORK POST (Jan. 14, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/metro/
city-will-probe-any-lawlessness-by-migrants-at-bennett-floyd-field/
?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral; Isabelle Stanley, Floyd 
Bennett Field migrants leaves NYC'ers fuming over reported spike in 
robberies, scams and an arrests near shelter, DAILY MAIL (Jan. 14, 
2024), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12962373/Floyd-Bennett-
Field-New-York-migrant-crime-shelter-arrests.html; Craig McCarthy & 
Alex Oliveria, Adams `looking into' imposing curfew at migrant shelters 
as panhandling, crime surges, NEW YORK POST (Jan. 11, 2024), https://
nypost.com/2024/01/11/metro/adams-looking-into-imposing-curfew-at-
migrant-shelters-as-panhandling-crime-surges/.

    Outside Contractors Pushing Social Change Initiatives--On March 14, 
2023, Chairman Westerman led a letter questioning the use of taxpayer 
dollars by the FWS to fund ``eco-grief'' training for employees.\105\ 
These trainings seek to ``normalize the wide range of emotional 
responses that conservationists experience while empowering 
participants to act while taking care of themselves.'' \106\ FWS 
responded to the Committee on March 31, 2023, stating the training cost 
$11,600 and that no further trainings were planned.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\ Bruce Westerman. 3/14/2023. eco-grief_letter.pdf (house.gov).
    \106\ ``A world of hurt: Workshops aim to help federal employees 
cope with ``ecogrief''.'' Stephen Dinan. The Washington Times. 2/15/23. 
Ecogrief: Interior Department pays to help employees deal with 
emotional trauma of climate change--Washington Times.
    \107\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following this response, the Committee received additional reports 
of the FWS hiring outside consultants at taxpayer expense for various 
trainings, workshops, and projects in related areas. The Service 
purportedly utilizes the expertise of outside consultants to institute 
``social change'' initiatives, including but not limited to programs on 
social justice, environmental justice, eco-grief, diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA); and justice, equity, diversity, 
inclusion, and accessibility (JEDIA).
    The FWS' use of outside consultants during the Biden administration 
to push ``social change'' initiatives includes, but is not limited to, 
spending nearly $2.5 million on Metropolitan Group L.L.C.,\108\ a 
``social change agency'' from Portland, Oregon.\109\ Other outside 
consultants used by the FWS for ``social change'' initiatives 
purportedly include, but are not limited to, Partners For Performance, 
Inc.; Collabovate Consulting, L.L.C., which develops pathways for 
``racial equity transformation'' \110\ in organizations; and Syah B. 
Consulting, whose mission is to ``transform workplace culture.'' \111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ USASPENDING.GOV, FY2021-2023 USFWS Spending on Metropolitan 
Group L.L.C., https://www.usaspending.gov/search/
?hash=73e292011d87b703826370f353d0f710, (last visited Apr. 22, 2023).
    \109\ METROPOLITAN GROUP, https://www.metgroup.com/ (last visited 
May 16, 2023).
    \110\ Krischanna Roberson, Bio, COLLABOVATE CONSULTING (June 16, 
2020), https://www.collabovateconsulting.com/post/2020/06/16/bio.
    \111\ SYAH B. CONSULTING, https://www.deepdivedei.com/ (last 
visited May 16, 2023).

    Abuse of Nonprofits and Ethics Concerns--Under the leadership of 
Secretary Haaland, DOI has cultivated close and potentially improper 
relationships with activist nonprofits driving the Biden 
administration's agenda. Information obtained from media reports, 
document productions in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
requests, and Congressional oversight from Committee raises serious 
concerns about DOI's relationship with these groups. The Committee is 
particularly concerned about undisclosed ex parte communications and 
off-the-record meetings between DOI officials and nonprofit staff.
    Notably, limited information in the public domain suggests that 
senior DOI officials improperly worked with radical anti-use nonprofits 
during natural resource withdrawals in New Mexico and Minnesota. 
Specifically, the Committee is concerned with Secretary Haaland's 
involvement in the Chaco withdrawal decision, in conjunction with her 
involvement with the Pueblo Action Alliance, among other groups.\112\ 
In addition, the Committee is concerned with meetings between The 
Wilderness Society and high-level political appointees within DOI 
regarding the Twin Metals Mine.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ See O&I April 30 Hearing Memo
    \113\ Id.

    Great American Outdoors Act--Following a steady rise in the NPS 
maintenance backlog throughout the 2010s, a growing coalition of NPS 
stakeholders began to push Congress to provide a solution to a 
maintenance backlog that reached $12.7 billion by the end of FY 2019. 
In 2020, Congress passed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), making 
an unprecedented investment with the goal of ensuring our nation's 
treasured National Park System continues to be a source of pride for 
future generations of Americans. Four years following GAOA's passage, 
the investment made by Congress has failed to produce returns. The NPS 
backlog inexplicably increased to $23.3 billion.\114\ In addition to 
the increased backlog, Committee Republicans have legitimate concerns 
as to whether decision-makers at DOI are appropriately using GAOA 
funding for their intended use to address deferred maintenance at NPS 
facilities around the country. DOI's FY 2025 budget includes $45 
million in GAOA funding for repairs at the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ National Park Service, ``Budget Justifications and 
Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2025,'' p. SpecEx-2, https://
www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-nps-
greenbook_2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget also proposes $40 million in repairs at Gateway National 
Recreation Area in New York, the same unit the administration is 
currently using to house thousands of illegal immigrants. It is unclear 
whether any of these funds will be used to construct or improve housing 
for illegal migrants rather than restoring some of our nation's top 
crown jewels.

    Payments for Tribal Leases and Tribal Contract Support Costs--The 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) 
provides that tribes and tribal organizations carrying out federal 
functions under a self-determination contract or self-governance 
compacts may receive payments for tribal leases or contract support 
costs.\115\ Payments for tribal leases occur when a tribe or tribal 
organization enters into a lease agreement with DOI for the tribally 
owned or rented facility used to carry out those functions. Contract 
support costs cover the costs tribes incur for managing and 
administrating tribally operated programs under ISDEAA. Both payments 
for tribal leases and contracts support costs are legally required to 
be paid under ISDEAA and Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter and have, 
since 2012, been included in appropriations bills as ongoing, 
indefinite appropriations.\116\ The BIA has requested an additional 
$37.5 million over FY 2024 CR levels for payments for tribal leases, 
bringing the total up to $120 million. For FY 2025, the BIA requested 
$426.2 million for contract support costs in discretionary 
funding.\117\ The FY 2025 budget once again includes a tone-deaf 
request that both payments for tribal leases and contract support costs 
become mandatory spending, removing the oversight of the appropriations 
process.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ P.L. 93-638.
    \116\ 567 U.S. 182 (2012).
    \117\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-ES-5.
    \118\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-PTL-3.

    Indian Trusts and Land Consolidation--The BIA once again continues 
the Land Buy Back Program (LBBP), now rebranded as the Indian Land 
Consolidation Program. The FY 2025 budget requests $11 million for the 
program (a $3 million increase over FY 2024 CR enacted levels) with an 
emphasis on plans for adaptation to climate change.\119\ This emphasis 
can distract from focusing on tracts that are able to be quickly 
economically developed for the benefit of tribal communities. The 
proposal contains metrics or requirements that the Department focus on 
the consolidation of highly fractionated land with no suggestions for 
policy changes to make the program more sustainable. While the LBBP has 
made some progress in reducing fractionation, it is not a full 
solution. DOI's own final report reveals a reduction of only 
approximately 500,000 of 2.9 million purchasable fractional interests 
over the 10-year life of the program.\120\ DOI also acknowledged that 
without sustained purchasing efforts, the growth of fractionation is 
predicted to exceed pre-LBBP levels in just 15 years.\121\ Without 
policy changes to land consolidation programs, there will continue to 
be an uphill battle to put land fractionation in Indian Country on a 
downward trajectory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-ILC-5.
    \120\ DOI. Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. Dec. 2023, p.2 
https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/doi-lbb.pdf.
    \121\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As seen in previous budget requests, the President's FY 2025 budget 
includes a legislative proposal for the Carcieri ``fix.'' \122\ In 
2009, the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar \123\ that the 
Secretary of the Interior may not acquire land for Indians pursuant to 
the Indian Reorganization Act \124\ unless they are members of a tribe 
that was ``under federal jurisdiction'' in 1934. While there is support 
for tribes having land in trust, concerns remain with how enactment of 
this provision could lead to additional off-reservation gaming. 
Considering the outstanding concerns, any attempts to address Carcieri 
must be moved through regular order and carefully considered within 
Congress' authorizing committees of jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ FY 2025 Budget Appendix at p. 661 https://www.whitehouse.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2024/03/appendix_fy2025.pdf
    \123\ Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). FY 2025 Budget 
Appendix at 661, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/
int_fy2025.pdf.
    \124\ Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 985 (25 U.S.C. 465), amended 
by P.L. 100-581, 102 Stat. 2941.
                                     


 
     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2025 BUDGET
                     REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
                              THE INTERIOR

                              ----------                              


                         Wednesday, May 1, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., Room 
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Westerman 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Westerman, Lamborn, Wittman, 
McClintock, Gosar, Graves, Radewagen, LaMalfa, Webster, 
Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis, Tiffany, Carl, Boebert, Bentz, Hunt, 
Collins, Duarte, Hageman; Napolitano, Sablan, Huffman, Gallego, 
Neguse, Levin, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, Peltola, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Mullin, Hoyle, Kamlager-Dove, Case, Dingell, and 
Lee.

    The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Committee at any time.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony from the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the Honorable 
Debra Haaland, on the Department of the Interior's Fiscal Year 
2025 budget request.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    The Chairman. Good morning, and welcome, Secretary Haaland. 
We appreciate having you back in the Committee, and I am 
looking forward to hearing your testimony and the questions 
from our Members today.
    While some things have changed since you last appeared 
before us, much has remained the same. I know our Members and I 
have many questions for you on DOI's policymaking over the past 
12 months, and the way your agency continues to ignore local 
voices in pursuit of vague, undefined goals dictated by a 
radical agenda.
    The consequences of DOI's actions are deeply felt in areas 
that have relied on multiple use of public lands for 
generations. These communities have been abruptly destabilized 
by decisions from DC bureaucrats who think they know what is 
best. Despite the Administration's inclusive claims, their 
actions paint a different picture, one that is causing real 
harm to our fellow Americans. DOI's games are putting America 
in jeopardy.
    With so many questionable actions from DOI, it is 
impossible to name them all. Instead, I will take them one 
jeopardy category at a time.
    The first is faux conservation, a category of cleverly-
named actions that, in reality, restrict land access to further 
an extreme environmental agenda. Leading off, the Bureau of 
Land Management's final rule, which, when first proposed, drew 
the ire of Western Governors, Members of Congress, and 
thousands of Americans. It is a danger to the land America 
relies on to feed and fuel our economy, and a blatant disregard 
for input.
    The answer to that clue is, what is BLM's public lands 
rule?
    Not to be outdone, the next category is rogue rules. And 
here is your clue: This rulemaking will impose new fees and 
regulatory burdens on Americans' energy producers, have 
devastating effects on small businesses, and increase energy 
costs for consumers. The answer is, what is BLM's onshore 
leasing rule?
    Or how about our next category, where is my energy? I will 
give you several clues, starting with the latest devastating 
sanctions on Alaska. The decision to limit energy development 
in the NPR-A ignored the blatant concerns of Indigenous 
communities, residents of Alaska, and Alaska's entire 
Congressional Delegation. The Biden administration also 
effectively shuttered mineral development in Alaska by blocking 
the access road to the Ambler Mining District.
    Lest President Biden forgets, these are the same minerals 
needed for his own renewable energy goals, not to mention the 
items we depend on for our daily use.
    When it comes to these actions and this clue, the answer is 
clear. And that is, what are Biden's attacks on Alaska's right 
to produce energy and minerals?
    I have been a little tongue in cheek with my examples, but 
the jeopardy posed by the actions of the Department of the 
Interior under the Biden administration is all too real. Each 
decision I outlined came out of just the past 2 weeks. Just the 
past 2 weeks, those three decisions and three rules, which seem 
more like lawmaking that Congress should be doing, instead of 
rulemaking by the Administration.
    There is not enough time for me to outline the attack after 
attack from this Administration since Day 1. At the same time, 
the Biden border crisis has spread to every community across 
America. I have spent time in New York City, of all places, 
seeing how National Park Service lands are now home to camps 
for migrants. This rules for thee and not for me situation 
shows DOI is choosing to prioritize the needs of migrants above 
the safety and well-being of American communities and our 
treasured public lands.
    This Administration treats policymaking as a game, using 
American communities as political pawns. Unfortunately, 
decisions have real consequences. We are talking about people's 
livelihoods, real money, not game show winnings.
    In contrast, Republicans have advanced policies that 
promote a healthy environment and a healthy economy. These are 
not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, they go hand in hand. 
Our solutions provide access to American resources, advance 
conservation, environmentally-friendly ideals, and put local 
leaders in the driver's seat instead of DC bureaucrats.
    Secretary Haaland, I urge you to give all communities a 
seat at the table, not just the ones that fit your narrative. 
End this pattern of disrespect and disregard, and work with us 
to enact meaningful change that works for everyone.
    I yield back my time, and I recognize the Ranking Minority 
Leader, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for any statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And a warm welcome to you, Secretary Haaland. I know that 
you served on this auspicious Committee before you became 
Secretary. I also know that Ranking Member Grijalva is 
disappointed that he can't be here to welcome you himself. But 
I think I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues in saying 
that we are glad he is taking time to fully recover.
    Madam Secretary, you are here today as we have had an 
unusually warm week in DC, and this is coming from someone from 
Los Angeles. I can't help but think of it as a subtle 
forewarning for the summer that lies ahead. Last year, we had 
the hottest summer on record, and many experts think there is a 
good chance we will break that record again this time. But even 
if we only come close, it doesn't change the fact that our 
oceans, the planet's proverbial canary in the coal mine, are 
hotter than they have ever been in recorded history, and not by 
a small margin.
    The climate crisis is clearly here, and it is not shy. It 
is making its presence known in nearly every aspect of our 
lives. In fact, I think the only place where you can 
potentially forget that we are in the midst of the most 
existential crisis of our time may be in this very hearing 
room, where my Republican colleagues have yet to bring up a 
single bill that meaningfully addresses the climate crisis, not 
a single one.
    But gratefully, House Republicans are not the sole 
proprietors of our U.S. governing body. We are deeply fortunate 
to have the leadership of President Biden and Secretary 
Haaland, which is, shall we say, a bit more rooted in the 
reality that we are facing.
    When President Biden took office, he made a pledge to close 
the book on the climate denialism of the previous 
administration and restore the United States' climate 
leadership, both here and abroad. And he, with your help, of 
course, Madam Secretary, has done just that. In fact, the Biden 
administration has accomplished more on climate than any other 
administration in history. Capitalizing on the historic 
investments in climate and clean energy that Democrats passed 
through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration 
is deploying clean energy across the country, which has 
garnered billions in private-sector investment and created over 
270,000 good-paying jobs with ribbon-cutting ceremonies across 
the country that Republicans attend, as well as Democrats.
    At the Interior Department specifically, Secretary Haaland 
has overseen the recent release of several new rules that 
represent the bold action we need to transform the management 
of our public lands for a cleaner energy future. The Bureau of 
Land Management's new Public Lands Rule, for example, finally 
puts conservation on equal footing with other uses of our 
public lands like oil and gas drilling, grazing, and timber.
    Other newly-finalized rules put long-overdue fiscal reforms 
in place to make sure American taxpayers are finally getting a 
fair return when Big Oil drills on our public lands and waters.
    Another rule builds on the success of the Biden 
administration, which has already surpassed its goal of 
permitting 25 gigawatts of renewable energy, by boosting more 
solar and wind energy development on our public lands. 
Together, these new rules are transforming our energy economy 
status quo from one that has enabled the fossil fuel 
industries' desecration of our public lands, nearby 
communities, and global climate to one that is safer, cleaner, 
more sustainable, and more just. This is the kind of leadership 
the vast majority of Americans who want to see us do more on 
climate are asking for.
    But, of course, it is decidedly not the kind of leadership 
that polluters want. We have seen them here, week after week, 
at the invitation of my Republican colleagues, pining and 
longing for the days of the previous administration which 
rolled back more than 100 environmental rules so they could 
turn a bigger, quicker, and dirtier profit, all at the expense 
of the American people.
    So, I want to thank you again, Secretary Haaland, because 
while it is clear that my colleagues across the aisle are all 
too willing to do the bidding of their favorite polluter pals, 
you have shown in no uncertain terms that our public lands and 
waters are no longer a breeding ground for corporate polluter 
greed.
    If industry wants to do business here, they will do it 
safely, they will do it responsibly, they will listen to nearby 
communities and tribes, and they will clean up their mess. This 
is the kind of leadership that will build a cleaner, safer, 
more affordable energy future with good-paying jobs that will 
protect our beautiful public lands and special places for 
generations to come and that will listen to the millions of 
Americans who have been overburdened by pollution for far too 
long. This is what puts American people first: your leadership.
    So, thank you again for being here, Madam Secretary, and we 
look forward to your continued leadership.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.

    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. We will now 
introduce our witness.
    Our witness today is the Honorable Debra Haaland, and she 
is the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, confirmed 
by the Senate on March 15, 2021. She is accompanied by Acting 
Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis and Director of the Office 
of Budget, Denise Flanagan.
    Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone. Having been a veteran of the Committee, you 
get the drill.
    As you know, we use timing lights. When you begin, the 
light will turn green. When you have 1 minute left, the light 
will turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will 
turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    After the testimony, then we will have Member questioning.
    I now recognize Secretary Haaland for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA HAALAND, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 
                OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Secretary Haaland. Chairman Westerman, Vice Chair Kamlager-
Dove, and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify in support of Interior's Fiscal Year 
2025 budget request.
    I appreciate all of the support this Committee and your 
staff have consistently shown the Department of the Interior. I 
have especially enjoyed visiting so many of your home 
districts. Every trip informs my understanding of the issues 
important to the American people, the impact of the work that 
we do, and how our budget can support those interests.
    Our 2025 budget totals $18 billion in current authority.
    First, I want to highlight several important proposals: 
permanent pay legislation and reforms for our wildland fire 
workforce; mandatory funding for future Indian water rights 
settlements; and reclassifying contract support costs and 
leasing payments to tribes from discretionary to mandatory 
funding starting in 2026.
    This Administration has made a steadfast commitment to 
strengthen government-to-government relationships with Tribal 
Nations. We are doing so, thanks to significant investments 
from Congress, which are helping address the deficiencies that 
decades of underfunding have created. I am grateful to the 
members of this Committee for working on a bipartisan basis to 
champion tribal priorities.
    With the total request of $4.6 billion for Indian Affairs 
programs, this budget will address complex and difficult 
challenges such as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples 
crisis, the legacy and continuing impacts of Federal Indian 
boarding school policies, and Native language revitalization.
    Public safety continues to be a top priority for tribal 
leaders across the country. The budget includes $651 million to 
support critical public safety needs across all of Indian 
Country.
    We also request $1.5 billion for Indian education programs. 
With strong investments in the day-to-day operations of 
schools, this funding is critical as we prepare the next 
generation of Indigenous Americans to lead their communities.
    Turning to wildland fire, we continue to see the 
devastating impacts they are having across the country. I want 
to thank Congress for extending supplemental fire pay for 
another year. The 2025 budget invests in reforms, including $75 
million to support permanent pay increases for Federal and 
tribal wildland firefighters.
    Stewardship of our natural resources is a core mission for 
us. Interior manages about 20 percent of America's lands, and 
is responsible for protection and recovery of more than 2,300 
endangered and threatened species. Our request includes $2.8 
billion in annual funding for conservation efforts that support 
key initiatives such as wildlife corridors, and implementing 
the National Seed Strategy.
    I am proud of the proposal of $8 million for a mandatory 
funded tribal land acquisition program, a top priority of 
tribes, as part of our implementation of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This proposal honors the role tribes play as 
stewards of the lands, and will help ensure they have resources 
to ensure healthy lands for future generations.
    The 2025 budget invests $189 million to continue the 
progress we have made in deploying clean energy, building a 
resilient, domestic-based supply chain, and creating thousands 
of good-paying jobs. The demand for renewable energy has never 
been greater, and Interior is leading the way to a clean energy 
future.
    Regarding infrastructure, our request includes $2.7 billion 
to fund operations and maintenance for our more than 130,000 
buildings and structures and 65,000 miles of public roads.
    In addition, there is $1.6 billion in mandatory funding 
available in 2025 through the Great American Outdoors Legacy 
Restoration Fund.
    We are currently executing 326 GAOA-funded projects, with 
83 additional projects requested for 2025.
    We cannot address our major maintenance needs through 
annual appropriations alone. I look forward to working with 
Congress to reauthorize the GAOA Legacy Restoration Fund.
    Overall, the President's Budget request for Interior 
invests in programs to strengthen our nation for all Americans. 
This great work would not be possible without the dedication of 
career public servants at Interior. I look forward to our 
continued work together on these important issues.
    Thank you for your partnership and support of the important 
work of the Department and its incredible employees.
    I am pleased, we are all pleased, Denise, Acting Deputy 
Secretary Daniel-Davis, and myself are pleased to answer any 
questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Haaland follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Deb Haaland, Secretary,
                    U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the 
Interior Department's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request.
    It is an honor and privilege for me to be here with you today to 
speak on behalf of the President's 2025 Budget for the Department of 
the Interior. This Committee plays an important role in the success of 
the Department of the Interior (Department or Interior). I look forward 
to working with you in continued collaboration to address some of our 
country's most pressing challenges.
    As the steward of 20 percent of America's lands, the Department 
serves critical roles for the Nation. Interior's programs are important 
to the Nation's economy: generating jobs, supporting local economic 
growth, building resilience to the changing climate, and managing 
important natural and cultural resources. Interior is also charged with 
unique responsibilities to fulfill the Nation's Trust and other 
obligations to American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and 
the Insular Areas. In addition, Interior's scientists and technical 
experts provide actionable science and monitoring data people depend on 
to prepare for and respond to natural hazards, drought, and wildland 
fires.
    The Department's 2025 budget totals $18.0 billion in current 
authority ($17.8 billion in net discretionary authority)--an increase 
of $575.9 million, or 3 percent, from the 2024 continuing resolution 
(CR) level. An additional $360.0 million is accessible through a budget 
cap adjustment for wildfire suppression to ensure funds are available 
in the event the regular annual appropriation is inadequate to meet 
suppression needs. The budget also includes an estimated $14.8 billion 
in permanent funding available in 2025.
    Within the requested increase for 2025, $206.0 million is needed to 
cover fixed-cost increases, such as rent and Federal salary 
adjustments, to maintain Interior's core operations carried out by more 
than 68,000 people living and working in every corner of the country. 
The 2025 request also includes $412.2 million needed to keep pace with 
2024 fixed costs that are not included in the 2024 CR base.
    The 2025 President's Budget also allocates important mandatory 
funding available in 2025 through the Great American Outdoors Act 
(GAOA). This includes $1.6 billion for deferred maintenance projects 
through the Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) in the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park 
Service (NPS), and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and $681.9 million 
in mandatory funding for Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF) programs. Interior's 2025 allocation for LWCF includes $313.0 
million for voluntary Federal land acquisition projects and programs, 
$8.0 million for a new Tribal LWCF land acquisition program, and $360.8 
million for grant programs. An additional $117.9 million is estimated 
to be available for State LWCF grants in FY 2025 from offshore oil and 
gas revenue in the Gulf of Mexico.
2025 Legislative Proposals
    The 2025 budget request includes the following legislative 
proposals and technical budgetary adjustments.

    Wildland Firefighting Workforce--The 2025 President's Budget 
provides funding increases to advance wildland firefighter workforce 
reform initiatives first proposed in the 2024 budget. The cornerstone 
of these long-term reforms is a permanent increase in pay, as provided 
for in the pay reform legislation transmitted to Congress in March 
2023. This legislation will establish a special base rate salary table 
for wildland firefighters, create a new premium pay category that 
provides additional compensation for all hours a wildland fire 
responder is mobilized on an incident, and establish a streamlined pay 
cap that includes waiver authority to the Secretary on the basis of 
specific criteria. The budget includes funding for these Federal pay 
reforms and similar pay increases for Tribal personnel. These proposals 
build upon the historic reforms in the BIL to ensure wildland fire 
personnel receive the enhanced support they need to meet evolving 
mission demands from the increasing frequency and intensity of 
catastrophic wildfires, which are expected to continue due to climate 
change.

    Indian Water Rights Settlements--The budget proposes $2.8 billion 
in mandatory funding over 10 years to expand the Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Completion Fund to cover the costs of enacted and future 
water rights settlements and provide for ongoing operations and 
maintenance costs associated with enacted water settlements managed by 
the Bureau of Reclamation. Providing a stable, dedicated funding source 
for Indian water rights settlements helps to ensure these commitments 
are honored and Tribal communities have safe, reliable water supplies 
to support public and environmental health and economic opportunity.

    Transfer Authority for Implementation of BIL Projects--The 2025 
budget continues to propose appropriations language to expand authority 
for Federal agencies to transfer funds provided under the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) to FWS to accelerate and improve Endangered 
Species Act consultations in support of responsible development of 
priority infrastructure projects and energy solutions.

    Tribal Contract Support Costs--Contract Support Costs funding is a 
critical Tribal sovereignty payment enabling Tribes to assume 
responsibility for operating Federal programs by covering the costs to 
administer the programs. The budget proposes to reclassify Tribal 
Contract Support Costs from discretionary to mandatory funding 
beginning in 2026 and requests discretionary funding in 2025 to fully 
cover estimated requirements.

    Payments for Tribal Leases--Section 105(l) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act provides that Tribes and 
Tribal organizations carrying out Federal functions under a self-
determination contract or self-governance compact may enter into a 
lease agreement with the Department of the Interior for the tribally 
owned or rented facility used to carry out those functions. This 
critical Tribal sovereignty payment is allowing Indian Affairs to get 
Tribes closer to meeting the full cost of program implementation and 
improve their facilities. The 2025 budget proposes to reclassify 
funding for 105(l) lease agreement requirements from discretionary to 
mandatory funding beginning in 2026 and requests discretionary funding 
in 2025 to fully cover estimated requirements.

    Land and Water Conservation Fund Program for Tribes--The budget 
proposes language that will allocate $8.0 million of mandatory LWCF 
funding to establish a Tribal LWCF program in the Office of the 
Secretary account. The program will be managed by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs to award funding for Tribal land acquisition proposals that 
meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to advance 
conservation and recreation opportunities. This program will, for the 
first time, provide Tribes direct access to participate in LWCF without 
relying on partners--an important advancement supporting Tribal Self-
Determination.
Strengthening Tribal Nations

    This Administration has made a steadfast commitment to honor our 
Nation's Tribal trust responsibilities and strengthen government-to-
government relationships with Tribal Nations. This budget maintains 
that commitment to support and expand this work with a total request of 
$4.6 billion for Indian Affairs programs. Through initiatives 
addressing complex and difficult challenges, such as addressing the 
legacy of the Federal Indian Boarding Schools, meeting the need for 
native language revitalization, and coordinating Federal efforts to 
address Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, this Administration's 
commitment to respect the sovereignty of Tribal Nations and address 
long-standing disparities is unprecedented.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
    The 2025 budget makes significant investments in Tribal sovereignty 
and revitalization, providing new and expanded funding opportunities 
and resources for Tribes to manage their lands and waters. Interior's 
efforts to strengthen Tribal sovereignty extend across the Department 
and with other Federal partners. For example, the Department held 
Tribal consultation sessions with the USDA, with the participation of 
NOAA, in which participants consistently pointed to the adverse impacts 
the changing climate is having on Alaska Native communities and 
subsistence practices, and they emphasized the need to expand Tribal 
co-management partnerships and incorporate Indigenous knowledge into 
subsistence management. Subsistence practices are vital to the lifeways 
of Alaska Native communities and people. Alaska Native people depend 
heavily on subsistence practices for their nutritional, social, 
economic, and traditional cultural needs. The budget includes increases 
in FWS and NPS to support resource management associated with Alaska 
Native subsistence. The Department is working to implement the FY 2024 
Congressional direction transferring the Office of Subsistence 
Management from FWS to the Office of the Secretary.
    In late 2023, I hosted the 12th and final session of the ``The Road 
to Healing'' tour, a year-long commitment to travel across the country 
to allow survivors of the Federal Indian boarding school system the 
opportunity to share their stories and help connect communities with 
trauma-informed support. During the ``Road to Healing'' Listening 
Sessions, one of the most significant Tribal concerns expressed was the 
devastating impact boarding school policies have had on the retention 
of Native languages in their communities. To address those concerns, 
the 2025 budget includes $18.0 million, an increase of $11.5 million 
from the 2024 CR amount, to expand BIA grant awards for Tribal Native 
language revitalization programs that are imperative to restore 
generational continuity and Tribal culture and strengthen Tribal 
sovereignty.
    The 2025 budget maintains the Administration's strong commitment to 
fully fund Tribal Contract Support Costs and Tribal 105 (l) lease 
costs, which compensate Tribes for the cost of administering programs 
on behalf of the Federal Government, and for the use of tribally owned 
space for the operation of Government-owned services. The budget 
continues to propose to reclassify these required costs as mandatory 
funding starting in FY 2026 and, for FY 2025, proposes discretionary 
funding to fully fund requirements in the budget year: an estimated 
$426.2 million for Contract Support Costs and $120.0 million for Tribal 
105(l) Lease Costs.
Investing in Tribal Communities
    The budget includes $2.9 billion for Bureau of Indian Affairs 
programs, $344.8 million above the 2024 CR level. The 2025 BIA budget 
contains significant investments in Tribal communities, including $73.1 
million for the Tiwahe Initiative, $28.6 million above the 2024 CR 
level. Under Tiwahe, funding assists Tribes at selected sites to 
implement a tribally driven approach to deliver essential services more 
effectively and efficiently. The initiative facilitates collaboration 
within Tribal communities--which can help to leverage resources, share 
expertise, reduce duplication, and exchange information about families' 
needs--to formulate the most responsive approach to provide service. 
Since 2015, the Tiwahe Initiative has focused primarily on promoting 
family stability though several Human Services programs. The 
Department's 2025 budget further expands Tiwahe in Social Services, 
Indian Child Welfare Act, Housing, and Tribal Justice Support programs.
    The budget includes $50.1 million, $10.9 million above the 2024 CR 
level, to address another long-standing Tribal priority to improve road 
maintenance. Poor road conditions directly affect the quality of life 
in many Tribal communities, limiting transportation for public safety 
and emergency response, travel to school, and travel to work. This 
additional investment increases maintenance for an additional 5,000 
miles of BIA roads. Funding will also increase bridge maintenance and 
safety reviews of 250 bridges to inform prioritization, project 
selection, and planning to better implement construction funding 
available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The 
estimated deferred maintenance backlog for BIA roads and bridges is 
nearly $400 million. BIA's budget includes additional investments in 
Tribal communities in areas such as Tribal climate resilience, social 
services, housing, and land consolidation.
    Public safety continues to be a top priority for Tribal leaders 
across the country. The elevated level of concern is coupled with 
emerging needs to expand services to address the McGirt v. Oklahoma 
decision and the needs of 31 Tribes that are eligible for but do not 
receive BIA public safety and justice funding. The budget includes 
$651.2 million in Tribal Public Safety and Justice funding, a net total 
change of $71.5 million above the 2024 CR level, to support critical 
public safety needs in Indian Country. The request provides additional 
resources to help meet Tribal needs in policing, detention, and Tribal 
courts. A $41.9 million program increase is included for Criminal 
Investigations and Police Services; of that amount, $33.5 million is 
specifically targeted to increase the number of officers and 
investigators on the ground in Indian Country. The budget also includes 
a $20.1 million increase for Detention and Corrections programs and 
maintains public safety and justice construction funding at the FY 2024 
CR level of $51.6 million.
Advancing Indian Education
    Indian Education programs are funded in the 2025 budget at $1.5 
billion, $119.5 million above the 2024 CR level, to provide a strong 
educational foundation for Native children to succeed. Native students 
face stark inequities in access to education, many of which were 
highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic. To help address the gap, 
the budget invests in the day-to-day operations of BIE-funded 
elementary and secondary schools. The budget includes $518.1 million, 
an increase of $36.5 million above the 2024 CR level, for Indian 
Student Equalization Program formula funds, which provide the primary 
support for academic activities in the classroom, instructional 
services, and teacher training, recruitment, and retention. The budget 
includes resources to operate and maintain BIE-funded schools and fully 
funds the estimated $100.7 million required for Tribal Grant Support 
costs, which cover the administration costs for Tribes that choose to 
operate BIE-funded schools. The 2025 budget also features $7.5 million 
for Native language immersion programs at BIE schools.
    The budget includes $191.1 million for postsecondary schools and 
programs--including Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern 
Indian Polytechnic Institute, Tribal colleges, universities, and 
technical colleges--and expanded Tribal scholarships and adult 
education programs.
    At $310.2 million in the 2025 budget, annual funding for Education 
Construction is $42.3 million above the 2024 CR level. The 2025 budget 
also continues efforts to address BIE-funded school facilities in poor 
condition and the deferred maintenance backlog in the BIE school 
system, which totals more than 180 schools. The budget includes $162.6 
million, $8.1 million above the 2024 CR level, for facilities 
operations and maintenance. An additional $95.0 million in mandatory 
funding for BIE school construction through the GAOA Legacy Restoration 
Fund is available in 2025 to support projects at two school campuses. 
Together, this funding will allow BIE to replace four schools in 2025 
and address cost increases at schools funded in prior years.
Meeting Financial Tribal Trust Responsibilities
    The 2025 budget includes $111.3 million, level with the 2024 CR 
amount, to support Tribal and Individual Indian Money financial 
functions managed by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA). 
BTFA was established within the Office of the Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs in 2020 to house the ongoing financial trust management 
functions established through trust reforms carried out by the Office 
of the Special Trustee for American Indians. BTFA currently serves as 
the financial manager for more than $8 billion of Indian Trust Funds 
and provides services for 4,200 Tribal accounts and roughly 411,000 
Individual Indian Money accounts. Thank you for providing full 
recognition of BTFA as a bureau in the FY 2024 Enacted Appropriation 
which will allow the organization to focus on its mission of serving 
Indian Country.
Addressing Climate Challenges and Building Resilience

    Across America, communities are enduring historic and catastrophic 
flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, drought, and more, and longer-term 
changes in temperature are affecting ecosystems and the economies that 
depend on them. The impacts of climate change are intensifying, 
disrupting lives and livelihoods, and causing billions of dollars in 
damages. Together with agencies across the Federal Government, States, 
Tribes, and other partners, Interior is working to address the 
immediate and long-term needs driven by the changing climate. 
Catastrophic fire, flood, and drought events are increasingly top-of-
mind considerations for Interior's resource managers. These events 
demand immediate attention and resources, but long-term success 
requires work to build climate resilience. The 2025 budget reflects 
Interior's important role in the all-of-government approach to tackling 
climate change and building long-term resilience. The budget invests 
$5.5 billion in climate adaptation and resilience efforts to address 
these important challenges.
Wildland Fire Management
    The devastating consequences of severe wildfires continue to affect 
communities and wildland firefighters across the country. The National 
Interagency Coordination Center reports that more than 56,000 wildfires 
occurred across the United States in 2023, burning nearly 2.7 million 
acres. Climate change-driven, long-term trends continue, with 
increasing wildfire occurrence, burned area, and high-severity 
incidents expected in 2025 and beyond, with impacts ranging from direct 
loss of life and property to health, economic, and ecosystem impacts. 
For 2025, the President's Budget expands the Nation's response to 
wildfire impacts beyond the near term, investing in longer-term actions 
to restore wildfire resilience, rehabilitate burned areas, and increase 
the workforce capacity and capability to manage wildland fires.
    The 2025 budget request for the Department's Wildland Fire 
Management (WFM) programs is $1.6 billion, including $1.3 billion for 
WFM annual appropriations and $360.0 million for the Wildfire 
Suppression Operations Reserve Fund. The request for the WFM account 
includes $831.8 million in emergency designated appropriations (also 
referred to as shifted base). The total request is an increase of 
$206.7 million, and an estimated 61 Federal full-time equivalents 
(FTEs) and 7 Tribal FTE, a funding increase of 14.4 percent above the 
2024 CR level. The request includes $75.0 million to support permanent 
pay increases for Federal and Tribal wildland firefighters and an 
increase of $39.8 million above the 2024 CR level.
    The 2025 budget continues to press for implementation of permanent, 
comprehensive pay reform for Federal wildland firefighters at Interior 
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Enacting pay reform is 
essential to meet the challenges posed by longer and more intense 
wildfire seasons to ensure stable firefighter recruitment and 
retention. The long-term reforms are supported by funding requested to 
implement a permanent pay increase to replace the temporary pay 
increases provided in the BIL and continued in the 2024 Enacted 
Appropriation. Complementing these pay reforms are investments to 
enhance health services, hire additional permanent and temporary 
wildland firefighters to increase capacity, and improve government 
housing. These investments will help address long-standing recruitment 
and retention challenges, attend to firefighter mental health and well-
being, increase the Department's capacity to complete critical risk 
mitigation and post-fire recovery work, and further the 
Administration's commitment to build a more resilient wildland 
firefighting workforce as the frequency and intensity of catastrophic 
wildfires continue to increase due to climate change.
    The 2025 budget continues to reflect the important role proactive 
fuels management plays in wildland fire management to reduce the 
intensity, severity, and negative effects of wildfire and improve the 
resiliency of public and Tribal lands. The budget includes $287.6 
million for Fuels Management, which maintains program capacity at the 
2024 CR level and includes a program increase of $25.0 million to cover 
the program's share of the increased cost of the permanent firefighter 
pay reform. Combined with funding provided in the BIL for fuels 
management, the Department expects to treat 1.8 million acres in 2025.
    The 2025 budget also proposes appropriations language to increase 
Interior's flexibility to engage in cross-boundary fuels management and 
burned area rehabilitation work, including on non-Federal lands if the 
work benefits resources on Federal lands. These changes will address 
gaps and uncertainties in current authority and support implementation 
of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Among other 
benefits, these changes will support underserved communities that may 
be unable to share the costs for work that also benefits Federal 
jurisdictions.
    The budget for Wildland Fire includes $15.0 million for Facilities 
Construction and Maintenance, $5.0 million above the 2024 CR level, 
which includes $10.0 million to repair, renovate, and construct housing 
for wildland fire personnel. These funds will significantly help 
address the problem of inadequate or unaffordable housing facing many 
wildland firefighters working in certain geographic locations. The 
budget will further improve wildland fire management by establishing a 
Joint Office for Wildfire Science and Technology with the U.S. Forest 
Service. The budget includes $2.5 million in Interior's Preparedness 
program and $2.5 million in the U.S. Forest Service budget to support 
joint efforts leading to the development, deployment, and sustainment 
of technology, science, and data to be used to improve safety, 
effectiveness, and cost efficiency across the Wildland Fire Management 
program.
Drought and Ongoing Water Challenges
    Severe and sustained drought conditions across the West are forcing 
difficult challenges and choices to manage available water supplies. 
Limited water availability and increased wildland fire risk pose 
significant threats and challenges for communities, agriculture, 
Tribes, and ecosystems. Interior is bringing every resource to bear to 
help mitigate the impacts of drought and bolster long-term solutions 
supporting continued conservation and economic growth, so no community 
is left behind.
    The 2025 President's Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded 
through the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, complements the 
transformative investments in water infrastructure, drought mitigation, 
and domestic water supply projects now underway through funding from 
the BIL and the IRA. The 2025 budget includes $1.5 billion for 
Reclamation's water programs and projects, sustaining a strong 
commitment to drought mitigation in the Bureau's annual appropriations. 
Funding in the request will help to ensure communities across the West 
have access to a resilient and reliable water supply by investing in 
rural water projects, water conservation, desalination technology 
development, and water recycling and reuse projects. The budget 
provides funding to address the ongoing drought affecting water systems 
across the West, including along the Colorado River System, which is 
near historically low levels.
    In the past 3 years, Interior has allocated $2.43 billion available 
through the BIL to address Indian water rights settlements enacted by 
Congress as of November 15, 2021. Indian reserved water rights are 
vested property rights for which the United States has a trust 
responsibility. Settlement of Indian water rights disputes helps create 
conditions that improve water resource management and provides 
certainty as to the rights of all water users who are parties to the 
disputes. Honoring those commitments promptly is especially important 
to the health, safety, and empowerment of Tribal communities.
    In addition to these previous investments, the budget provides 
$181.0 million in the Bureau of Reclamation to support the White 
Mountain Apache Tribe's water settlement agreement within the 
settlement's statutory completion deadline. The budget also includes 
$45.0 million in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support payments 
authorized in the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2022.
    The Administration proposes legislation to expand the Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Completion Fund. This proposal will provide $2.8 
billion in mandatory funding over 10 years to help ensure commitments 
are honored on existing, newly enacted, and anticipated Indian Water 
Rights Settlements. Included in this total is $340.0 million in 
mandatory funding for operations and maintenance costs associated with 
currently enacted Bureau of Reclamation funded settlement projects.
    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also works with partners to 
deliver water predictions and drought risk assessment tools that 
support the mitigation of and response to prolonged drought. USGS has 
supported extensive partner engagement throughout the Colorado River 
Basin with science to identify and begin to understand the cascading 
effects of drought on ecosystems and socioeconomic factors; improve 
partners' access to science, data, and tools; and improve the 
understanding of gains and losses of water as it moves from one 
Colorado River reservoir to another. Predictions and assessments--along 
with other fundamental information on how drought drives physical, 
biological, and chemical landscape change--are used to evaluate 
watershed conditions on multiple-use public lands, the status of fish 
and wildlife species, drought impacts on rangeland management, and 
plans and investments for infrastructure, conservation, and restoration 
projects. In FY 2025, USGS will invest an additional $7.0 million to 
support these efforts to address the critical issues facing our Nation 
due to drought.
Building Resilient Communities
    The impacts of climate change on communities across the Nation have 
focused more attention on the need to strengthen resilience to these 
changes through short-term disaster preparedness and long-term planning 
and infrastructure investments. Interior programs advance these efforts 
in many ways through proactive investments leveraging science and 
critical monitoring networks.
    USGS manages the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, 
which maintains a nationwide network of streamflow and water level 
information collected from more than 31,000 sites. The budget includes 
$121.4 million for this program, $6.8 million above the 2024 CR level. 
Network information is available online to help States, Tribes, natural 
resource managers, scientists, and emergency managers across the 
country to monitor for floods and drought and forecast water 
availability for crops and natural resource management.
    The USGS Ecosystem Change Research Program analyzes and synthesizes 
the effects of environment, land use, and climate changes on ecosystems 
to inform natural resource management policy and decisions--including 
those concerning wildfires and drought--and collaborates with Tribal 
partners to assess climate impacts on Tribal lands and waters.
    As part of the USGS Coastal and Marine Hazards programs, 
researchers use on-the-ground field work, high-resolution data, and 
modeling to help communities understand and respond to changes in 
coastal landscapes. Federal, Tribal, State, and local entities around 
the country use USGS data to inform coastal management and strategic 
planning. Some organizations use this science to plan evacuation 
notices, inform city planning, and construct storm-resistant 
infrastructure. Others use USGS habitat assessments and decision-
support tools to restore coastal ecosystems and develop infrastructure 
that can help buffer future storm damage and coastal erosion. The 
budget includes $49.2 million for the Coastal and Marine Hazards 
program, $6.0 million above the 2024 CR level.
    The 2025 budget includes $48.8 million, $13.8 million above the 
2024 CR level, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for Interior's 
Tribal Climate Resilience program to support Tribes in climate 
resilience planning, assessment, and adaptation activities. The program 
also funds planning and design work for Tribal communities evaluating 
the need for or pursuing climate-related relocation. This annually 
funded program complements the Voluntary Community-Driven Relocation 
program, led by Interior, and made possible with investments from the 
BIL and the IRA, with additional support for relocation from the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Denali Commission. This 
initiative is helping Tribal communities severely affected by climate-
related environmental threats take the next step in the process of 
relocating crucial community infrastructure away from imminent threats.
    The Office of Insular Affairs budget includes $118.3 million for 
Assistance to Territories to support basic services in the Insular 
Areas and targeted investments related to climate change. These 
investments include $15.5 million to promote renewable energy and 
strengthen grid infrastructure in the Insular Areas and $2.8 million 
for work related to coral reef ecosystems and other natural resource 
needs. Funding in 2025 for Assistance to Territories includes total 
increases of $4.0 million for important investments needed to maintain 
ongoing support for conservation and climate resilience in the Insular 
Areas. These increases are offset by a reduction of $6.0 million 
reflecting the discontinuation of support for the discretionary funded 
Compact Impact program. Compact Impact is addressed in the recently 
enacted COFA legislation.
Healthy Public Lands, Waters, and Wildlife
    Interior manages more than 480 million acres of lands across the 
United States and is responsible for the protection and recovery of 
2,367 endangered and threatened species. Interior leads as an active 
partner in ongoing efforts to understand and mitigate climate impacts 
on natural resources, promote biodiversity, and ensure these valuable 
assets remain available for the public to experience and enjoy. Natural 
resource conservation, restoration, recovery, and adaptive management 
are a fundamental part of Interior's mission across the agency. 
Interior's conservation and adaptive management work relies heavily on 
partnerships and interagency collaboration to leverage information and 
resources. The 2025 budget includes roughly $2.8 billion in annual 
funding for conservation efforts, including critical work for 
restoration and improvements supporting healthier lands, waters, 
ecosystems, and their resident species.
    The 2025 budget includes targeted investments aimed at protecting 
biodiversity; restoring fish, wildlife, and their habitats; and halting 
nature loss. The request includes $2.0 billion for natural resource 
programs in NPS, BLM, and FWS. This funding supports Interior's core 
mission activities and at the same time supports the objectives of the 
America the Beautiful initiative to advance conservation efforts that 
are locally led, collaborative and inclusive, honor Tribal sovereignty, 
and follow science.
    The FWS budget invests $602.3 million in the National Wildlife 
Refuge System to maintain and operate 571 national refuge areas across 
the country. Each unit of the refuge system is established to target 
conservation of native species dependent on its lands and water, and 
all activities on those lands are reviewed for compatibility with this 
purpose. The budget includes $280.4 million for Wildlife and Habitat 
Management activities in the national refuge areas, an increase of 
$19.9 million above the 2024 CR amount.
    The budget also includes $942.5 million, an increase of $37.9 
million from the 2024 CR level, for FWS species and habitat 
conservation; restoration and recovery of species; migratory bird 
programs; fish and aquatic conservation; and international conservation 
programs. Many of these programs support collaborative partnerships 
leveraging the support of a wide range of partners, including 
sportspeople, local communities, private landowners, and Tribes. The 
budget includes $68.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program, $7.8 million above the 2024 CR level, to further support 
voluntary conservation on private lands--a key focus of the America the 
Beautiful initiative. The FWS budget also includes $17.6 million for 
the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, $0.8 million above the 2024 
CR amount, to continue collaborations with a multitude of partners to 
ensure the migratory pathways of our Nation's birds remain connected 
and support sustainable populations.
    A primary responsibility of the National Park Service is to 
conserve and protect the natural and cultural resources and values at 
429 park units, 25 trails, and 66 wild and scenic rivers. NPS natural 
resource stewardship activities support active management, research, 
and projects to conserve, protect, and better understand park natural 
resources. NPS is managing invasive plants and animals, restoring 
disturbed ecosystems, and addressing the resiliency of park resources 
to climate changes to conserve iconic natural resources and enhance the 
visitor experience. NPS develops best management practices and applies 
science to understand the risks to park resources from environmental 
hazards, identifies specific factors that affect park resources and 
park investments. National Park lands are also venues to collaborate 
with partners and the public on this important work. The budget 
includes $431.0 million for natural and cultural resource stewardship 
activities across the national parks, $11.3 million above the 2024 CR 
level.
    The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Conservation Lands 
(NCL) system of national monuments and national conservation areas 
comprise nearly 37 million acres. The NCL system was created to 
recognize and help protect the outstanding value of these unique 
places, which are some of BLM's most popular and heavily visited sites. 
The 2025 budget includes $54.6 million, $4.0 million above the 2024 CR 
level, to maintain and operate these areas on behalf of the public. The 
funds support the management and operation of the NCL sites to protect 
and conserve these special places and address the impacts of stressors, 
such as high recreational use, invasive species, and climate change. 
BLM and its volunteers provide key visitor services and interpretive 
programs at areas with the highest visitation to offer the American 
people exceptional areas for recreation. The budget includes $61.5 
million, $5.9 million above the 2024 CR level, for recreation 
management activities across BLM. That amount includes increased 
funding to implement the MAPLand Act (Modernizing Access to Our Public 
Land Act) to improve geospatial data about and facilitate access to 
BLM-managed public lands.
    Interior bureaus often work collaboratively to address cross-
cutting resource stewardship challenges. A long-standing example of 
this approach is Interior's ongoing support to enhance wildlife 
migration corridors and habitat connectivity to help ensure fish and 
wildlife have the freedom to move and migrate, as areas are 
increasingly fragmented by roads, fences, and other barriers. Since 
2018, Interior has worked in partnership with 11 Western States, a wide 
diversity of nongovernmental organizations, and Western Tribes to 
support projects to better understand migration routes, remove barriers 
to migrating wildlife, and improve habitat conditions on public and 
private lands. The budget includes $12.0 million for migration corridor 
activities in the FWS, BLM, NPS, and the USGS to help leverage public-
private partnership efforts to protect pronghorn, elk, mule deer, and 
other iconic species across the West. As part of this work, USGS has 
led development of the coproduced science needed to manage migration 
corridors. Because of the widely acknowledged value of this work and 
the recognition of increasing threats to Western landscapes, the 2025 
USGS budget includes $3.9 million to support this work, a program 
increase of $3.5 million above the 2024 CR level.
    Interior plays a leadership role in implementing the National Seed 
Strategy (NSS) to support ecosystem restoration by addressing the 
increasing demand for native seed that outpaces the supply. The NSS 
provides a framework for coordination across Federal agencies and other 
partners and cooperators to build an adequate supply of native seeds. 
The 2025 budget includes $27.2 million, $4.3 million above the 2024 CR 
level, across BLM, FWS, and BIA to implement the NSS as part of 
Interior's core operations. This investment is consistent with 
congressional direction to ``supply native plant materials for 
emergency stabilization and longer-term rehabilitation'' and will 
strengthen broader restoration efforts by helping to reduce suppliers' 
uncertainty of demand for seed, increase the availability of stock 
seeds, and increase knowledge sharing.
Creating Jobs and Meeting Energy and Environmental Challenges

    Interior's programs create jobs and spur economic growth in a 
variety of areas--energy and minerals, recreation and tourism, 
irrigation and other water-related activities, grants and payments, and 
infrastructure investment. Enactment of the Great American Outdoors 
Act, the BIL, and the IRA have and will continue to significantly 
expand Interior's contributions to America's economic and job growth. 
An Interior analysis completed in 2023 found that investments from 
three BIL-funded programs alone--Abandoned Mine Lands; Orphaned Well 
Plugging, Remediation, and Reclamation; and Water Resources--support on 
average 17,669 jobs and generate $2.0 billion for the U.S. economy each 
year. The 2025 budget maintains a consistent strategy to emphasize 
investments that create jobs and better position the country to be more 
competitive worldwide.
Developing a Robust Clean Energy Economy
    The 2025 budget continues to advance the Administration's clean 
energy goals. Interior has made significant progress to stand up clean 
energy projects on public lands and establish a strong offshore wind 
energy program, which will create good-paying union jobs and help the 
transition to a decarbonized economy.
    At the start of 2024, two U.S. offshore wind energy sites announced 
the first delivery of electricity to the grid from projects off New 
England and Montauk, NY. This event came on the heels of Interior's 
announcement at the end of 2023 that the Nation's sixth commercial 
offshore wind energy project had been approved and a new offshore wind 
lease sale was proposed in the Central Atlantic. Four offshore wind-
lease auctions have taken place during this Administration, which have 
brought in almost $5.5 billion in high bids. BOEM has also advanced the 
process to explore additional opportunities for offshore wind energy 
development, including in the Gulf of Maine and Gulf of Mexico and 
offshore the U.S. Central Atlantic and Oregon coasts. Also this year, 
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) stood up a 
regulatory and enforcement program for this new offshore industry. BSEE 
is also preparing a regulatory update to ensure safe development and 
operation of offshore wind facilities.
    In 2023, the Bureau of Land Management approved 10 wind, solar, and 
geothermal projects that, when built, will power millions of homes 
across the West. The Administration also made significant progress 
clearing the way for key transmission lines crossing federally managed 
lands and celebrated the groundbreakings of the TransWest Express 
Transmission Project (Wyoming), the Ten West Link (Arizona and 
California), and the SunZia Transmission Project (New Mexico, Arizona, 
and California).
    BLM is processing more than three dozen utility-scale onshore clean 
energy projects proposed on public lands--including solar, wind, and 
geothermal projects--and the interconnected generation tie lines vital 
for connecting clean energy projects on non-Federal land to 
transmission lines. These projects have the combined potential to add 
more than 22 gigawatts of renewable energy to the Western electric 
grid.
    Overall, the budget includes $189.3 million, $35.3 million above 
the 2024 CR level, to continue the Administration's progress in 
deploying clean energy, spurring economic development, and creating 
thousands of good-paying jobs. Funding supports the leasing, planning, 
and permitting of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects and 
associated transmission infrastructure that will help mitigate the 
impacts of climate change and support the Administration's goal of 
deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and 25 
gigawatts of clean energy capacity on public lands by 2025.
    The 2025 budget includes $53.1 million for BLM's onshore renewable 
energy program, $12.1 million above the 2024 CR level. The request will 
help build staffing capacity at BLM's Renewable Energy Coordination 
Offices and accelerate planning and permitting to accommodate increased 
demand and workload. BLM also plans to undertake market and technology 
trend analysis; enhance engagement with States, counties, and Tribes; 
and work to adopt a regional approach to permitting and environmental 
reviews.
    The 2025 budget includes $52.0 million for BOEM's Renewable Energy 
program, a $9.2 million increase above the 2024 CR level. This request 
includes funding to continue to support permitting for projects 
proposed on existing leases and activities associated with Interior's 
current Offshore Wind Leasing Path Forward 2021-2025. The budget 
includes $21.7 million within BOEM's Environmental Programs for studies 
that inform clean energy decisions, an increase of $1.7 million, which 
includes additional funding for environmental reviews associated with 
offshore renewable energy projects.
    The budget for BSEE includes $12.6 million to continue work in 
support of offshore renewable energy deployment. BSEE anticipates 
receiving more than 40,000 wind engineering, construction, and other 
technical reports for review through the end of FY 2025. The bureau is 
working closely with BOEM to implement the framework needed to ensure 
offshore renewable energy projects are constructed and operated safely 
and responsibly.
Conventional Energy
    The budget for BOEM provides $67.5 million for conventional energy 
programs, approximately $6.0 million above the 2024 CR level, to 
support Outer Continental Shelf planning, leasing, and oversight. This 
work includes inventorying oil and gas reserves, overseeing ongoing 
activities, ensuring adequate financial assurances for decommissioning 
liability and risk management, implementing the 2024-2029 National OCS 
Oil and Gas Leasing Program, reviewing and administering oil and gas 
exploration and development plans and geological and geophysical 
permits, and conducting economic analyses, environmental studies, and 
resource evaluation. Decisions pertaining to conventional energy 
activities also receive support from the Environmental Programs 
funding.
    The 2025 budget for BSEE includes $213.0 million that supports 
conventional energy program work. This funding supports OCS permit 
application reviews, regulation and standard development for offshore 
activities, verification and enforcement of operator compliance with 
all applicable environmental laws and regulations, technical reviews of 
planned operations and emerging technologies to properly identify and 
mitigate risks, an annual inspection program that includes risk-based 
inspections, and incident investigations. Within this funding, BSEE 
will continue to strengthen its technical workforce to keep pace with 
an evolving industry with increasingly complex deepwater operations. 
BSEE's budget also includes $12.0 million to fund the decommissioning 
of orphaned offshore oil and gas infrastructure. This funding, along 
with funding from other sources, will be used to address the most 
immediate and urgent well, pipeline, and platform decommissioning needs 
to help reduce the risk of pollution.
    Included in the 2025 budget is $115.8 million for BLM's Oil and Gas 
Management program, an increase of $3.0 million from the 2024 CR level. 
The BLM budget also includes $51.0 million for Oil and Gas Inspection 
Activities and proposes to offset the cost of this program through 
onshore inspection fees.
    The 2025 budget continues to support onshore and offshore carbon 
sequestration activities. The BIL provides authority to the Secretary 
of the Interior to grant a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the 
Outer Continental Shelf for activities that ``provide for, support, or 
are directly related to the injection of a carbon dioxide stream into 
sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon 
sequestration.'' Carbon sequestration permanently stores carbon dioxide 
(CO2) in secure subsurface geologic reservoirs to reduce the amount of 
CO2 in the atmosphere and mitigate its impact on global climate change. 
BOEM and BSEE are working to develop and publish draft offshore carbon 
sequestration regulations for public comment. The proposed rule will 
address aspects of carbon sequestration on the OCS, including the 
transportation and geologic sequestration of CO2, leasing of OCS areas 
for that purpose, storage site characterization (i.e., delineation of 
potential storage reservoirs), environmental plans and mitigation 
measures, facility and infrastructure design and installation, 
injection operations, monitoring, incident response, financial 
assurance, and safety, among other issues.
    While the rule is under development, BOEM and BSEE will continue to 
develop their carbon sequestration programs to facilitate program 
implementation upon final rule publication. The 2025 BOEM budget 
includes $1.0 million to establish a dedicated carbon sequestration 
team and fund environmental studies, scientific research, data 
collection, and other activities critical to implement the new program. 
The 2025 BSEE budget includes $1.5 million to prepare to regulate and 
oversee safe and effective offshore carbon sequestration activities.
Reclamation Jobs
    The 2025 budget continues to provide annual ongoing support for 
related reclamation activities targeting State and Tribal reclamation 
needs associated with abandoned hardrock mines, legacy pollution on 
Interior's lands, and innovative coal mine reclamation projects 
directly supporting local economic growth. The Administration is 
committed to remediating the physical and environmental hazards to 
repair those lands, improve air and water quality, and, at the same 
time, create jobs in rural communities. The budget includes $7.0 
million, $2.0 million above the 2024 CR level, for the Abandoned 
Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program to support State, Tribal, and Federal 
efforts to inventory and address legacy sites on their lands. Abandoned 
hardrock mine sites often pose significant health and safety risks to 
surrounding areas and are found across the country. Many States, 
Tribes, and Federal land programs do not have good inventories or 
strong programs to manage those sites. This program targets the need to 
build capacity and begin to address this long-standing problem.
    On Interior lands, the Department has identified thousands of mines 
and features that pose safety risks and generate environmental 
contaminants. USGS, in partnership with BLM, has developed the first 
national database of current and historical mine features. Tens of 
thousands of legacy pollution sites are on BLM lands alone, including 
roughly 56,600 abandoned hardrock mine sites, many of which pose 
serious threats to the public and the environment. Rural and Tribal 
communities proximate to historic mining sites feel the physical and 
environmental impacts of those sites most keenly, but the growing 
popularity of BLM lands for recreation has placed even more people in 
harm's way. The budget includes $58.4 million for BLM's Abandoned Mine 
Lands and Hazardous Materials Management program, $1.3 million above 
the 2024 CR level, which will work in tandem with national Abandoned 
Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program efforts to inventory and remediate 
those sites more broadly on State, private, Tribal, and other Federal 
agency lands.
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 
works with States and Tribes to regulate active coal mines to ensure 
environmental problems do not occur and remediate abandoned coal mines 
to address health and safety hazards. High-priority abandoned coal mine 
problems can include clogged streams, acid mine drainage, dangerous 
highwalls, waste piles or embankments, subsidence, underground mine 
fires, and polluted water--all of which can pose immediate threats to 
the public health and safety of communities. OSMRE manages the State 
and Tribal abandoned mine reclamation grant programs authorized by the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the BIL. In 2023, OSMRE 
invested nearly $1 billion in coal communities, including $724.8 
million made available to 22 States and the Navajo Nation for 
reclamation as part of the BIL and $126.5 million available through the 
traditional, fee-funded, mandatory Abandoned Mine Land (AML) grant 
program.
    OSMRE also manages the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization 
(AMLER) program, which administers grants to six States and three 
Tribal Nations to return legacy coal mining sites to productive uses 
and foster economic and community development. Since 2016, the AMLER 
program has provided more than $900 million to America's current and 
former coal communities to deliver economic and community development 
and achieve reclamation of historic abandoned mine sites. The 2025 
budget includes $135.0 million to continue support for AMLER.
    In 2025, the OSMRE budget includes $2.5 million to provide grants 
to nongovernmental organizations and local and State government 
agencies to help construct, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate 
abandoned mine land passive-treatment systems that were previously 
constructed to address water pollution from mine drainage. This funding 
helps local communities protect the investments made in passive-
treatment systems installed to address water pollution discharges from 
abandoned mine lands.
Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion of Underserved Communities

    Interior is taking steps across the Department to expand equity, 
diversity, and inclusion beyond day-to-day management policies to 
incorporate this concept into the delivery of the Department's 
missions. This commitment is consistent with the Administration's all-
of-government approach to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, 
and equal opportunity. Interior's 2025 budget request supports the 
actions needed to recognize and redress inequities and to proactively 
advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within the 
Department's workforce and program implementation. The Department seeks 
to ensure that everyone--no matter their background or ZIP Code--can 
enjoy the benefits of Interior's mission programs.
    The Department of the Interior is committed to maintaining a 
diverse workforce that reflects the public we serve and sustaining an 
equitable and inclusive workplace environment. In 2022, the Department 
published its first Equity Action Plan, which was then updated in 2024. 
It outlines efforts to advance equity through all Interior operations, 
remove barriers to equal opportunity, and deliver resources and 
benefits equitably to the public.
Ongoing Commitment to Diversity and Equity
    In support of the Equity Action Plan, the 2025 budget includes 
program increases of $2.8 million for the Office of Diversity, 
Inclusion, and Civil Rights; Office of Human Capital; and Office of 
Collaborative Alternative Dispute Resolution to strengthen Equal 
Employment Opportunity compliance and advance antidiscrimination 
protections provided to the Department's employees and job applicants.
Increasing Representation and Tribal Co-Stewardship
    Reflecting the Administration's commitment to accessibility and 
inclusion, the budget includes targeted investments to increase 
representation in the delivery of Interior's core missions. An example 
is $3.1 million requested in the NPS budget to support recent or 
potential new designations that preserve important places and tell the 
stories of those historically underrepresented. Through the Outdoor 
Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, NPS recently designated three 
new local parks in urban areas to increase residents' opportunities to 
connect with the outdoors. The designations include a park in 
Anchorage, AK, in an area with a high concentration of low-income 
youth; an aging park in Moorhead, MN, in a community with a high 
poverty rate; and Roosevelt Park in Buffalo, NY, to address a severely 
deteriorated multiuse athletics field built in the 1950s in a community 
with a high poverty rate.
    The responsibility for meeting Tribal trust responsibilities and 
promoting Tribal sovereignty stretches across Interior. The 2025 budget 
includes targeted increases to expand Tribal co--stewardship across the 
Department. The NPS budget includes a $3.0 million increase to directly 
support Tribal participation in management of Federal lands and waters 
with cultural and natural resources of significance and value to Indian 
Tribes and their citizens, including sacred religious sites, burial 
sites, wildlife, and sources of Indigenous foods and medicines.
    The budget for FWS includes increases totaling $5.5 million to 
advance co-stewardship and engagement with Tribes on Indigenous 
knowledge research, conservation planning, and marine mammal 
management. Implicit in the Marine Mammal Protection Act is the 
realization that cooperative management of subsistence harvests between 
FWS and Alaska Native organizations is more likely to achieve the goals 
of the act than management by a Federal agency alone. The budget 
provides strong support to continue to build these relationships with 
partners such as the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nannut Co-
management Council, which is the FWS co-management partner for polar 
bears.
    The NPS 2025 budget proposes $2.5 million in dedicated funding for 
Tribal Heritage Grants within the Historic Preservation Fund to support 
Indian Tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations, and Native 
Hawaiian Organizations for the preservation and protection of their 
cultural heritage in addition to other important ongoing Tribal 
programs.
    The Bureau of Reclamation budget includes $29.5 million for its 
Native American Affairs Program, $9.5 million above the 2024 CR level. 
The program supports a variety of Reclamation activities with Tribes, 
including technical assistance, drought assistance, the Secretary's 
Indian Water Rights Settlements Program, and outreach.
Building Agency Capacity

    Interior is strengthening the Department's delivery of core 
programs and services for the American people. Efforts related to 
improving Interior's workforce and operations and better leveraging 
technology and information are underway across the Department.
Interior's Workforce and Infrastructure
    Interior is building its capacity for next generation hiring 
through promotion and expansion of existing and emerging hiring 
authorities, working closely with the Office of Personnel Management 
and the Office of Management and Budget. Recently, the Department 
received approval for use of term appointments excepted beyond general 
time limits for work in support of the Great American Outdoors Act and 
direct-hire authority for permitting positions. The Department 
continues to use direct-hire authority for wildland firefighting, 
information technology, and STEM positions. Interior also recently 
increased the hiring of former Public Lands Corps participants, 
Resource Assistant interns, Knauss Fellows, and military spouses. These 
programs--when combined with Schedule A hiring for persons with 
disabilities, Pathways internships, hiring of recent graduates, and the 
Presidential Management Fellowship (PMF) program--will greatly affect 
the Department's ability to acquire the talent needed to achieve its 
mission for the next several decades.
    The budget includes $206.0 million to fully support anticipated 
fixed-cost increases in 2025, assuming a 2.0-percent increase in 
Federal salaries in FY 2025. The budget also includes $412.2 million in 
program baseline capacity funding to reflect increased 2024 fixed-cost 
requirements over the 2-year budget comparison. Without full funding 
for these costs, Interior bureaus and offices will absorb these must-
pay costs by cutting funding for program work or staffing.
    Another key operational priority for Interior is infrastructure. 
Interior manages a real property portfolio valued at more than $400 
billion, consisting of more than 130,000 buildings and structures, 
65,000 miles of public roads, and a wide variety of other constructed 
assets. Those facilities serve millions of visitors each year, provide 
schooling for tens of thousands of Native American children, and are 
places of work for more than 68,000 Interior employees. Many of 
Interior's infrastructure assets are priceless for their historical 
significance. As the steward of those assets, the Department is 
committed to sustaining and making the life cycle investments in 
facilities that are critical to its mission.
    The Department continues its evolution toward a life cycle 
investment approach to help slow the growth of the maintenance backlog 
and sustain assets in the long term. This approach includes focusing 
efforts on preventive and recurring maintenance and selectively 
targeting assets for modernization and renewal investments, which will 
enable bureaus to move away from practices that result in an 
unmanageable backlog. The 2025 budget includes more than $2.7 billion 
for life cycle management of real property.
    The Department continues to support the Administration's goals to 
transition the Federal motor vehicle fleet to clean and zero-emission 
vehicles. The 2025 budget includes $13.0 million across bureaus to 
support the Department's transition of light-duty fleet acquisitions to 
ZEVs. This funding will be used to conduct fleet planning (including 
ZEV integration), electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) site 
evaluations, and EVSE installation The funding will also support 
Interior's efforts to right-size its fleet to ensure the Department has 
efficient, mission-capable vehicles at the right locations and with the 
right vehicle mix to deliver Interior's missions. Fleet planning will 
ensure ZEVs are integrated into the overall fleet plan, prioritizing 
locations and appropriate missions for deployment of those vehicles.
Investing in Technology and Information Management
    The 2025 budget includes $57.8 million, $3.5 million above the 2024 
CR level, for the operation and maintenance of the Financial and 
Business Management System (FBMS), which supports the Department's core 
financial and business management requirements. The request provides 
for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the Department's 
integrated FBMS system of record, mandatory technology upgrades, 
improved end-user training, and implementation of zero trust 
architecture to strengthen FBMS' IT security. Modernizing Interior's 
core business system helps to ensure a strong administrative backbone 
and is critical to the continued execution of Interior's mission 
activities.
    Cybersecurity remains a top priority for the Department. Malicious 
actors continue to present risks to Federal systems and the Nation's 
critical infrastructure. Interior continues to work to support a 
consistent level of assurance and risk reduction for the Department at 
the enterprise level. This effort will provide a solid foundation for 
an operationally focused enterprise cybersecurity architecture that is 
resilient and scalable and will allow the Department to respond rapidly 
to sophisticated and advanced threats.
    The 2025 budget includes $67.8 million for Departmentwide 
cybersecurity, $23.5 million above the 2024 CR level. This investment 
funds high-priority recurring operations and maintenance costs for 
incident remediation, provides resources to fight emerging threats, and 
supports the development of an enterprise cybersecurity architecture. 
The increase in the 2025 budget enables foundational enterprise 
capability to implement zero trust principles, which require all 
devices and users--regardless of whether they are inside or outside an 
organization's network--to be authenticated, authorized, and regularly 
validated before being granted access. Within the increase is $5.0 
million to implement a secure access service edge (SASE) solution to 
secure access points to meet the required zero trust security and 
performance standards.
Conclusion

    The 2025 President's Budget for Interior invests in programs which 
will strengthen our country for all Americans, protect our environment, 
and ensure future generations continue to not only enjoy, but improve 
their way of life.
    I look forward to doing this work together. Thank you again for 
having me, and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary 
                   of the Department of the Interior

The Honorable Deb Haaland did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

Southern Border

    Question 1. In response to questioning by Rep. Tom Tiffany, you 
admitted that you have not been to the U.S.-Mexico border in an 
official capacity.

    1a) Given that the DOI manages approximately 608 miles of the 692 
miles of federal land along the U.S.-Mexico border, is your failure to 
visit the area appropriate?

    1b) Will you commit to visiting the U.S.-Mexico border this year to 
better understand how the DOI can aid border security and improve the 
health of America's public lands?

    1c) When will this visit be scheduled?

    Question 2. The Congressional Research Service estimates there are 
over 1.1 million acres of wilderness along the Southern Border.

    2a) How is the wilderness characteristic being maintained with the 
influx of migrants to the southern border?

    2b) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have 
testified before this Committee that wilderness designations pose 
significant obstacles to efficient border enforcement. Have you had any 
discussions with Secretary Mayorkas aimed at addressing these 
difficulties?

    2c) If you answered no to question (b), will you commit to doing 
so?

    Question 3. In response to questioning, you told Rep. Harriet 
Hageman that you have not taken any steps to work with Secretary of 
Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas to protect Tribal communities 
along the U.S.-Mexico border from human smuggling and drug trafficking.

    3a) Given that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is within DOI and 
has a mission to protect Tribal trust assets, is this complete lack of 
action on your part appropriate?

    3b) Will you commit to speaking with Secretary Mayorkas about ways 
to solve this issue?

    Question 4. It is estimated that millions of pounds of trash have 
been discarded by migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent 
years.

    4a) Does the DOI have up-to-date estimates of the quantities of 
border trash along the border? If so, please share. If not, please 
explain why not.

    4b) Does the DOI undertake any large-scale efforts to remove border 
trash? If so, please provide an estimate of the percentage of border 
trash that is removed by these efforts. If not, please explain why not.

Bureau of Land Management Public Lands Rule

    Question 5. When will the final rule on ``Conservation and 
Landscape Health'' be published in the Federal Register?

    Question 6. Will the final rule be identical to the final rule 
document posted on the BLM's website on April 18, 2024? If not, please 
provide a list of changes and the reason for the change.

    Question 7. Where did the BLM derive the new definition of ``intact 
landscape?''

    Question 8. Will the landscape intactness inventory and 
accompanying information be publicly available?

    Question 9. Will land health standards, assessments, and 
accompanying information be publicly available?

    Question 10. The final rule allows for restoration lease fees to be 
waived.

    10a) Does BLM have authority to waive lease fees?

    10b) Can you provide current examples?

    Question 11. If a proposal for a mitigation lease is 99 years, 
would the BLM grant that permit?

    Question 12. There appear to be two contradicting statements in the 
final rule about how restoration and mitigation leases could impact 
current leases:

        ``Leases will not override valid existing rights or preclude 
        other, subsequent authorizations so long as those 
        authorizations are compatible with the restoration or 
        mitigation use.''

        ``Restoration and mitigation leases would not disturb existing 
        authorizations, valid existing rights, or State or Tribal land 
        use management.''

    12a) What statement is true? If authorizations are not compatible 
with restoration or mitigation use, it appears leases can override 
valid existing rights.

    Question 13. Will the BLM require any permittee or all permittees 
to buy a mitigation lease or purchase credits generated from a 
mitigation lease? If not, can you provide citation to this assurance in 
the rule?

    Question 14. The fundamentals of rangeland health and land health 
assessments have been part of the grazing regulations for many years, 
and this rule extends those standards across all uses. The requirement 
to conduct these assessments, however, will continue to live in the 
grazing regulations.

    14a) Does the BLM intend to remove this provision from the grazing 
regulations?

    14b) Does the BLM intend to continue to do these assessments at a 
grazing allotment scale while also pursuing watershed scale 
assessments? If so, what assessment will be used or given priority?

    Question 15. The rule calls for BLM to develop a consistent set of 
national standards to allow the agency to apply land health standards 
across various ecosystem types. What is the timeline on development of 
these standards?

    Question 16. Given that the rule is not expected to be final before 
BLM's deadline to comment on ACEC components of the sage grouse plans 
and other Resource Management Plans, how are stakeholders supposed to 
believe their comments will be taken seriously?

    Question 17. The rule identifies ACECs as the primary means to 
protect intact landscapes, including migration corridors and habitat 
connectivity. Does BLM intend to use ACECs for designations of wildlife 
migration corridors?

    Question 18. Regarding ACECs:

    18a) Is the temporary designation of an ACEC outside the land use 
planning process a new land use designation created under this final 
rule?

    18b) If not, please share how many temporary ACEC designations were 
issues outside of a land use planning process each year for the last 5 
years, including acreage, date of designation, and date of either 
temporary designation ending or transfer to a permanent ACEC.

    Question 19. How many total acres are currently under a temporary 
ACEC designation?

    Question 20. Is there a time limit on a temporary ACEC designation?

    Question 21. What is the difference between a temporary ACEC 
designation and a National Monument designation under the Antiquities 
Act? Please give details on management, funding, access, and treatment 
of current leases and permittees.

    Question 22. Of the 8,400 unique comments submitted, how many were 
in support of the rule, how many expressed concern, and how many were 
opposed?

    Question 23. In terms of requirements for a lease application, the 
rule says the application must include, ``Information on outreach 
already conducted or to be conducted with existing permittees, lease 
holders, adjacent land managers or owners, and other interested 
parties.'' It continues to say when BLM looks at leasing, they need to 
look at collaboration with existing permittees.

    23a) What if current permittee expresses a lease is incompatible 
with their current use?

    23b) Who will BLM listen to in such situation, the current 
permittee or a proposed lease by a potential permittee?

    Question 24. Will the BLM confirm they will contact the existing 
permittees to verify their support or opposition before granting a 
conservation or mitigation lease?

    Question 25. This rule creates new, unaccountable mechanisms, 
including so-called ``mitigation and restoration leases,'' that could 
allow wealthy individuals and entities to lock up huge swathes of 
public land for preservationist purposes.

    25a) Please describe, in detail, the processes by which lease 
applicants will be screened, making sure to identify the departments 
and teams within BLM that will conduct those processes.

    25b) During a congressional briefing on the Public Lands Rule held 
on April 26, 2024, BLM Principal Deputy Director Nada Wolff Culver 
stated that mitigation and restoration leases would not be issued to 
foreign entities. What capacity does the BLM have for assessing whether 
entities are foreign-owned or foreign-controlled?

    25c) Which departments and teams would be responsible for making 
these assessments regarding whether entities are foreign-owned or 
foreign-controlled?

    Question 26. In touting the Public Lands Rule, the BLM has claimed 
that it received and considered over 200,000 comments during the 90-day 
comment period for the proposed rule.

    26a) How did the BLM respond to those comments that expressed 
criticisms of the proposed rule?

    26b) Does the final rule incorporate any changes that address those 
criticisms? Please be specific in each instance where a criticism was 
addressed in the final rule.

    Question 27. In your testimony, you explained that ``whoever wanted 
to comment publicly'' on the Public Lands Rule ``could do so.'' How do 
you reconcile this statement with the fact that there were in-person 
listening sessions in only three cities?

    Question 28. On May 17, 2023, Republicans on the House Natural 
Resources Committee sent you a letter requesting a 75-day extension of 
the public comment period for the proposed rule. Yet, the BLM 
ultimately announced an extension of merely 15 days.

    28a) Why was the extension period much shorter than what was 
requested?

    28b) Were you personally involved in the determination that a 15-
day extension was adequate?

    28c) How is this consistent with DOI's statements that it values 
local input?

    Question 29. Why did the BLM change the name of ``conservation'' 
leases in the proposed rule to ``restoration'' or ``mitigation'' leases 
in the final rule?

    Question 30. Did the BLM change the name of conservation leases to 
restoration and mitigation leases because section 103 of FLPMA does not 
give the authority to BLM to define conservation as a use?

    Question 31. Do restoration and/or mitigation appear as ``principal 
or major uses'' as defined by section 103 of FLPMA?

    Question 32. How many times does the word ``mitigation'' appear in 
FLPMA?

    Question 33. In what context does the word ``mitigation'' appear in 
FLPMA?

    Question 34. Does the word ``mitigation'' appear in FLPMA in any 
context in which it would be an exclusive use of the land?

    Question 35. How many times does the word ``restoration'' appear in 
FLPMA?

    Question 36. In what context does the word ``restoration'' appear 
in FLPMA?

    Question 37. Does the word ``restoration'' appear in FLPMA in any 
context in which it would be an exclusive use of the land?

Wildfires and Forest Management

    Question 38. In the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress 
passed an update to the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) to 
establish a streamlined process for development, approval, and 
implementation of vegetation management, facility inspection, and 
operations and management (O&M) plans for electric utilities operating 
in rights-of-way on BLM lands. BLM has not completed its required 
update of the process or O&M plans. The Forest Service completed the 
updates in 2.5 years.

    38a) When will the BLM move forward with its compliance to the 
Congressional update in FLPMA?

    38b) When will the BLM finalize the rule for updating O&M plans?

    38c) Please provide a timeline for completion to Congress.

30x30

    Question 39. A BLM Press Release from April 3, 2024, titled, 
``Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Protections for Thompson 
Divide'' states, ``. . . [President Biden] is on track to conserve more 
lands and waters than any President in history.''

    39a) How much land and water has the President conserved (please 
delineate in acreage)?

    39b) At what point will President Biden conserve more lands and 
waters than any President in history (i.e. a certain percentage or 
acreage number)?

    39c) What percentage of the lands ``conserved'' by President Biden 
are at risk of catastrophic wildfire?

    39d) Since President Biden ``conserved'' those acres, what active 
management has occurred to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire.

    Question 40. The Conservation and Stewardship Atlas (Atlas) was 
released after 3 years of working on it. How much money was used to 
develop the Atlas?

    Question 41. How much staff time was used to develop the Atlas?

    Question 42. Why did it take 3 years to develop the Atlas?

    Question 43. Have the policies that the administration has been 
implementing prior to the release of the Atlas consistent with the 
Atlas?

    Question 44. Will any administration policies need to change now 
that the Atlas is publicly available?

    Question 45. On the home page for conservation.gov, the website is 
described as ``[a]n information hub supporting locally led efforts to 
conserve and restore our nation's lands, waters, and wildlife.''

    45a) How does the Department of the Interior define 
``conservation''?

    45b) Why is that definition not prominently displayed on the 
website?

    45c) Will DOI commit to posting a concise and accurate definition 
of ``conservation'' on the website's home page? If not, why not?

    45d) How does DOI define ``restoration''?

    45e) Why is the definition of restoration not prominently displayed 
on the website?

    45f) Will DOI commit to posting a concise and accurate definition 
of ``restoration'' on the website's home page? If not, why not?

    Question 46. On the webpage entitled, ``Supporting Conservation 
Ambition and Progress across the U.S.,'' there is a diagram that 
summarizes the Biden administration's ``preliminary framework for 
assessing progress toward the nation's goal of conserving at least 30 
percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.'' Notably, National Forest 
System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands ``that are 
conserved and restored'' are listed as only ``potential additions'' to 
the ``National Conservation Goals.''

    46a) How many acres of NFS lands are currently listed as 
``potential additions''?

    46b) What data is required before this acreage can be added to the 
``National Conservation Goals''?

    46c) What are the current uses of the specified NFS lands? Please 
give a percentage breakdown of primary uses (e.g., x percent is 
primarily used for wildlife habitat, y percent is primarily used for 
watersheds protection, z percent is primarily used for grazing, etc.).

    46d) How many acres of BLM lands are currently listed as 
``potential additions''?

    46e) What data is required before this acreage can be added to the 
``National Conservation Goals''?

    46f) What are the current uses of the specified BLM lands? Please 
give a percentage breakdown of primary uses (e.g., x percent is 
primarily used for wildlife habitat, y percent is primarily used for 
timber harvesting, z percent is primarily used for grazing, etc.).

    Question 47. The website claims that ``approximately 13 percent of 
U.S. lands . . . are permanently protected and not subject to 
extractive uses.''

    47a) Is this 13 percent figure equivalent to the sum of all 
``Permanently Protected Areas'' and ``Additional Conserved Areas'' 
currently displayed in the diagram on the ``Supporting Conservation 
Ambition and Progress across the U.S.'' webpage?

    47b) If not, how was this figure calculated? Please provide 
details.

    47c) Please provide a list of every example the administration 
considers to be an ``extractive use.''

    Question 48. The Atlas is described on conservation.gov as ``a data 
and mapping project that aims to better reflect the full scope, scale, 
and progress of conservation efforts across the U.S.'' Yet the 13 
percent figure described above is the only concrete figure currently 
cited for current lands conservation. Since so much data is pending, is 
it not misleading to cite the 13 percent figure, especially when the 
Atlas claims to ``better reflect the full scope, scale, and progress'' 
of U.S. conservation efforts?

    Question 49. Conservation.gov boasts that, ``[s]ince the launch of 
the America the Beautiful initiative in early 2021, the U.S. has 
experienced one of the most rapid accelerations of conservation 
progress in U.S. history, with more than 41 million acres of land and 
water conserved in 3 years.'' This reflects an average of nearly 14 
million acres conserved per year.

    49a) According to the Congressional Research Service, as of FY 
2022, the main federal land management agencies have a $36 billion 
deferred maintenance backlog on their existing lands. Is it wise for 
the federal government to acquire more acreage for conservation when it 
has such a large backlog?

    49b) Elsewhere, the website stresses the importance of maximizing 
local input in conservation planning. How can the Biden administration 
adequately gather and evaluate local input for land-use planning when 
its conservation efforts are undergoing ``rapid accelerations''?

    Question 50. Despite making repeated caveats that the data used in 
the Atlas is incomplete, and therefore only ``preliminary,'' 
conservation.gov assert that ``U.S. protection, conservation, and 
restoration efforts will need to stay at or above 2021-2023 levels of 
expansion to achieve the 30 percent goal for lands by 2030 and to 
expand geographic and biological representation to ensure ecosystem 
health and resilience.''

    50a) How can the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) accurately 
assert the need for expanded ``protection, conservation, and 
restoration efforts'' when its data on existing efforts is incomplete?

    50b) According to Congressional Research Service, the federal 
government already owns approximately 28 percent of all land in the 
U.S. If the federal government is properly managing these lands, why 
would new conservation efforts ``need to stay at or above 2021-2023 
levels of expansion to achieve the 30 percent goal for lands'' by 2030?

    Question 51. Conservation.gov claims that the website's development 
was based on public input, which included ``more than 34,500 comments 
received.'' How many of those comments were unique?

    Question 52. How many taxpayer dollars were used to create the 
conservation.gov website?

    Question 53. What is the difference between ``restoration'' and 
``conservation''? Please provide examples.

    Question 54. Conservation.gov routinely emphasizes the importance 
of local input, declaring, for example, that ``[t]he Federal Government 
should do all it can to help local communities achieve their own 
conservation priorities and vision.''

    54a) In formulating the Rock Springs Draft Resource Management Plan 
(RMP), the BLM abruptly switched its preferred alternative to 
Alternative B, despite representing Alternative D as the preliminary 
preferred alternative to local stakeholders for many years prior. Does 
the DOI view this abrupt change as consistent with ``emphasiz[ing] the 
importance of local input''?

    54b) If not, what steps will the DOI take to ensure this kind of 
conduct is not replicated in the future?

    54c) In its finalized ``Public Lands Rule,'' the BLM has eliminated 
the 60-day comment period for areas of critical environmental concern 
(ACECs). Is this action by the BLM consistent with ``emphasiz[ing] the 
importance of local input''?

    54d) If not, will the DOI commit to reinstating the separate 
comment period for ACECs?

    Question 55. Conservation.gov maintains that ``[c]onserving and 
restoring the nation's lands and waters can yield immense economic 
benefits.''

    55a) Is the DOI aware that the Rock Springs Draft RMP will cause 
2,900 people to lose their jobs in Wyoming?

    55b) Does the DOI view such job losses to be ``immense economic 
benefits''?

    55c) If not, how will the BLM seek to bring economic benefits to 
the areas of Wyoming that would be negatively affected by the Rock 
Springs Draft RMP?

    Question 56. As part of the Biden administration's 30x30 
Initiative, the administration released principles to ``guide'' their 
efforts. Two principles are: (1) Supporting tribal priorities and (2) 
Locally led and locally designed conservation efforts.

    56a) How does the Department reconcile differences when the 
priorities of Tribes and local communities are not aligned?

    56b) What policy changes has the Department implemented since the 
30x30 announcement to ensure that voices of local communities are being 
heard when decisions are made that could drastically effect their way 
of life?

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

    Question 57. Does the Administration support Payments in Lieu of 
Taxes (PILT)?

    Question 58. The Department is requesting a $153 million decline in 
funding for PILT. When asked why, DOI staff said in an email to 
Committee Staff, ``The 2025 budget prioritized funding needed to 
support ongoing operations and sustain services and programs Interior 
provides directly to the public, including critical health and safety 
programs. As such, the budget proposes reductions in several major 
grant and payment programs, including PILT.''?

    58a) If the budget ``prioritized funding needed to support . . . 
programs Interior provides directly to the public . . .,'' please 
explain how PILT payments directly to the public does not fit into this 
statement.

    58b) Please list the ``several major grant and payment programs'' 
with a proposed reduction. Please include the name and amount.

Indian and Insular Affairs

    Question 59. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs held a 
hearing on the Land Buy Back Program earlier this year, where the 
Department did not testify in person. The Department's own report 
reviewing the program indicated that without sustained purchasing 
efforts, the growth of fractionation is predicted to exceed pre-program 
levels in just 15 years.

    59a) Has the Department looked at changing its approach to decrease 
land fractionation on reservations given these findings and the minimal 
reduction of fractionated land over the past decade?

    59b) If not, why?

    Question 60. Regarding LWCF:

    60a) Why does the FY 2025 request move the LWCF program from the 
BIA's account to the Secretarial account?

    60b) Will this hinder BIA's ability to manage the LWCF program and 
create extra bureaucratic barriers for tribes?

    60c) Is there concern that purchasing lands for tribes with LWCF 
funds will curtail future use of these lands that could stifle tribal 
autonomy?

    Question 61. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) ordered a series 
of investigations at Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) between 
2021 and the present.

    61a) The BIE Investigative Report prepared by the BIE 
Administrative Review Board (AIB) is dated November 7, 2022. It is also 
dated January 13, 2023. Provide the Committee was all changes made to 
the Report, including any or all edits (including additions or 
deletions) made after November 7, 2022 and January 13, 2023.

    61b) During your testimony, you mentioned that you recently visited 
HINU. During the time of your visit, were you aware of ongoing 
investigations at the school? Please explain.

    61c) Did you meet with any students who had filed assault and 
harassment complaints, and/or contacted your office? Please explain.

    61d) On March 2023, a group of HINU Student-Athletes wrote to you 
and reported instances of ``intimidation, threats, fraudulent reports, 
assaults, sexual abuse, embezzlement, forged signatures and countless 
crimes and unspeakable acts of evil, all from one group at HINU.'' 
Please provide a copy of your response.

    61e) HINU student-athletes were forced to sign, at the direction of 
HINU President Pfeiffer, and other administration officials, formal 
non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), on or about November 4, 2021, without 
the ability to seek advice from counsel or even their parents. At the 
time, students were bullied and even threatened with expulsion if they 
did not sign the agreements.

                i) Did you, or any official at BIA, or BIE, authorize, 
                direct, or approve of this action?

                ii) Do you agree with the use of NDAs for HINU 
                students?

Energy and Mineral Resources

    Question 62. In our Committee hearing when asked a question 
regarding oil and gas leasing in Colorado you said ``In Colorado, 
specifically, we are moving forward with what we are required to do.'' 
The Mineral Leasing Act explicitly states that ``lease sales shall be 
held for each State where eligible lands are available at least 
quarterly and more frequently if the Secretary of the Interior 
determines such sales are necessary.''

    62a) When do you plan to return to quarterly lease sales in the 
State of Colorado?

    Question 63. During your testimony, you stated that the Department 
of the Interior has permitted 40 mine projects.

    63a) Which projects have been permitted?

    63b) Which projects were expansions or modifications?

    63c) Which projects were fully new mines?

    63d) Which mines were fully permitted, from start to finish, under 
the Biden administration?

    63e) How many of these projects required an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)?

    63f) How many new mines are awaiting an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)?

    63g) How many new mines are awaiting a Record of Decision (ROD)?

    Question 64. BOEM and BSEE have initiated an interagency 
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to revise the current Biological 
Opinion for Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (BiOp). I am 
also aware that a number of entities operating in the Gulf of Mexico, 
and industry trade associations, have requested that they be granted 
applicant status by the agencies to allow them to actively participate 
in the BiOp process. It seems logical that the entities that are 
performing the work that is being analyzed in the BiOp, and their 
associations, be given the opportunity to participate in the 
consultation. The requests were sent over the course of the last month, 
and neither BOEM nor BSEE has indicated that they are actively 
considering these requests. There are activities that take place early 
in the BiOp process that applicants could participate in if a decision 
is made in time.

    64a) Do you have any information regarding the status of these 
requests?

Coordination with Local Communities

    Question 65. In August 2023, the BLM published the Draft RMP and 
EIS for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming. The BLM's proposed 
alternative (Alternative B) would designate 16 new Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs) covering 1.8 million acres of federal 
land, which is half of the RMP's covered area. Alternative B would also 
eliminate the possibility of fluid mineral leasing on roughly 2.5 
million acres of the 3.7 million subsurface acres managed in the 
planning area. In our Committee hearing you admitted that you had not 
heard of the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan.

    65a) Is it appropriate for you, the top DOI official, to be wholly 
unfamiliar with this controversial planning initiative?

    65b) Will you commit to familiarizing yourself with the Rock 
Springs Draft RMP and to addressing yourself to the concerns raised by 
local officials and residents?

    65c) How are the State of Wyoming and rural communities in Wyoming 
supposed to provide essential services to their constituents when you 
are locking up their lands for energy production?

    65d) Please provide to the Committee all communications and 
meetings between Department HQ officials and outside stakeholder groups 
on the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan revision.

    Question 66. When BLM Principal Deputy Director Nada Wolff Culver 
testified before this Committee on March 20, 2024, she admitted that 
she had not taken the opportunity to read testimony from other 
witnesses that had raised serious, local complaints about the Rock 
Springs Draft RMP. Is it appropriate for a leading BLM official to have 
neglected to read such complaints?

    Question 67. In our Committee hearing, you stated that you went up 
to Utqiagvik where you did a roundtable with tribal leaders.

    67a) During that roundtable did you tell tribal leaders of your 
plans to issue a regulation for management of the National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska and cancel the previously awarded leases in the 1002 
area of ANWR?

    67b) Please provide the transcript and any notes taken for and 
during that roundtable.

    Question 68. In January 2024, officials representing Utah's 
Garfield and Kane Counties raised concerns at a BLM Coordination 
Meeting about BLM planning for Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument (Grand Staircase). Specifically, these officials claimed that 
the BLM had failed to adequately coordinate with them over the 2-year 
period that began in 2021, when the BLM started working on an RMP in 
response to President Biden's expansion of the Grand Staircase. These 
officials also claim that BLM failed to meet a number of critical 
deadlines during that period and has failed to produce a list of the 
``objects'' that would be protected by the monument's new acreage.

    68a) Are these coordination failures consistent with the DOI's 
public statements about valuing local input and coordinating with local 
governments? What steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

    68b) Will you commit to having the BLM provide the list of objects 
that would be protected by the expansion of the Grand Staircase?

Great American Outdoors Act

    Question 69. The utilization of Maintenance Action Teams (MATs) has 
been touted by the Department as a valuable tool that incentivizes the 
Department to leverage economies of scale to efficiently tackle 
deferred maintenance and repair projects on public lands. In the FY25 
budget proposal, there is no increased investment for MAT teams.

    69a) Given the continued rise of the deferred maintenance backlog, 
why is the department not investing more resources in MAT teams?

    69b) How does the Department determine what projects will be 
completed by MAT teams versus contracting out a project to a third 
party? Please provide examples.

    69c) Has the Department considered increasing the scale of the MAT 
program?

    69d) How many projects does the Department anticipate MAT teams 
will complete in FY 2025?

    69e) On average, how much does a project completed by a MAT team 
save the Department compared to contracting the same project?

    Question 70. In September 2023, an OIG report on the National Park 
Service's management of its deferred maintenance revealed concerning 
findings on accuracy and data reliability issues that have exacerbated 
barriers to conducting and conducting deferred maintenance projects. 
What measures has the Department taken to ensure that NPS reliability 
deferred maintenance projects are done in a reliable manner?

    Question 71. How does the National Park Service prioritize various 
deferred maintenance projects?

    Question 72. Please describe how the Department determines what 
financial resources are allocated to the contingency fund?

    Question 73. Do these determinants vary for different agency's 
contingency funds?

Foreign Influence

    Question 74. On April 29, 2024, the Daily Caller published an 
article which stated that a senior official from the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management solicited a legal opinion from the Natural Resources 
Defense Council in an effort to solicit interest from developers to 
invest in underserved communities. The Natural Resources Defense 
Council receives significant support from Energy Foundation China, a 
Beijing-headquartered organization led and staffed by individuals with 
significant ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). With the Natural 
Resources Defense Council having ties to the CCP, is there concern in 
the Department that BOEM gave indirect access for CCP to influence 
American energy policy?

Natural Capital Asset Accounting

    Question 75. The Interior Department, including the Bureau of Land 
Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and U.S. Geological 
Survey, serve on the Working Group that developed the ``National 
Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions.'' 
The FY25 budget request for the Department of the Interior includes 
$3.22 million for the USGS to ``build on and augment existing datasets 
across mission areas that support environmental-economic accounts'' and 
``produce pilot environmental-economic accounts for land, water, 
natural hazards, energy and minerals and ecosystems.'' In addition, the 
request also includes $290,000 for the Office of the Secretary to hire 
an analyst to ``advance the National Strategy for Statistics for 
Environmental-Economic Decisions,'' including ensuring that DOI ``is 
well integrated in the Interagency Policy Working Group (PWG),'' ``help 
DOI in leading or supporting regular and thorough communications both 
from Interior to other collaborators and from the PWG to Interior; help 
ensure that economists, other scientists, and key policy staff across 
Interior are coordinated to contribute to accounts and their 
application; and apply technical knowledge of natural capital 
accounting to support the development, testing, refinement, and 
deployment of data and statistics, especially as pertains to inter-
bureau and interagency topics.'' How specifically would these requested 
funds be used to support implementation of an unauthorized United 
States natural capital accounting initiative?

    Question 76. The ``National Strategy to Develop Statistics for 
Environmental-Economic Decisions'' states that the federal government 
should ``apply existing authorities and make use of the substantial 
expertise within Federal departments and agencies . . . to develop and 
update the system of natural capital accounts and environmental-
economic statistics,'' noting that the plan features ``actions agencies 
can take under existing resources and those that require some 
additional outyear investments.'' Moreover, it notes that current OMB 
guidance and presidential directives require benefit-cost analysis, and 
that ``agencies should endeavor to account for how their actions change 
the value of services provided by natural assets.'' Please specify all 
actions that DOI has already taken to initiate implementation of this 
initiative, including the specific financial and human resources 
involved in doing so.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. What are the detailed budget commitments Interior has 
made to date as part of the agreement on behalf of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation? In other words, what 
Interior funds have been obligated thus for the ``USG Commitments''?

    Question 2. The ``USG Commitments'' outlined numerous deadlines to 
be met by each agency--can you please provide an updated list of which 
portions of the agreement Interior has funded and implemented and a 
timeline for the remaining items?

    Question 3. What other additional resources have been tapped at 
Interior for the purpose of carrying out the ``USG Commitments'' such 
as staff time and other expenditures not expressed out in the 
settlement?

    Question 4. How does Interior intend to communicate budget and 
expenditures for the ``USG Commitments'' to Congress or to the non-Six 
Sovereigns, aside from being asked for updates?

    Question 5. How will stakeholders be engaged both in Interior's 
budget commitments and generally as policy is drafted and implemented 
as part of the ``USG Commitments''?

    Question 6. How will the ``Water Supply Analysis'' contained 
involving the Bureau of Reclamation be coordinated and funded with the 
State of Washington and how will stakeholders be engaged in that 
process?

    Question 7. Four sawmills have closed in Western Oregon since the 
beginning of the year. Each cited an insufficient supply of logs to 
maintain their operations, despite being surrounded by overstocked 
federal forests. Instead of increasing active forest management to 
improve forest health and meet our society's needs for wood products, 
this year the Department of the Interior reportedly provided policy 
direction to the Oregon state office to reduce timber sale levels well 
below the levels called for in the Obama-era 2016 Resource Management 
Plans. This policy direction was not connected to funding levels and 
will result in a nearly 25% reduction. The rural communities and local 
governments I represent have a right to understand what policy 
direction has been provided and the rationale for it. Please provide me 
with information and the rationale behind the reduction of timber sale 
levels made by the Oregon state office.

               Questions Submitted by Representative Carl

    Question 1. Recently, there were concerns regarding lease 
stipulations proposed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in Lease 
Sale 261, which could have severely restricted oil and gas supply 
vessels' ability to operate during nighttime and low visibility. 
Although these stipulations were deemed unlawful and dropped, it raises 
a significant question: if similar restrictions were imposed in the 
future, could that potentially limit U.S. oil and gas production?

    Question 2. DOI has full jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas 
activities, including regulatory decisions that impact supply vessel 
operations. Severely restricting these operations could have 
implications for the industry's ability to maintain production levels. 
Would such restrictions ultimately help or hurt the industry's capacity 
to produce oil and gas in federal waters?

    Question 3. Secretary Haaland, I want to reiterate our primary 
concern and request regarding the timeline outlined in the Notice of 
Intent (NOI) for Warrior Met Coal's expansion project. This timeline 
includes the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be released 
in summer 2025, with a Record of Decision expected in early 2026. Given 
this timeline, can you confirm that the Department of the Interior is 
committed to sticking to these deadlines and ensuring that all 
necessary steps are taken to meet the requirements in the NOI?

    Question 4. It's crucial that there is clarity and assurance 
regarding this matter to prevent further delays that could have 
significant financial implications for various stakeholders. Given this 
urgency, what steps can the Department of the Interior take to expedite 
the process and ensure that Warrior Met Coal can move forward with 
their expansion plans without further delays?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. Secretary Haaland, how do you believe the Landscape 
Conservation and Health rule will survive the major questions doctrine?

    Question 2. How will the agency accurately price a mitigation or 
restoration lease?

    Question 3. Are there acreage limits to these leases?

    Question 4. How will an agency know when specific parameters for a 
restoration lease have been realized?

    Question 5. Will 501 c.3's or other groups be able to lease back-
to-back 10-year conservation leases?

    Question 6. In the rule, your agency states that certain uses of 
public land will be incompatible with one another. Which uses will be 
incompatible with Restoration and Mitigation Leases?

    Question 7. Why do you believe this doesn't violate FLPMA?

    Question 8. How are western states and communities supposed to 
provide essential services to their constituents when you are locking 
up their lands and failing to hold regular lease sales?

    Question 9. Considering the immediate capital needs we're 
discussing, is NPS evaluating how best to encourage increased capital 
investment in new concession contracts that have not yet been issued? 
If so, please describe those efforts, particularly any efforts related 
to evaluating the need for concessioner investment and NPS calculation 
of the minimum franchise fees set forth in new concession 
opportunities.

    Question 10. Based on discussions and previous testimony on these 
topics, there is overwhelming political and public consensus that the 
National Parks require immediate capital investment on a number of 
different fronts. The Great American Outdoor Act (GAOA) has been a 
source of funding for certain infrastructure projects in the national 
parks, but some of the issues--lack of affordable housing, diminished 
visitor experience, and dilapidated recreational infrastructure--do not 
appear to be subject to GAOA funds. How does NPS intend to fund these 
critical efforts to maintain our park assets?

            Questions Submitted by Representative Radewagen

    Question 1. The territory of American Samoa depends on fishing and 
NOAA has proven the overwhelmingly negative impacts that a prohibition 
on fishing would have on the economy of the Territory . . . Fishing 
does not impact or benefit the species or habitat in those areas that 
are being proposed for a sanctuary. Why would the federal government 
prohibit sustainable U.S. fishing in its own waters?

    Question 2. Existing management can include concerns about deep-sea 
mining, climate change, etc. Additional bureaucracy and job creation 
does not provide advantages for these places . . . What are the added 
protections that will be provided that are not provided through the 
current layers of management such as national wildlife refuges, marine 
national monuments, and existing federal fishery management?

    Question 3. Currently, the President's conservation efforts have 
been met almost exclusively by closures in the Western Pacific. Today 
we talk about equity and justice, yet the Pacific Islands, which were 
picked for being pristine because they were always well-cared for and 
managed from the beginning, are bearing the brunt of the conservation 
ethos of the rest of the U.S. . . . Why do we need additional closures 
if the administration's 30x30 conservation goals have already been met? 
Why must Pacific Islanders carry the burden of this initiative in its 
entirety?

    Question 4. These waters are deep, so deep that the fisheries 
operate in the top 3% of the water column. Anything below that level 
that is important to preserve will not be impacted . . . What evidence 
is there that U.S. fishing is impacting biodiversity within these 
waters seaward of 50 miles from the islands?

    Question 5. We have limited resources on the islands, including the 
ocean. Taking away those resources forces us to look elsewhere that may 
not be sustainable for us in the long run and threatens our food 
security . . . How are we, in the Pacific, supposed to be able to adapt 
and be resilient to a changing climate when large parts of our oceans 
are taken away, removing potential opportunities for food security?

    Question 6. The territories have some of the highest utility prices 
in the United States. The average electricity price in American Samoa 
is over three and a half times the U.S. average. And yet, the 
Administration expects us to rely solely on renewable energy and is 
attempting to limit our access to reliable energy sources such as LNG. 
The Administration insists that the transition to renewable energy 
would provide the territories with cheaper and reliable energy. And 
yet, we have seen the destruction of our land, habitat, and high costs 
associated with this transition. Not only is it costly to build the 
infrastructure necessary to support and store clean energy, but they 
are also highly prone to damage from severe weather. One hurricane can 
completely cripple our power grids for weeks, if not months . . . Do 
you think it is fair for us Americans in the territories to be paying 
more for less reliable energy? Do you agree that the territories have 
unique needs and deserve the self determination to choose the energy 
options that meet those needs?

    Question 7. Among the renewable energy sources, solar and wind 
energy are the two primary options for the territories. However, these 
sources involve the use of massive turbines and solar panels. American 
Samoa would likely need to cover most of its land with these turbines 
and panels to provide enough energy to sustain the islands. This would 
negatively impact tourism and the Samoan way of life . . . Do you 
believe that American Samoa should cripple its own economy and 
lifestyle for the sake of the Administration's political decision to 
prioritize on renewables in the territories?

    Question 8. The Administration has claimed that it is leading 
efforts to protect the U.S. from its adversaries and reduce our 
reliance on foreign products. And yet, the Administration has limited 
American LNG production and deep-sea mining. The hypocrisy unveils 
itself when looking at the Administration's energy policy in the 
territories. The DOI has prioritized its grant programs and funding on 
renewable energy, particularly on solar Who produces the critical 
minerals used for making solar panels? China. Where does our LNG come 
from? Everywhere except the U.S. . . . What are you doing as Secretary 
of the Interior to address these issues?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Peltola

    Question 1. Last year, the Department of the Interior withdrew from 
a land exchange agreement with King Cove that would have allowed for 
the construction of a single-lane gravel road. What updates can you 
give me on a new land exchange, and will you be able to finish this 
before the end of the administration?

    Question 2. BLM recently issued new land management regulations for 
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

    2a) What was done to fulfill tribal consultation requirements with 
communities on the North Slope?

    2b) What metrics were used to determine whether the new regulations 
would not have a significant economic impact?

    2c) Can you confirm that the new regulations will not have a 
negative impact on the development and production of the Willow 
project?

    Question 3. Interior has made many decisions about Alaska resource 
development recently. Given the administration's stated goals for 
onshoring critical mineral development, are there any new resource 
extraction projects in Alaska that you anticipate the Department moving 
forward with soon?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your 
testimony. The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes 
of questions, and I will recognize myself to begin the 
questioning.
    Madam Secretary, less than 2 weeks ago, BLM issued the 
final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Ambler Road Access Project, a right-of-way application to 
construct a 211-mile road in the Ambler Mining District of 
Alaska. Just 25 miles of this 211-mile road would cross BLM 
land. Unfortunately, BLM took an unprecedented step in issuing 
the no action alternative, effectively killing access to huge 
deposits of minerals.
    Secretary Haaland, do you know what minerals this project 
seeks to access?
    Secretary Haaland. Chairman, thank you so much for the 
question. And I want to, sorry about that. I guess I am losing 
my touch, Chairman. I had to remember to press ``talk''.
    [Laughter.]
    Secretary Haaland. I want to just state in the beginning 
that Ambler Road is not a decision yet, and I want to say that 
the analysis released concerns the 210-mile road construction 
proposal, and no related mine proposals are pending. So, if we 
get a related mine proposal, of course, then we will see what 
the proposal states and how we move forward on it.
    The Chairman. But Madam Secretary, do you know what 
minerals are at that mine?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, there is no mine. There is 
no mine there, so----
    The Chairman. The proposed mine. It is 265.5 million tons 
of mineral ore that includes copper, zinc, gold, silver, 
cobalt, lead, and germanium, all very critical to our economy.
    Let's take copper for an example. According to the USGS, 
the United States is currently 46 percent net reliant on 
foreign sources of copper, and global copper demand is already 
starting to skyrocket. Since the Biden administration shut down 
the potential access to 30 percent of U.S. copper reserves with 
its land withdrawal in northern Minnesota, and now yet we are 
looking at more in Alaska, where does the Biden administration 
support new copper production, and what is in the proposed 
budget to make that happen?
    Secretary Haaland. Chairman, thank you for the question.
    And first I will say that, since President Biden has been 
in office, since January 2021, we have approved 40 mining or 
mining modification permits since the President has been in 
office. That includes five critical mineral mines.
    The Chairman. But these aren't new mines. And back to the 
original question, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? 
How do you build a mine without having a road to get to the 
mine?
    But these elements of copper, nickel, and cobalt are 
critical to the Biden administration's very own mineral-heavy 
renewable energy goals. Your testimony mentioned budgeting for 
supply chains. How are you specifically working to ensure that 
expedited production on Federal lands is there to meet the 
rising demand of these minerals?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question, 
Chairman.
    And first I will say that our interagency work group on 
mining reform has taken this issue very seriously. We have a 
mining law that is 150 years old that doesn't meet the needs of 
our world today in 2024. We are proud of the report that we 
were able to put out, and we are moving forward with----
    The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I have to move on. A report 
is not an action to make sure that we are securing these 
critical minerals.
    Moving to a different topic, since the migrant camp opened 
at Floyd Bennett Field last year, nearly every issue that we 
predicted has come to light. This includes reports of increased 
crime and drug use in the neighboring communities. Local 
residents have reported increased incidences of shoplifting, 
panhandling, and street prostitution since the camp opened. 
There have been multiple arrests at the facility for assault 
and domestic violence. And all of this is happening while New 
Yorkers are having to bear the brunt of classes being canceled 
at school and community programs that are no longer safe for 
kids to attend.
    Do you agree that it is wrong to deny New Yorkers access to 
their public lands, and this is one of the only green spaces 
they have, for these indefinite encampments for migrants?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, 
Chairman. And I understand that this is a lease between the 
National Park Service and the City of New York. I know that 
during----
    The Chairman. Do you agree this lease sets a new precedent?
    Secretary Haaland. We enter leases all the time. The 
National Park Service enter leases all the time with various 
entities----
    The Chairman. Can you assure the Committee that no other 
national park sites will be used to house migrants?
    Secretary Haaland. It is my understanding that there are no 
other issues of this kind or proposed leases that are being 
worked on now.
    The Chairman. Can you assure the Committee that no further 
migrants will be bussed to Floyd Bennett Field?
    Secretary Haaland. I can't answer to how various states 
move migrants across the country, Chairman. But the National 
Park Service, apparently, has had the necessary conversations, 
and I want to assure you that we have a very robust Solicitor's 
Office who takes very seriously and advises us on these issues 
and overlooks our contracts. We don't do this very lightly. It 
is all a very serious process, and we take it very seriously.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. My time has 
expired. I recognize Mr. Levin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Haaland, it is wonderful to see you. We miss you 
here on the Natural Resources Committee. I am really glad you 
are here to discuss the Department's work and the importance of 
providing sustained funding for you to continue your many 
critical initiatives that help protect our public lands, 
promote domestic clean energy production, and provide outdoor 
recreation opportunities.
    The Department has clearly been very busy over the last few 
weeks, and we are grateful to hear your announcements and see 
final rules that are promoting renewable energy development on 
public lands, holding oil and gas companies accountable, and 
recognizing the vital role that conservation has in public 
lands management.
    I am glad that you and the Biden administration are 
advancing historic action on climate change, commensurate with 
what this moment in history demands. I was pleased, in 
particular, to hear that we are already surpassing the goal 
Congress set in the Energy Act of 2020 to permit 25 gigawatts 
of renewable energy on public lands by 2025, with DOI already 
successfully permitting 29 gigawatts ahead of schedule.
    As you know, the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development 
Act or PLREDA, which has long been bipartisan legislation I am 
proud to champion, promotes the responsible development of 
wind, solar, and geothermal resources on Federal land. It is 
endorsed by both industry and conservation organizations.
    I see this bill as working in conjunction with DOI's 
recently finalized renewable energy rule and the ongoing 
Western solar PEIS process. The bill includes revenue sharing 
for states, communities, and a conservation fund, and 
incentivizes development in low-conflict priority areas. It 
will ultimately help ensure we can meet our dual climate goals 
of: (1) enhancing renewable energy permitting and deployment; 
and (2) conserving our nation's treasured natural and cultural 
resources.
    Secretary, can you tell me more about how the 
Administration is working to facilitate environmentally 
responsible, renewable energy development on Federal lands?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman, and 
thank you for your welcome here. It is always wonderful to be 
back in your company.
    Yes, I am very proud of the fact that we have met this goal 
ahead of schedule. Thank you for recognizing that. I just 
returned from Arizona, where we essentially cut a ribbon on the 
10 West transmission line that will carry energy across state 
lines, so into your state, as well. The 500-kilovolt line was 
possible because of our early outreach and engagement.
    And I want to emphasize the great work of Interior staff, 
specifically for this project the BLM, who knows the 
communities very well and engages with them early. And I think 
that is the key to ensuring that we can move more of these 
projects forward.
    Mr. Levin. Can you, along those lines, compare the projects 
that have successfully gone through the permitting process with 
those that may have struggled due to community opposition?
    And, specifically, can you speak to any correlation between 
how actively project sponsors engage with interested or 
impacted communities early on or prior to the permitting 
process and positive project outcomes, or how a lack of 
stakeholder engagement might create project delays or even 
cancellations?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congressman. And as 
I mentioned, the early outreach allows for more informed 
participation from tribes and stakeholders. Public buy-in also 
increases public confidence in these projects and reduces the 
risk of costly and time-consuming litigation.
    And I would like to point out that, for renewable energy 
projects, our recently finalized rule ensures there is an 
initial in-person meeting with the public, because we and the 
public have seen the improvements in outcomes from early 
engagement. So, I really believe that is the key, and we will 
follow that and move forward.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you for that.
    Another major announcement that came out was the final oil 
and gas rule, which set fair royalty and bonding rates for oil 
and gas operators on public lands for the first time in 
decades, and implemented reforms Congress enacted in the 
Inflation Reduction Act, including some that my colleagues and 
I on this Committee have championed. The final rule will hold 
oil and gas companies accountable for their impacts on public 
lands and provide a fair return for taxpayers.
    Now, we sometimes hear that the bonding reforms are 
unwarranted. I have heard the claim there are only 37 
documented orphan wells on BLM land. Can you take a moment to 
tell us why this may be a misrepresentation of the issue?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. I first want to 
point out that the rule reflects provisions in the Inflation 
Reduction Act pertaining to increased royalty rates, rentals, 
minimum bids, and expressions of interest. The increase in 
bonding helps keep taxpayers from being on the hook.
    We have traveled around the country to lift up the work 
that we are doing on orphan gas wells and abandoned mine lands, 
and it is pretty clear that taxpayers foot the bill on so many 
of these things. We want to make sure that companies have the 
wherewithal to clean up after themselves. So, this rule updates 
oil and gas bonding requirements for the first time in 60 years 
to ensure reclamation costs are not borne by the American 
public.
    Mr. Levin. Thanks, Secretary. I am out of time.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
submit into the record a recent New York Times article showing 
that, contrary to Republicans' anecdote-driven claims that 
migrants entering the United States are causing a surge in 
violent crimes, according to police data there has been no 
surge of violence and crime since April 2022, which is when 
Governor Greg Abbott started using migrants as a political tool 
by putting them on busses and dropping them off in cities like 
New York. This is New York Times, February 24.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

`Migrant Crime Wave?' Not Supported by Data, Despite High-Profile Cases

Several well-publicized acts of violence by migrants in New York have 
unsettled some city leaders, but police statistics do not point toward 
a surge in crime.

The New York Times, Feb. 15, 2024 by Maria Sanchez Diez and Melissa 
Kravitz Hoeffner

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/nyregion/migrants-crime-nyc.html

                                 *****

In the past month, the New York Police Department has described 
alarming crimes involving young men living in the city's migrant 
shelters.

A 15-year-old boy, the police said, shot at an officer in Times Square 
and hit a tourist. Two officers were kicked and punched on West 42nd 
Street. A Venezuelan man oversaw a ring of criminals who rode mopeds 
and snatched purses and cellphones from more than 60 people, most of 
them women walking alone.

During an early-morning police raid last week in the Bronx, Mayor Eric 
Adams, dressed in a bulletproof vest over a Fendi scarf, joined 
officers as they arrested five people accused of perpetrating the 
robbery spree. ``A migrant crime wave is washing over our city,'' 
Police Commissioner Edward Caban told reporters hours later.

Some of the crimes were captured on videos that have since gone viral, 
leading Republican politicians and their allies to say that migrant 
criminals are besieging New York.

Quantifying crimes committed by migrants is nearly impossible, because 
the police are not allowed to ask about a suspect's immigration status, 
said Kenneth Corey, a former chief of the department who retired in 
2022. But police data indicate that there has been no surge in crime 
since April 2022, when Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas started sending buses 
of migrants to New York to protest the federal government's border 
policy.

More than 170,000 migrants have arrived in the city since then, and it 
is difficult to know what crime statistics would show had they not 
come. But as the migrant numbers have increased, the overall crime rate 
has stayed flat. And, in fact, many major categories of crime--
including rape, murder and shootings--have decreased, according to an 
analysis of the New York Police Department's month-by-month statistics 
since April 2022.

The monthly number of robberies since migrants began arriving in large 
numbers has fluctuated. It peaked at 1,730 in July 2022, hit a low of 
1,155 in February 2023 and climbed to 1,417 last month.

Grand larcenies have also gone up and down, but the monthly total stood 
at 4,056 in January, compared with a high of 4,687 in August 2022.

Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at the 
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that there was no 
discernible migrant crime wave.

``I would interpret a `wave' to mean something significant, meaningful 
and a departure from the norm,'' he said. ``So far, what we have are 
individual incidents of crime.''

Still, immigrants staying in shelters said they had felt a sense of 
hostility in recent weeks. On subway cars, they said, people slide over 
to avoid sitting too close to them or make rude comments under their 
breath.

``They say things in English you don't understand, but you can tell 
it's bad,'' Ezequiel Velasquez, a 22-year-old Venezuelan, said in 
Spanish outside the Row NYC hotel in Times Square, where a migrant 
shelter has been established.

Because of the recent crimes, he said, people see all migrants the same 
way: ``violent.''

    Immigrants staying in shelters, like this one at the Row NYC 
hotel in Times Square, said they had felt a sense of hostility in 
recent weeks. Juan Arredondo for The New York Times

Days after the officers were assaulted in Times Square, a man stood in 
front of the Row NYC and yelled slurs, said Marcela Lopez, a 38-year-
old migrant from Colombia. She could not understand him, but her 11-
year-old son translated.

``Immigrant bastard,'' the man had said.

The police did not provide statistics to back up Commissioner Caban's 
claim of a migrant crime wave and referred questions to a Feb. 5 news 
conference during which police officials announced the Bronx raid and 
listed a litany of other crimes likely committed by migrants. Officials 
at the news conference described a rise in robberies by men on mopeds--
a source of transport and employment for many newcomers--since migrants 
had started to arrive. They also mentioned calls related to domestic 
violence at shelters, picked pockets, shoplifting and reports of human 
trafficking.

Joseph Kenny, the chief of detectives, said that mopeds were used in 32 
different robbery patterns in the first five weeks of the year (a 
``pattern'' refers to several similar crimes committed by one person or 
a group of people). Last year, there was only one such pattern in the 
same time period, he said.

The police said they have also been investigating groups of Venezuelan 
immigrants who they say are engaged in more sophisticated thefts, like 
hacking into stolen phones and using people's identification to clear 
out their bank accounts.

It is not surprising that among a sudden influx of tens of thousands of 
people, there would be criminals or criminal behavior, said James 
Essig, a former chief of detectives for the department.

``Any group that comes in, where you've got unemployed, young males 
hanging out in the corners, they're going to get themselves into 
trouble,'' he said.

Mr. Corey, the former department chief, said that even a tiny 
percentage of immigrants engaged in criminal behavior could cause a 
surge in crime and lower people's sense of security.

``The bigger question is why would we allow people who are clearly 
engaged in criminal activity--and we're not talking about a young 
mother who is shoplifting baby formula to feed her baby--why would we 
allow them to remain here?'' Mr. Corey said.

Some lawmakers have called for repealing a city law that forbids police 
officers from honoring detention requests issued by immigration 
authorities without a warrant from a federal judge.

When describing crimes by migrants, officials have largely stuck to 
anecdotes and videos that have been well publicized. At the February 
news conference, officials showed a woman being dragged by a thief on a 
moped. After the assault late last month on two police officers in 
Times Square, the department released a short clip of the attack, which 
led to the indictment of about half a dozen men. The story quickly 
become a staple on Fox News.

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, later released longer 
footage of the assault, which showed that the officers had initiated 
the encounter, aggressively ordering the men to keep walking before 
pulling one of them to the side after he appeared to yell an insult at 
the police. The fracas began after the man resisted.

The focus on particular crimes has created a false sense of chaos and 
insecurity that threatens law-abiding immigrants, said Ana Maria 
Archila, a co-director of the Working Families Party, which is allied 
with labor unions and community organizations. She noted the Feb. 6 
assault by the Guardian Angels of a man the anti-crime group had 
mistaken for a Venezuelan immigrant. The attack took place just as the 
group's leader, Curtis Sliwa, was being interviewed live on Fox News 
nearby.

``You look at the history of immigration, and you see very clearly that 
waves of migration are accompanied by diminishing rates of crime,'' Ms. 
Archila said. ``It's also true that waves of migration have been 
received with racist, xenophobic rhetoric.''

In 2023, researchers at Stanford University found that immigrants were 
imprisoned at lower rates than people born in the United States. In 
2020, a University of Wisconsin-Madison study noted that undocumented 
immigrants in Texas tended to have fewer felony arrests than legal 
residents.

Mayor Adams, who in September said that the migrant crisis would 
``destroy New York City,'' has somewhat softened his tone.

``Any New Yorker that looks at those who are trying to fulfill their 
next step on the American dream as being criminals, that is wrong,'' he 
told reporters the day of the Bronx raid. ``That is not what we're 
seeing.''

On Monday, the city announced an 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew for migrant 
shelters. The decision was described as an effort to bring policies at 
migrant shelters in line with those of traditional homeless shelters, 
where curfews have existed for years, said Kayla Mamelak, a spokeswoman 
for Mr. Adams.

``This policy will allow for more efficient capacity management,'' she 
said.

Ms. Mamelak said the curfew had nothing to do with the spate of crimes.

On Monday in Manhattan's East Village, a line of migrants waited 
outside St. Brigid School, a former Catholic school, where city workers 
were handing out temporary housing assignments.

The scene was serene. Groups of men talked on benches, their suitcases 
close at hand, or played soccer in nearby Tompkins Square Park. One man 
used electric clippers to give haircuts to migrants waiting in line.

Jose Rodriguez, 32, who emigrated from Caracas, Venezuela, to New York 
10 months ago, said he had waited outside St. Brigid for three days to 
try to get a housing assignment.

Shortly after he arrived in the city, his moped was stolen in the 
Bronx. He reported the crime to the police but they were unable to find 
it.

Still, he said he felt safer in New York than he ever did in Venezuela, 
where he was arrested for expressing anti-government opinions. When he 
heard about the shooting by the 15-year-old in Times Square, he felt 
dread.

``That's terrible for us,'' he said. ``Most of us are coming here for a 
good life.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, Ms. Hageman.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for 
being here. But you don't need to thank me for my questions 
when I ask them.
    Secretary Haaland, as you may already know, this Committee 
recently held a hearing during which tribal members spoke 
openly about their fear, as well as others, of testifying in 
front of Congress due to retaliation from criminal drug cartels 
that have been openly targeting Indian lands, such as the 
Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation, among others. These cartels 
have run rampant across Indian Country, particularly in the 
northwestern region of the United States, and are enabled by 
the lack of enforcement of the border laws by the Biden 
administration.
    As a member of a federally recognized tribe, I would assume 
that you care about ensuring that our tribal communities are 
safe. Yes or no, have you spoken to President Biden or 
Secretary Mayorkas about the damaging impacts the 
Administration's border policy has had on tribal communities?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I have not. However, I 
want you to know that I have traveled around to tribes around 
the country----
    Ms. Hageman. OK, but you haven't spoken to either President 
Biden or Secretary Mayorkas about the need to close the border 
in order to protect our tribal communities. Is that right?
    Secretary Haaland. I have not.
    Ms. Hageman. All right. Yes or no, do you believe that, due 
to the unique nature of law enforcement operating in Indian 
Country, is it fair to say that coordination with other 
agencies is crucial to tackling human and drug trafficking in 
Indian Country?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, the President, when he 
first came to office----
    Ms. Hageman. Have you done anything to work with other 
agencies to tackle the human and drug trafficking in Indian 
Country related to the border crisis?
    Secretary Haaland. Since the President has been in office, 
Congresswoman----
    Ms. Hageman. That is a yes-or-no question. Can you answer?
    Secretary Haaland [continuing]. We have----
    Ms. Hageman. Would you please answer my question?
    Voice. Mr. Chairman, can you let the Secretary answer the 
question?
    Ms. Hageman. She is not answering my question.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Well, she is trying to.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, since the President has 
been in office, he has restarted the White House Council on 
Native American Affairs. These are issues that we discuss, that 
we take an intergovernmental approach to all of Indian 
Country----
    Ms. Hageman. What have you done specifically to work with 
Secretary Mayorkas to close the border in order to protect our 
tribal communities from the cartel criminal activity?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, that is not in the 
Department's mission. We manage our public lands, and we also 
uphold----
    Ms. Hageman. So, I take it that that means you have done 
nothing.
    Secretary Haaland [continuing]. The trust and treaty 
obligations of our nation's Indian----
    Ms. Hageman. You have not done anything to work with Mr. 
Mayorkas, is that correct?
    Secretary Haaland. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. During your time as Secretary, what have 
you done specifically to work with our tribes to reduce and 
eliminate criminal cartels from targeting Indian Country?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I want you to know that 
tribes have been underfunded for decades and decades with 
respect to law enforcement and justice services, and that is 
one area where we are working----
    Ms. Hageman. Have you done anything specifically to work 
with our tribes to address the drug trafficking and human 
smuggling that is going on related to the open border?
    Secretary Haaland. We are working very hard to make sure 
that Indian Affairs has several approaches to addressing 
recruitment and retention. We understand that they are 
understaffed in many of these areas, and we listen to tribes on 
how they would like us to move this issue forward for them----
    Ms. Hageman. Madam Secretary, what have you done, as a 
cabinet-level Secretary, to convince Mr. Biden and Secretary 
Mayorkas to close the border in order to protect our tribal 
communities?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, it is my job to manage 
our public lands. The Department of the Interior manages our 
public lands and conserves our cultural heritage and natural 
resources for the American people, as well as upholding the 
trust and treaty responsibilities of the----
    Ms. Hageman. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs is within the 
Department of the Interior, correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, ma'am, but----
    Ms. Hageman. OK. In 2018, under the previous 
administration, more than 3,200 pounds of illegal narcotics, 
estimated to be valued at $9.8 million, had been seized by the 
Office of Justice Services. How much did OJS seize in 2023?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, that would be up to the 
Department of Justice, and they can probably inform you with 
the number of those pounds.
    Ms. Hageman. But you don't know?
    Secretary Haaland. I do not know.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Does DOI's Opioid Reduction Task Force 
still exist?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you. We are working 
hard with tribes to ensure that we manage their justice 
services the way that they want to.
    Ms. Hageman. So, the question was, does the Department of 
the Interior's Opioid Reduction Task Force still exist?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I would be happy to 
answer that for the record.
    Ms. Hageman. Is the answer yes or no?
    Secretary Haaland. I will be happy to answer that for the 
record.
    Ms. Hageman. You don't know as you sit here today?
    Secretary Haaland. I want to make sure that I give you the 
correct answer, and I will do that when I get back to my 
office.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you heard of the Rock Springs Resource 
Management Plan?
    Secretary Haaland. No, I have not.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I am out of time.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Lee, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 
here, Secretary Haaland. I wanted to also thank you on behalf 
of the Native American tribes in Nevada for your leadership in 
designating Avi Kwa Ame as the nation's latest national 
monument.
    And not only that, the Department of the Interior has also 
been actively uplifting Nevadans in other ways since that time, 
including finalizing an agreement with the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to make eligible public lands 
available for $100 an acre, far below fair market value for the 
sole purpose of constructing critically-needed affordable 
housing projects in Southern Nevada.
    Can you update us on Interior's efforts to support 
affordable housing for Nevadans, including through this 
agreement?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question, and for recognizing that this is truly an issue 
across the country.
    We want to get great folks working on our public lands, and 
we can only do that if they have a place to live. The BLM is 
currently working on two additional conveyances for affordable 
housing under this MOU. One of the proposals is from Clark 
County, and we are working to complete that conveyance by early 
next year. The other proposal is from the city of Henderson, 
which is at an earlier stage.
    We are seeing great progress and potential under this MOU, 
and we will continue working with HUD and the state and local 
communities on this critical issue, and I would be happy to 
keep you updated on it as we move forward.
    Ms. Lee. Great, thank you. I am also happy to report that a 
facility in my district with 195 units of affordable housing 
specifically for seniors is on its way. So, thank you for that.
    Also, I appreciate Interior's testimony in support of my 
bipartisan ACE Act, which is another tool that will give the 
Department additional flexibility to get land deals done more 
quickly for housing, conservation, and other critical 
infrastructure.
    Secretary Haaland, I want to switch to staffing. The BLM 
administers 50 million acres of land in my state alone, yet we 
know that after the Trump administration announced the plans to 
relocate BLM headquarters to Colorado, more than 87 percent of 
BLM's Washington-based employees left the agency.
    And upon her confirmation, BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning 
emphasized that her top priority was rebuilding the agency and 
fixing staff shortages. Last year in this Committee, you 
acknowledged this issue and the impacts it has on Western 
communities like my own. Officials in my home of Clark County, 
for instance, have indicated that it can still take up to 2 
years for BLM to approve some leases that would enable it to 
advance locally-funded parks and trail projects.
    I just want to ask, where are we on the staff shortage?
    And is BLM closer to where they should be, which means is 
it robust enough to translate to fewer delays on the ground?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman, and we will 
take that concern back to the office with us when we depart 
this afternoon.
    I want you to know that, under Tracy's leadership, the BLM 
has initiated a number of hiring surges and recruitment efforts 
to fill those vacancies. And we feel like we are continuing to 
make progress to build back the BLM workforce, including 
significant hiring increases at the headquarters and across the 
Bureau, because a lot of the folks don't actually work here in 
DC. And I will just tell you that we remain committed to 
ensuring that we can fill these positions because we know the 
work is critical.
    Ms. Lee. Yes, and we would appreciate if you would let us 
know how Congress can best support you in that effort as well.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Ms. Lee. I have a little more time. Can you tell us what it 
would do to BLM's ability to continue to advance smart energy 
development, outdoor recreation, conservation, the full 
spectrum of uses for BLM lands if Congress were to cut the 
Bureau's funding by 50 percent, as a jaw-dropping 144 of my 
Republican colleagues voted to do in Fiscal Year 2024?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, of course, everything in 
our budget, we feel, is justified.
    As I have said many, many times, our public lands belong to 
all Americans. I am proud of the work we have been able to do 
to lift up our public lands so that the outdoor recreation 
industry can grow. It can only grow if they have places to go 
that people want to go. So, all of the work we are doing on 
ecosystem restoration, you know, the Endangered Species Act, 
all of these things, they help preserve and conserve our public 
lands in a way that benefits the American people, and I believe 
will increase opportunities for small businesses and our 
economy around the country.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals, Mr. Stauber.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Madam Secretary, thanks for joining us today. Yesterday, 
the House passed the Superior National Forest Restoration Act 
in a bipartisan fashion. It is a victory for northern Minnesota 
and the people I represent, along with U.S. mineral security in 
the wake of your decision to stop mining in my home state of 
Minnesota.
    Yet, just a week and a half ago, you did it again. You shut 
down mining, this time in Alaska, when you selected the no 
action alternative for Ambler Road. Earlier in the testimony, 
you said there is no mine. There is going to be no mine if 
there is no road access into it. And for the 23 miles of the 
BLM land of the 211-mile road you have, in your decision, have 
stopped that mine once again.
    What economic price will the people of Alaska have to pay 
for this decision?
    And did the Department analyze the economic impact of 
stopping Ambler Road?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Congressman, 
and as you know, there were no related mine proposals pending 
for this area.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, did you analyze the economic 
impact to Alaska and the Native Americans?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, it is my understanding that 
if we had a mine proposal, then an analysis such as that would 
be undertaken. But there is no mine proposal, so it is 
difficult for us to work off the----
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, because time is limited, we 
analyzed the economic impact. Stopping Ambler Road stops the 
65,000, 65,000, jobs the project would create, $5 billion, that 
is with a B, $5 billion in wages, and $1.3 billion in local and 
state revenue to the great state of Alaska.
    Madam Secretary, expert analysis estimates that at least 
384 new mines will need to be built over the next decade to 
meet demand for renewable energy sources.
    You mentioned earlier that there were five critical mineral 
mines. Were these new mines, were these new critical mineral 
mines, or were they expansions or modifications of existing 
mines?
    Secretary Haaland. It is my understanding that the critical 
mineral mines are new permits, and we would be happy to impart 
that information on your staff.
    Mr. Stauber. And were they hardrock projects?
    Secretary Haaland. Do you know what the mines were?
    Mr. Stauber. You don't know, do you?
    Were there any coal projects?
    You don't know, do you?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, if you would like specifics 
on all of those mines, as you can imagine, I----
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, that is why I asked.
    Secretary Haaland. Laura Daniel-Davis, our Acting Deputy, 
would be happy to answer.
    Mr. Stauber. We will continue in my questioning, Madam 
Secretary.
    The Department of the Interior, under your leadership, has 
squandered every opportunity to provide these minerals 
domestically.
    The Duluth complex in my district is the largest untapped 
copper nickel find in the world, and you shut it down. And as 
you testified before the Appropriations Committee last year, 
you didn't even know there were critical minerals in there. You 
shut it down without having any knowledge that there were 
critical minerals in there.
    During your testimony before the Appropriations Committee 2 
weeks ago, you stated, ``This Administration has made a 
steadfast commitment to strengthen government-to-government 
relations with Tribal Nations.'' Two weeks ago, you announced a 
final rule for the management of the National Petroleum Reserve 
in Alaska. And last September, you canceled previous leases in 
the 1002 Area of ANWR. Both decisions have been slammed by the 
Alaska delegation, along with communities across Alaska, 
including Alaska Native communities on the North Slope who 
claim you have refused to meet with them on both ANWR and NPR-
A.
    Madam Secretary, when was the last time you met with Alaska 
Native communities on the North Slope?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question, 
and I did my first trip to Alaska. I went all the way up to 
Utqiagvik, I had a round table with tribal leaders there.
    I also want to say that, with respect to this area----
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, I have 47 seconds left. When 
was the last time that you met with the Alaska Native 
communities on the North Slope?
    Secretary Haaland. I was going to say, in addition to that 
I have had many virtual meetings with Alaska Natives since I 
have been in office.
    And I also would like to say that, speaking for other 
tribes, because tribes are not a monolith, there are tribes 
that rely on a subsistence lifestyle whose lives depend on the 
caribou migration and other animals to help their children to 
live.
    Mr. Stauber. Is that why you put the comment period during 
the whaling season? That is unacceptable.
    Madam Secretary, just a few short months ago, there was a 
member of the North Slope that sat here, several members, that 
said you have not met with them. They have requested meetings 
with you twice. You neglected to speak to the Native American 
community from the North Slope. And they said that in a 
hearing. And it is disappointing. In fact, they tried to set up 
two meetings with, their words, ``radio silence'' from you, and 
it is unacceptable.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent 
request, a document that I would like to enter into the record 
by unanimous consent.
    The Chairman. Well, I have one, too, but I am going to let 
you go first.
    Mr. Huffman. Oh, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate that. Unanimous consent for 100, please, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Huffman. Since it has been suggested, erroneously, that 
the Secretary failed to consult with Alaska Natives, I seek 
unanimous consent to enter into the record a document outlining 
DOI's extensive engagement and consultation with North Slope 
local governments, Alaska Native corporations, and tribal 
entities regarding the NPR-A rule.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

    NPR-A Rule Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporation Engagement

     On March 13, 2023, the Administration previewed its intent 
            to develop a draft rule to maximum protections for 
            significant resource values on the more than 13 million 
            acres of Special Areas in the western Arctic, while 
            supporting subsistence uses and needs for Alaska Native 
            communities.

     On August 25, 2023, in advance of the publication of the 
            draft rule, the BLM mailed a formal offer for consultation 
            to 45 Tribes and 30 Alaska Native Corporations to engage in 
            consultation on the proposal. The BLM did not receive a 
            response to these invitations from any of the Tribes or 
            Alaska Native Corporations. On September 6, 2023, agency 
            staff called state and local governments to ensure they 
            were aware of the upcoming publication of the proposed rule 
            and to offer opportunities to discuss the rule language.

     On September 6, 2023, the Department released the draft 
            NPR-A rule and launched a 60-day comment period following 
            publication in the Federal Register on September 8th. The 
            BLM continued to offer consultation via phone, email, and 
            in-person invitations to Tribes and Alaska Native 
            Corporations that it determined would be most likely to 
            have substantial direct effects from the rule, including 
            the Native Village of Atqasuk; Atqasuk Corporation; Village 
            of Wainwright; Olgoonik Corporation; Native Village of 
            Nuiqsut; Kuupik Corporation; Native Village of Barrow; 
            Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC); Arctic Slope Regional 
            Corporation (ASRC); and Inupiat Community of the Arctic 
            Slope (ICAS).

     The BLM held three in-person meetings on the proposed rule 
            in Anchorage (October 10, 2023), Nuiqsut (November 1, 
            2023), and Utqiagvik (November 2, 2023) to provide an 
            overview of the proposed rule and answer questions from the 
            public. The BLM also held one hybrid meeting in Wainwright 
            on December 4, 2023. A court reporter was present at the 
            Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik meetings to transcribe all comments 
            and questions. The hybrid meeting in Wainwright was 
            recorded via the Zoom platform, and those comments were 
            collected by the BLM on behalf of the commenters and 
            submitted as comments to the rulemaking docket on 
            regulations.gov. For each meeting in Reserve communities, 
            the BLM coordinated with local entities.

     Based on feedback our team heard in Alaska, the BLM 
            extended the comment period on October 17, 2023, for 10 
            additional days.

     The BLM met with the Mayor of Atqasuk on October 31, 2023; 
            the Native Village of Nuiqsut on November 1, 2023; ICAS on 
            November 3, 2023, and February 6, 2024; Village of 
            Wainwright on November 21, 2023; Olgoonik Corporation on 
            December 19, 2023; ASRC on December 21, 2023; and Kuukpik 
            on February 1, 2024.

     In addition, the agency met with the NPR-A Working Group 
            three times during the public comment period and three 
            times since its close. The NPR-A Working Group is comprised 
            of representatives from North Slope local governments, 
            Alaska Native Corporations, and Tribal entities. It is 
            intended to provide a forum for North Slope communities to 
            provide input to management of the Reserve. ICAS, NSB, 
            Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, and ASRC met with 
            representatives of the BLM and the Department on September 
            21, 2023, in Washington DC.

     Representatives from ICAS, NSB, Voice of the Arctic 
            Inupiat, ASRC, Olgoonik Corporation and Anaktuvuk Pass, 
            along with their lobbying representation, met with Acting 
            Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis and BLM leadership in 
            Washington DC on November 8, 2023, in Washington DC, where 
            they were joined by Representative Peltola.

     The Acting Deputy Secretary, BLM Director and BLM 
            Principal Deputy Director also met with non-profit, Native 
            Alaskan-led organizations who support the rule: Sovereign 
            Inupiat for a Living Arctic and Grandmothers Growing 
            Goodness.

     Following those meetings, the BLM again extended the 
            comment period on November 13, 2023, for an additional 20 
            days, to ensure that anyone who wanted to participate had 
            the opportunity. We also reaffirmed that nation-to-nation 
            consultation is not restricted to a public comment period 
            and could occur anytime Tribal leaders requested.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I also have a unanimous consent request. This 
is an article from the New York Post titled, ``City Hall Vows 
to Probe Lawlessness Following Post Report on Spiking Crime 
around Floyd Bennett Field Migrant Shelter.'' And it says, 
``According to NYPD data, theft, robbery, and petty larceny are 
all increased in the 63rd precinct, which includes the former 
Federal airfield, between November 27 and January 7, the first 
several weeks of migrants being housed at the massive tent 
city.''
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

City Hall vows to probe `lawlessness' following Post report on spike in 
crime around Floyd Bennett Field migrant shelter

New York Post, January 14, 2024, by Sarah Goodman, Carl Campanile, 
Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/metro/city-will-probe-any-lawlessness-by-
migrants-at-bennett-floyd-field/

                                 *****

City Hall vowed to investigate reports of ``lawlessness'' Sunday 
following The Post's investigation on spiking crime around the 
controversial Floyd Bennett Field shelter--while migrants housed at the 
site said troublemakers were giving other asylum-seekers a bad rep.

In a statement Sunday, a spokesperson for Mayor Eric Adams said the 
city would boot migrants who break the law out of tax-funded shelters.

``We will investigate any reports of lawlessness and ask anyone who is 
not obeying our code of conduct on site to leave,'' the rep said.

It came in response to The Post's exclusive report on Saturday that 
found shoplifting, panhandling and scams have plagued the Brooklyn 
communities around Floyd Bennett Field since nearly 2,000 asylum-
seekers moved there.

According to NYPD data, theft, robbery and petit larceny all increased, 
in the 63rd Precinct, which includes the former federal airfield, 
between Nov. 27 and Jan. 7, the first several weeks of migrants being 
housed at the massive tent city.

Locals said some migrants have taken to prostitution, while others try 
to scam motorists by claiming they were hit by their vehicles and 
trying to extort up to $500 from them to let it go.

At least five migrants have been arrested at the makeshift shelter 
since its opening in mid-November, including a 20-year-old Venezuelan 
asylum-seeker charged with choking and beating his girlfriend, police 
records show.

Still, migrants at the facility on Sunday said the vast majority are 
simply trying to find a better life in the Big Apple and are staying on 
the straight and narrow--and that only a handful of bad apples are 
making trouble.

``Like everywhere else, there are always good people and bad people, 
and sometimes we all pay for the bad ones,'' Fabian Vallas, a native of 
Ecuador now living at Floyd Bennett Field.

``Because those people are the ones who are making migrants look bad,'' 
Vallas said. ``We just want to get our papers and get a job, and also 
be independent. We don't want to be another burden on the New York 
government.''

Another resident, Mexican migrant Juan Carlos Vasquez, who lives at the 
tent city with his wife, described life there as ``tranquillo''--or 
calm.

``I'm a worker, I'm honest,'' he said. ``Those who steal put all of us 
in harm's way--those [of us] who came here to earn an honest living.''

Andres Arrango, a cafeteria worker at the remote shelter said the vast 
majority of migrants residing there are ``nice.''

``The people who do this, in practical terms, they're alone,'' added 
Luis Elfredo, a migrant from Venezuela.

``They don't have children. They don't have to think about a family.''

The City Hall spokesperson reiterated the Adams administration's calls 
for the federal government to pitch in and help deal with the crisis.

``It is understandable that New Yorkers are weary from bearing the 
brunt of all of this as the city continues to not receive the 
meaningful support it needs,'' the statement said, adding that ``the 
system is breaking'' as a result of the overwhelming number of new 
arrivals.

Adams has repeatedly called on the White House to do its share to deal 
with the crisis.

More than 165,000 migrants from the US-Mexico border have flocked to 
New York City since the spring of 2022, with nearly 70,000 still fed 
and housed in city hotels and shelters.

It was the Biden administration that signed off on the use of the 
federal site for migrants.

Floyd Bennett Field is one of three massive tent sites erected to deal 
with the influx, with the others being Randall's Island in Manhattan 
and the former Creedmoor Psychiatric Center site in Queens.

The former Brooklyn airfield was the subject of harsh criticism before 
the tent was even raised, with detractors complaining that the desolate 
site was ill-suited to house migrant families.

Last week, the city abruptly evacuated the shelter amid fear that a 
dangerous storm approaching the site could topple the massive tent--
sparking a new round of outrage when 1,900 migrants were forced to hole 
up in an active public high school five miles away.

The move outraged parents, whose children were forced to have remote 
classes the next day.

Those migrants, meanwhile, were crowded into a second-floor gym for 
several hours before being bused back to Floyd Bennett Field in the 
middle of the night after just a few hours.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The New York Post in the Congressional Record. I can't 
believe it.
    I want to return a little bit to one of the question lines 
that we saw earlier, Madam Secretary, and I want to clarify a 
few things. You are the Secretary of the Interior, correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You are not the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The jurisdiction for border enforcement 
largely falls under the Secretary of Homeland's department, is 
that correct?
    Secretary Haaland. That is my understanding.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I think it is profoundly unfair of a 
line of attack to come in for explicitly targeting a Secretary 
whose jurisdiction is legally bound for not being nominated to 
a different department. And I think it is profoundly important 
that we have clarity here on the jurisdiction of the Interior.
    I also find it very odd that there seems to be this push 
for you to be coordinating with Secretary Mayorkas, when the 
Republican Majority has voted to impeach Secretary Mayorkas on 
no evidence, with no allegation of a specific crime. And yet, 
if their allegation is that this is a reckless individual, they 
also seem to be alleging here that you should somehow be 
responsible for working with that.
    So, to me, I find that to make no sense, and it also cuts 
to the core of what this whole immigration thing is about here, 
which is, unfortunately, not a solution, but politics, and it 
is about not making sure that we solve this issue, not 
providing a path to citizenship, not ensuring that we are 
providing resources to judges to adjudicate these cases, but to 
continue to restrict the resources and policies necessary so 
that there continues to be a problem, so that it can continue 
to run a new cycle.
    We are better than this. Secretary Haaland, I am going to 
say it because I think it is important, too. You are the first 
Native cabinet secretary in the history of the United States, 
is that correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Let alone the first Indigenous woman to 
ever serve as a cabinet secretary in the history of the United 
States from either party. Is that correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I find the notion or the suggestion, and 
it is not just because of your identity, it is because of your 
record, your record, the insinuation that you do not care for 
or the insinuation that you are not extraordinarily attentive 
to tribal issues to be deeply offensive. It is deeply, deeply 
offensive. And you are not in a position to speak up for 
yourself because you are an eminent professional. And I am 
going to say it.
    I am going to say it because this woman has served on this 
dais, too, and I had a front row seat to how she advocated for 
Native communities here in the U.S. Congress, too. And the 
insinuation that that is somehow not central to her mission 
here is just completely unsubstantiated. And that is a line 
that we should not cross. It is just not.
    Tribal consultation is very important, and it is fraught. 
Different tribes have different standards for consultation. Is 
that correct, Secretary Haaland?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, Congresswoman, and no tribe is a 
monolith. They are in different areas of the country. They are 
all going to have different experiences and advocate for 
different things.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, it is extraordinarily challenging 
when we have such a great diversity of our tribal communities 
in this country to meet all these different standards of 
consultation. But the Department of the Interior has taken 
historic measures to meet everyone where they are at. Is that 
correct? Is that a fair assessment to make?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, when we first got into 
office, I will just point out that we had a consultation on 
tribal consultations. We got tribes together to ask them, what 
is the best way for us to meet you where you are?
    So, we take that information and it helps guide us through 
how we do consultations for various issues through the various 
bureaus and offices, but also in general for Indian Country.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much, Secretary Haaland.
    And while I am sure that there are places where we always 
can improve, and there are places where we can always make sure 
that we meet people better, I want us to be very mindful about 
the individual that we are speaking to here, and to make sure 
that we are doing that with respect.
    And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Public Lands.
    Mr. Tiffany, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Madam Secretary, having been sufficiently 
chastised, I am going to start here. Roughly 40 percent of our 
southern border is Federal lands. Is trash on the Federal lands 
along the border an issue?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I have not been to the 
border, so I couldn't tell you that.
    Mr. Tiffany. How much funding in your Department's budget 
is directed towards trash on Federal lands along the southern 
border? Do you know, offhand?
    Secretary Haaland. I would be happy for us to research that 
and get back with you on----
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, and I don't expect you to know that right 
offhand, but I can tell you it is zero. It is zero.
    The Bureau of Land Management shared with us when I was 
down to the southern border in February, and with all the 
damage that is being done, fentanyl overdoses, crime that is 
rampant, that is happening in places around America, there are 
193 tons of garbage that was picked up by the Bureau of Land 
Management in one year.
    You said one of the tasks that Interior takes very 
importantly and is one of your priorities is conserving natural 
resources. Is dumping 193 tons of garbage on our Federal lands 
conserving our natural resources?
    Secretary Haaland. Clearly not.
    Mr. Tiffany. Representative Stauber, just here to my left, 
asked you a question in regards to consultation. Why did you 
not meet with the Slopers?
    Secretary Haaland. With----
    Mr. Tiffany. Why have you not consulted and coordinated? I 
understand that you met with them very early on, but since then 
they have had real concerns with the actions taken by the Biden 
administration and Interior. Why have you not met with them?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I want to assure you that 
we have had very strong engagement with Alaska Native tribes 
and the ANCSA corporations, and I can just say, starting on 
March 13, 2023, the Administration previewed its intent to 
develop this draft rule.
    On August 25, in advance of the publication, the BLM mailed 
a formal offer of consultation to 45 tribes and 30 Alaska 
Native Corporations.
    Mr. Tiffany. Madam Secretary, if I may interject, do you 
know if the North Slope communities prefer the Obama-era 
Integrated Activity Plan or the Trump-era Integrated Activity 
Plan? Have they told you?
    The one that you rescinded, the Trump-era one that was also 
there during the Obama era, have they told you which one they 
preferred?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I do want to say that there 
are a lot of tribes in the area that you are referring to----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we heard from them, Madam Secretary. We 
heard from them in Committee here. They prefer the Trump-era 
plan because they went and consulted with them.
    Do you know, Madam Secretary, that you could be breaking 
the law by not following the consultation and coordination 
requirements that are in place?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the information----
    Mr. Tiffany. Madam Secretary, do you know, when they came 
and testified before us, I believe they refer to themselves as 
the Slopers, they have said since 1980 their life expectancy 
went up 13 years. And it is directly a result of finding oil 
and natural gas up in that area that has benefited their 
communities.
    In fact, there was a gentleman that was here. His arm was 
all bandaged up. He took a harpoon through his hand, and if it 
wasn't for the clinic that was built, and we heard this 
directly from him, as a result of oil revenue, he said he may 
not be here today, he may have bled to death.
    Did you know that their life expectancy has went up 13 
years since the discovery of oil and gas?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I appreciate that 
information. I want you to know that there are many tribes in 
Alaska, and we know that they don't all feel the same way about 
every single project that happens in Alaska. It is our job to 
hear from everyone. We did extend the public comment periods 
for this issue, and we understand there has been a request, and 
my staff is working through the request.
    Mr. Tiffany. Madam Secretary, one of your employees put 
this quote up here: ``We got to rush this through.'' Is rushing 
and evading the consultation and coordination requirement, let 
me just close with this question.
    Will you commit today to delaying the National Petroleum 
Reserve Alaska regulation so that you can meaningfully engage 
with North Slope communities, Native villages, Native 
corporations, and federally recognized tribes? Will you make 
that commitment to consult with them as is required under the 
law?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I can assure you that we 
don't generally work to rush anything through. We take 
everything that we do very seriously, and we follow the process 
to a T.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield to the Chairman.
    The Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
record this resolution by the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat and 
signed by the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the Arctic 
Slope Regional Corporation, and the North Slope Borough 
opposing the NPR-A roll, citing the lack of engagement by the 
Department.
    Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

               THE VOICE OF THE ARCTIC INUPIAT RESOLUTION

                              NO. 2024-01

  Opposing the Proposed Rule for the Management and Protection of the 
                  National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

WHEREAS, the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat (VOICE) is a nonprofit 
established in 2015 by the North Slope region's collective Inupiat 
leadership to speak with a unified voice on issues impacting the North 
Slope Inupiat, their communities, their economy, and their culture. 
Working together to provide for and enhance the lives of the Inupiat; 
and

WHEREAS, VOICE membership is comprised of local governments, tribal 
governments, tribal service providers, and Alaska Native corporations 
across the North Slope of Alaska; and

WHEREAS, the North Slope Inupiat have continually inhabited this region 
for over 10,000 years; and

WHEREAS, today, there are eight permanent Alaska Native villages in the 
North Slope: Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, 
Point Lay, Utqiagvik, and Wainwright; and

WHEREAS, the North Slope region is roughly the size of the state of 
Minnesota, in which none of its eight communities are connected by a 
permanent road system, making the cost of living extremely high and 
access to economic opportunity generally low; and

WHEREAS, it is by chance the ancestral homelands of the North Slope 
Inupiat lie within one of the largest hydrocarbon provinces of the 
world; and

WHEREAS, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) was 
enacted to address the legitimate aboriginal land claims of Alaska 
Native people. It was a dramatically different approach to federal 
Indian policy and a departure from the reservation system in the Lower-
48 with its aim rooted in economic self-determination; and

WHEREAS, ANCSA split the political and economic arms of the Indigenous 
peoples of Alaska, and through its enactment, created a fragmented 
system of Alaska Native representation and delivery of services 
therefore requiring a coordinated approach between multiple entities to 
effectively serve the Alaska Native people of the region; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the enactment of ANCSA, the federal government 
conveyed nearly six million acres of land in the North Slope region to 
one Alaska Native regional corporation and eight village corporations 
in fee simple title; and

WHEREAS, the Inupiat of the North Slope were the only Alaska Native 
people to oppose ANCSA, but upon enactment of the Act, worked to create 
a mechanism for the long-term sustainability of their communities; and

WHEREAS, the Inupiat of the North Slope region came together to form a 
borough government, the North Slope Borough (Borough) the mechanism to 
ensure their communities and people would properly benefit from the 
inevitable oil and gas development on their ancestral homelands through 
infrastructure taxation, not a production tax on oil and gas; and

WHEREAS, more than 90% of property tax receipts come from the taxes 
levied on oil and gas infrastructure, which has enabled the Borough to 
invest in public infrastructure and utilities, support education, and 
provide police, fire, emergency and other services; and

WHEREAS, members of the VOICE include federally recognized tribes that 
have a government-to-government relationship with federal agencies 
under Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments; and

WHEREAS, members of the VOICE includes Alaska Native regional and 
village Corporations (ANC) created pursuant to ANCSA. In 2004, Congress 
required federal agencies to consult with Alaska Native corporations on 
the same basis as tribes under E.O. 13175; and

WHEREAS, the federal government owns approximately 70% of land in the 
North Slope; and

WHEREAS, in 1923, President Warren G. Harding issued an Executive Order 
establishing Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 on the North Slope region to 
provide a potential supply of oil for the United States Navy; and

WHEREAS, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 
redesignated Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 as the National Petroleum 
Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and transferred responsibility for its 
administration to the Secretary of the Interior; and

WHEREAS, the NPR-A's 23 million acres is entirely located within the 
boundaries of the North Slope region of Alaska; and

WHEREAS, the North Slope Alaska Native communities of Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, 
Utqiagvik, and Wainwright are located within the boundaries of the NPR-
A; and

WHEREAS, there are over 800,000 acres of surface and subsurface Alaska 
Native corporation land transferred pursuant to ANCSA within the NPR-A; 
and

WHEREAS, there are over 150 miles of Alaska Native corporation land 
that share a boundary with the NPR-A; and

WHEREAS, all eight Alaska Native communities and nine federally 
recognized tribes in the North Slope are impacted by decisions about 
the management of federal lands in the North Slope, including within 
the NPR-A; and

WHEREAS, in 2020, presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to, 
``ensure tribes have a seat at the table at the highest level of the 
federal government and a voice throughout the government''; and

WHEREAS, President Joe Biden has in 2021, 2022, and 2023, released 
guidance and executive orders affirming the Administration's commitment 
to tribal sovereignty and tribal self--determination, including: 
supporting robust Tribal economies, building physical and human 
infrastructure in Indian Country, investing in Tribal Nations in the 
long term, establishing uniform standards for Tribal Consultation, 
respecting Tribal sovereignty and commitment to ushering the next era 
of Tribal self-determination, and elevating Native American voices; and

WHEREAS, in February 2023, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Deb Haaland, herself a Native American and member of the 
Pueblo Laguna, shared in a speech, ``I think its fair to say that, even 
to this day, no one knows my homelands better than its original 
stewards and their descendants;'' and

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the Department of Interior (DOI) Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) announced a Proposed Rule for the Management 
and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska without 
conducting any prior meaningful engagement with, or giving notification 
to the any of the entities that represent and serve the North Slope 
Inupiat, despite the public rhetoric and executive orders mentioned 
above; and

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2023, VOICE Board of Directors passed a motion 
``to direct VOICE staff to monitor and engage on federal actions that 
have significant impact, on culture, economy, and communities, for 
example: example executive orders, secretarial orders, and federal 
actions;'' and

WHEREAS, the Proposed Rule falls within the confines of the motion 
passed by the VOICE Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, the Proposed Rule was released at the beginning of many of the 
North Slope communities' fall whaling and subsistence hunting seasons; 
and

WHEREAS, a fiber optic line was severed on June 11, 2023 which took 
down internet, land line, and cell phone communications in four 
communities on the North Slope. Service was not restored until 
September 19, 2023, 11 days after the rule was announced; and

WHEREAS, city, borough, and tribal government elections took place in 
September and October 2023, impacting the ability of leadership to 
effectively engage on the Proposed Rule; and

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the VOICE released a statement 
admonishing the BLM for its lack of proactive or meaningful engagement 
with the North Slope Inupiat elected leadership prior to publishing the 
proposed rule; and

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic 
Slope (ICAS), the Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) 
released a statement sharing their concerns and frustration with the 
Administration's lack of consultation and engagement with the region's 
federally recognized tribe, Alaska Native corporation, and the Borough 
government; and

WHEREAS, the Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register on 
September 8, 2023 with an accompanying 60-day public comment period and 
ruling of ``not economically significant;'' and

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat (VOICE) 
President Nagruk Harcharek testified before the U.S. House Committee on 
Natural Resources--Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 
advocating for North Slope communities to be included in all policy 
decisions that affect North Slope homelands and people. VOICE released 
a statement marking the testimony; and

WHEREAS, at the same hearing, BLM Deputy Director responded to a 
question that ``it is my understanding throughout the entire process, 
communities were involved.'' Additionally, in written testimony, BLM 
stated that, ``it is essential that the BLM's oil and gas management 
promotes the highest industry, environmental, and public engagement 
standards, including those related to environmental justice and tribal 
engagement, while securing a fair return for the American taxpayer;'' 
and

WHEREAS, both statements by BLM Deputy Director stood in direct 
conflict with the lived experience of North Slope officials as 
reflected in the testimony of VOICE President; and

WHEREAS, North Slope communities, entities, and elected officials 
uniformly asked for a 90-day extension to the public comment period 
citing lack of time to fully understand impacts of the vague, sweeping 
Proposed Rule, alongside the lack of meaningful public engagement and 
consultation:
     October 4, 2023--the NPR-A Working Group sent a letter to 
            BLM requesting the comment period be extended by an 
            additional 90 days

     October 10, 2023--City of Atqasuk sent a letter to BLM 
            requesting the comment period be extended by an additional 
            90 days

     October 11, 2023--Atqasuk Corporation passed a resolution 
            requesting the comment period be extended by an additional 
            90-days

     October 12, 2023--ASRC sent a letter to BLM requesting the 
            comment period be extended by an additional 90 days

     October 19, 2023--City of Utqiagvik sent a letter to BLM 
            requesting the comment period be extended by an additional 
            90 days

     November 1, 2023--Olgoonik Corporation sent a letter to 
            BLM requesting the comment period be extended by an 
            additional 90 days

     November 2, 2023--Village of Wainwright and Ukpeagvik 
            Inupiat Corporation (the Alaska Native Village corporation 
            for Utqiagvik) each sent a letter to BLM requesting the 
            comment period be extended by an additional 90 days; and

WHEREAS, other regions and entities throughout Alaska saw the federal 
government's mishandling of process surrounding the Proposed Rule and 
wrote in support of a request for an extension to the public comment 
period:

     October 30, 2023--Alaska Federation of Natives sent a 
            letter to Secretary Haaland requesting an extension to the 
            public comment period

     November 7, 2023--NANA Regional Corporation sent a letter 
            to BLM requesting the comment period be extended by an 
            additional 90 days

     November 13, 2023--the ANCSA Regional Association sent a 
            letter to BLM requesting the comment period be extended by 
            an additional 90 days; and

WHEREAS, the public and informational meetings regarding the Proposed 
Rule were noticed with little time due to the condensed public comment 
timeframe, resulting in canceled meetings, postponed meetings, and 
general confusion. Below are examples of BLM public engagements:

     October 2, 2023--BLM announced public meetings to be held 
            re: the Proposed Rule in Anchorage on the 10th, Atqasuk on 
            the 12th, and Nuiqsut on the 13th

     October 10, 2023--BLM held an informational meeting in 
            Anchorage where no one from the crowd was allowed to speak, 
            comments were taken by notecard and DOI officials 
            handpicked which comments to discuss and respond to

     October 10, 2023--ICAS requested the public meeting in 
            Atqasuk be rescheduled

     October 12, 2023--BLM communicated to ICAS via email that 
            they spoke with the Mayor of Atqasuk and the public meeting 
            was now postponed at his request. The meeting that was 
            supposed to happen that day and was postponed the very day 
            it was supposed to happen,

     October 12, 2023--BLM cancels October 13 Nuiqsut public 
            meeting due to weather

     October 17, 2023--BLM announced an informational session 
            in Washington, DC. at DOI headquarters that same day, 
            without notifying Alaska's U.S. Senators Murkowski and 
            Sullivan. The informational session was canceled hours 
            later.

     October 17, 2023--BLM announced a 10-day extension to the 
            public comment period, pushing the deadline back to 
            November 17. Please recall the fiber cable was restored 11 
            days after Proposed Rule was published

     November 1, 2023--BLM holds their first in-region public 
            meeting at Nuiqsut, almost two months after the release of 
            the proposed rule and less than a week before their 
            original public comment deadline

     November 2, 2023--BLM holds their second in-region public 
            meeting at Utqiagvik, almost two months after the release 
            of the proposed rule and less than a week before their 
            original public comment deadline

     November 3, 2023--BLM cancels public meeting in Wainwright 
            due to a death in the community

     December 4, 2023--BLM holds their third and final in-
            region public meeting at Wainwright, almost three months 
            after the release of the proposed rule and less than a week 
            before the public comment deadline; and

WHEREAS, in the midst of the public comment period, the Alaska 
Federation of Natives held their annual convention from October 19-21, 
2023 in Anchorage and DOI Secretary Deb Haaland traveled to Anchorage 
to be a keynote speaker; and

WHEREAS, prior to the convention, on October 13, 2023, the North Slope 
trilateral regional leadership wrote Secretary Haaland a letter asking 
for a meeting regarding both the ANWR and NPR-A announcements and lack 
of meaningful engagement with the region's leadership. AFN Convention 
came and went without a response granting or denying the meeting 
request, and to date no response has been received; and

WHEREAS, on October 17, 2023 at an NPR-A Working Group meeting, DOI 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management stated on 
the record that the condensed timeframe for the comment period was 
being driven to avoid the Congressional Review Act. The exact quote was 
``Yes, I wish we could, we hardly ever give extensions that long on 
rulemaking. In other contexts we might have that kind of time, but I'm 
happy to regale you with the ins and outs of the Congressional Review 
Act, but unfortunately we're on a schedule with this one that we don't 
have any control over, so we just don't have that kind of time for this 
rule;'' and

WHEREAS, the Congressional Review Act is a tool that Congress can use 
to overturn certain federal agency actions, including rules like the 
NPR-A proposed rule, within a certain timeframe; and

WHEREAS, the Deputy Assistant Secretary stated on the record to the 
NPR-A Working Group that DOI was working to ensure the Proposed Rule 
would be not fall within the timeframe in which the Congressional 
Review Act could be used to overturn it, implying that DOI believes 
that this rule could possibly not withstand a change in Administration 
or Congressional leadership; and

WHEREAS, the above quote also implies that DOI is not driving the 
condensed timeframe, it is another entity; and

WHEREAS, with the public comment deadline approaching and only two in-
region meetings held by BLM, not to mention the comments by DOI at the 
NPR-A Working Group, North Slope leadership made the decision to go to 
Washington, D.C. to better understand the public process, figure out 
the decision makers are, and ensure that no decisions would be made 
without their input; and

WHEREAS, the week of November 6, 2023, a North Slope delegation 
comprised of VOICE, ICAS, the Borough, ASRC, Olgoonik Corporation, and 
the City of Anaktuvuk Pass leaders traveled over 3,000 miles to 
Washington, D.C. to try to figure out who the decision makers are to 
inform the Proposed Rule, as well as to shine light on the Proposed 
Rule's failed public process; and

WHEREAS, the North Slope delegation met with officials from the White 
House including the Council for Environmental Quality's Chair, Office 
of Management and Budget's lone tribal advocate, and Intergovernmental 
Affairs Deputy Director. All three officials were surprised to hear 
that the Department of Interior was pointing to them as the decision 
makers, not meaningfully engaging with tribes and ANCs as required by 
and touted by the many Executive and Secretarial Orders, and the 
general lack of transparency with the public process; and

WHEREAS, the North Slope delegation was able to meet with acting Deputy 
Secretary of the Interior solely because Alaska Representative Mary 
Sattler Peltola requested the meeting; and

WHEREAS, Representative Peltola opened the meeting stating, ``it should 
not take a Member of Congress to set up a meeting;'' and

WHEREAS, at the meeting with the acting Deputy Secretary stated that 
DOI was admittedly having ``correspondence issues'' then continued to 
not answer a single question from the North Slope delegation, including 
questions about who the decision makers are after stating it is a 
``collaborative decision-making process;'' and

WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the North Slope delegation, alongside 
Alaska's two U.S. Senators hosted a press conference to publicly share 
concerns with the media on the lack of meaningful engagement by the 
Administration on the Proposed Rule, emphasizing DOI Secretary 
Haaland's refusal to hear the unified voice of the North Slope Inupiat; 
and

WHEREAS, that same day, Representatives Stauber and Peltola introduced 
H.R. 6285 Alaska's Right to Produce Act of 2023, which was later 
referred to House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources Chaired by Mr. Stauber; and

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2023, Alaska's Senators Sullivan and Murkowski 
introduced the Senate companion, S. 3289; and

WHEREAS, Alaska's Right to Produce Act would reverse the Proposed Rule; 
and

WHEREAS, VOICE supported the introduction of the bill; and

WHEREAS, following the press conference and introduction of bills, on 
November 10, 2023, DOI staff contacts various members of the North 
Slope delegation stating DOI is considering another short-term 
extension in addition to the 10-day extension granted on October 17, 
2023; and

WHEREAS, DOI shared on November 12, 2023 an electronic copy of its 
``Dear Tribal Leader'' and ``Dear Alaska Native Corporation Leader'' 
regarding the Proposed Rule, which they claimed they sent via snail-
mail on August 25, 2023; and

WHEREAS, VOICE asked its members and learned that not one of its 
members received the letter via snail-mail or e-mail, until November 
12; and

WHEREAS, throughout multiple Presidential administrations, DOI agencies 
have a consistent habit of notifying North Slope entities of 
consultation and other federal announcements via e-mail; and

WHEREAS, to date, only one entity, tribe, or ANC, on the North Slope 
has confirmed receipt of the Proposed Rule notice of consultation 
letters via snail mail or e-email; and

WHEREAS, on November 13, 2023, DOI announced an additional 20-day 
extension resulting in a total of 90-days to consider the Proposed Rule 
and the new public comment period falling on December 7, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the additional 20-day extension was not sufficient for the 
North Slope entities to fully consider the potential impacts of the 
Proposed Rule, which is why all North Slope entities all requested a 
90-day extension; and

WHEREAS, in response to the 20-day extension announcement, VOICE 
released a press statement expressing disappointment with the 
Department of Interior's insincere attempts to appease, or quiet, the 
voices from the North Slope, stating the ``extension falls far short of 
what was formally requested by elected North Slope Inupiat leaders on 
behalf of their communities;'' and

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2023, U.S. House Natural Resources 
subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a legislative hearing 
during which H.R. 8265 was heard; and

WHEREAS, ICAS tribal council secretary and director of natural 
resources, Doreen Leavitt, and Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation president 
Charles Lampe, were invited to testify to share their experience of the 
public process for the Proposed Rule and other federal actions taken in 
the North Slope region without local input; and

WHEREAS, ICAS and KIC testified in favor of H.R. 6285; and

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2023, H.R. 6285 was taken up at a full House 
Natural Resources Committee mark-up, and passed out of committee with 
bipartisan support in a vote of 24-17; and

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the public comment period closed for the 
Proposed Rule; and

WHEREAS, only one consultation was conducted with a North Slope entity 
before the public comment period concluded on December 7, 2023; and

WHEREAS, North Slope regional and local entities, including from each 
of the only communities located within NPR-A, submitted substantive 
comments opposing the Proposed Rule:

     Regional trilateral (ICAS, Borough, ASRC)

     City of Atqasuk

     City of Utqiagvik

     City of Wainwright

     Kuukpik Corporation (the Alaska Native Village corporation 
            for Nuiqsut)

     Village of Wainwright; and

WHEREAS, in addition to concerns with impacts to subsistence, included 
in multiple substantive comment letters from North Slope entities was 
the shortcomings of the economic analysis done by DOI and used by OIRA 
to deem the rule economically insignificant; and

WHEREAS, OIRA's ruling of ``economic significance'' is a $200 million 
threshold over a baseline; and

WHEREAS, an economic analysis should take into account the impact to 
the communities and their ability to provide services to their 
constituents if the Proposed Rule were to be implemented; and

WHEREAS, as stated above, the homelands of the North Slope Inupiat 
coincidentally are also home to one of the largest hydrocarbon 
provinces in the world, which were to be developed regardless of North 
Slope support in the 20th century, and the home rule government of the 
North Slope Borough was formed to ensure that the local people would 
benefit and be provided services from the oil and gas industry through 
the ability to tax industry; and

WHEREAS, there is a need for an economic analysis that counts the 
people that live in the NPR-A; and

WHEREAS, there is a need for a re-review by OIRA for the economic 
significance of the Proposed Rule; and

WHEREAS, BLM stated that they would continue to hold consultations 
after the public comment period closed, with input from those 
consultations included in consideration for the final rule; and

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2023, BLM conducted consultation with ASRC, 
more than a month after their initial attempt to schedule consultation; 
and

WHEREAS, also after the close of the public comment period, Olgoonik 
Corporation (the Alaska Native Village corporation for Wainwright) had 
consultation regarding the Proposed Rule on December 19, 2023; and

WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, OIRA released new guidance for 
implementing Section 2(e) of Executive Order 14094, Modernizing 
Regulatory Review, which opened the door for North Slope leadership to 
request an audience with the agency that deemed the Proposed Rule 
economically insignificant after reviewing the economic analysis of 
BLM; and

WHEREAS, January 29, 2024, VOICE, ICAS, and ASRC met with OIRA 
Administrator to ask whether OIRA will have another chance to review 
the analysis of economic significance when the Proposed Rule inevitably 
returns to OIRA before the final rule is published, and also express 
the frustrations of the public process with the Proposed Rule thus far; 
and

WHEREAS, OMB was also at the meeting with OIRA and reiterated this 
administration's ``commitment to tribal sovereignty;'' and

WHEREAS, OIRA shared that typically the economic significance analysis 
of the proposed rule is also applied to the final rule, and that while 
OIRA does not conduct tribal consultations, they have never turned down 
an Executive Order 12866 meeting (which is somewhat equivalent to 
tribal consultation); and

WHEREAS, there is a consistent pattern of rhetoric not matching the 
actions of this administration, publicly promoting tribal sovereignty 
and native voices, yet silencing and not counting the Inupiat of the 
North Slope; and

WHEREAS, ICAS held their consultation with BLM on February 6, 2024 
regarding the Proposed Rule; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has acknowledged that none of the over 25 entities 
that serve and represent the Alaska Native communities and people of 
the North support the Proposed Rule; and

WHEREAS, the Proposed Rule represents a major policy change in how the 
DOI will manage the NPR-A and as such has the potential to 
significantly impact the lands, people, and communities surrounded by 
and adjacent to the NPR-A by adding additional processes, placing 
greater burdens on those living and working within and surrounding the 
NPR-A.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, VOICE opposes this Proposed Rule and the 
public process, or lack thereof, through which it has been conducted; 
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that VOICE requests OIRA to re-review the 
economic significance of the Proposed Rule to ensure the economic 
analysis submitted by DOI includes the cost-benefit impacts to the 
North Slope Inupiat and the local governments responsible for providing 
services to the eight Alaska Native communities in the region; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that VOICE's management and staff are hereby 
authorized and directed to take all such action necessary to give 
effect to this resolution.

                                     RESOLUTION SPONSOR(S):

                      Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope

                          Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

                                        North Slope Borough

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha Monnin, do hereby certify: that I am the Secretary of VOICE. 
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alaska; that a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the VOICE was duly held on 
February 13, 2024; that a quorum attended and participated; and that 
the foregoing resolution was duly adopted.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, by order of the 
Executive Committee of the Corporation, this 13th day of February 2024.

                                              Martha Monnin

                                                  Secretary

ATTEST:

Rex A. Rock, Sr.

Chair

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
California, Mrs. Napolitano.
    You are recognized.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Secretary, welcome again. And first of all, let me 
state that I associate my remarks with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I 
believe you are doing your best.
    Madam Secretary, the Department is working to implement the 
funding we secured under the infrastructure law for large-scale 
water projects. But one investment is, frankly, not enough. It 
must be continuous funding to grow, construct, maintain, and 
operate more facilities. That is why I am proud to have 
introduced the Large-Scale Water Recycling Reauthorization and 
Investment Act to reauthorize funding for water recycling and 
reuse projects in the West.
    It is imperative we work to address the climate change to 
protect our water supplies and increase the presence of 
regional, large-scale water projects for the benefit of the 
future U.S. climate change.
    Secretary Haaland, could you speak to how the Department is 
prioritizing water recycling under the Fiscal Year 25 budget?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. And 
again, I want to say how happy we were to be in your district, 
and I appreciate you hosting us when we visited there.
    As you know, last fall we launched a new, large-scale water 
recycling program and made initial funding from BIL available 
to incentivize projects at a larger scale aimed at creating new 
water supplies that are less vulnerable to drought and climate 
change.
    With respect to funding details, the Fiscal Year 2025 
budget continues to support all of the WaterSMART programs, 
including water recycling for $4 million and desalination for 
$7 million.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I trust others are going to be 
seeking funding under this program.
    Another thing I would like to ask is water recycling and 
reuse projects are a critical component in water security as we 
move forward, especially in the Colorado River Basin. The 
Bureau, basin states, and tribes are engaging in ongoing 
communications and negotiations regarding the post-2026 
operations. Until then, we are operating under the 2007 interim 
guidance and the Drought Contingency Plan.
    Could you explain to the Committee how funds for the 
Drought Contingency Plan are being implemented, and how the 
discussions have been going with tribes in and along the basin? 
And all tribes have been included and active.
    Secretary Haaland. The Colorado River Basin, of course, we 
know that it is crucial to 30 Tribal Nations there. We are very 
proud of the work that the Bureau of Reclamation has done to 
bring people together and to make sure that tribes have a voice 
in how we move these issues forward.
    We have fostered an unprecedented level of collaboration 
and partnership with tribes, as well as the states and Mexico 
in our efforts to protect the short-term stability of the 
system and lead efforts to stabilize it into the future. This 
is the first time, Congresswoman, in history that tribes have 
been given a meaningful seat at the table. And I really am 
grateful to my team for making sure that that has happened.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for doing that. It is important 
to note that the large-scale water project is something new in 
the West, and I think many more states may be looking at it for 
the future protection of drought.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the Subcommittee Chair of 
the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee, Mr. Bentz.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I 
would like to start with the permitting reform Title 3, Section 
321, the Builder Act. It was just passed as part of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act.
    And my question, this was drawn up a little less than a 
year ago, but the purpose is to kind of facilitate and make 
more projects happen quicker. What has your Department done to 
implement this law?
    Are you writing rules now to make sure this law is 
applicable? And if so, where are they?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. If it is OK, I 
would love to pass this question to our Acting Deputy 
Secretary, Laura Daniel-Davis. She can answer that better than 
me.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you 
for the question, Congressman.
    And I think one really important matter that we have been 
working on across government, including with the Department of 
Energy, and you have probably seen really recently----
    Mr. Bentz. Are you writing rules?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Can you be specific about which 
provisions you are referencing?
    Mr. Bentz. All of them. We will just start with the first 
one, the Builder Act. Are you writing rules? Just say yes or 
no.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. I need a little more information on the 
specifics. We are writing a lot of rules.
    Mr. Bentz. I am sorry?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. We are working on a lot of rules. It 
would help, specifics. We are working with the Department of 
Energy on----
    Mr. Bentz. OK, you don't have rules yet. It has been a 
year. You don't have rules yet to implement a law that would 
speed your permitting process up. Is that what I am hearing? 
You don't have them yet.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Well----
    Mr. Bentz. You are working on them.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis [continuing]. Process, we have been 
working very diligently at ensuring that it is efficient, and 
that includes what the Secretary was discussing about early 
engagement with communities and tribes.
    Mr. Bentz. I am not sure that a year reflects diligence, 
but I am happy to hear you are doing something. Would you 
please give me copies of whatever it is you are doing within 
the next 2 weeks? Would you please do that?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, we would be happy to respond for the 
record. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much.
    The conservation rule, I am unclear on the conservation 
rule. We had a hearing yesterday on it, passed a bill regarding 
it. The conservation rule, in my opinion, is a direct attack on 
multiple use of Federal lands by making conservation ``on par 
with other uses.''
    Madam Secretary, tell me what ``on par'' means in your 
mind. And to make it more clear, my question is, is this 
conservation rule applicable to a specific space of land or 
across the board to every activity that is occurring under the 
guise of multiple use on Federal land?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question. And you are 
referring to the BLM public lands rule, is that correct?
    Conservation, as you know, our public lands have a multi-
use purpose mandate. So, we just wanted to make sure that all 
of the uses that our public lands are for can be worked on par 
with one another. No purpose is more important than the other. 
They are all important.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, that kind of goes without saying in there. 
But my question to you is there are ambiguous, almost 
impossible-to-understand, subjective standards established for 
what is conservation.
    So, my question to you is, if this is ``on par,'' does that 
mean that if someone wants to do something, oh, I know, a mine, 
does that mean then that it must comply with this new rule?
    Secretary Haaland. Are you referring to the restoration and 
mitigation leases in the rule?
    Mr. Bentz. Sure.
    Secretary Haaland. OK. With respect to the restoration and 
mitigation leases, those enable development by providing 
developers an opportunity to offset their impacts through 
investments in the health of public lands.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. So, your answer is that the word ``on 
par'' doesn't mean that it is a separate use. It means it is an 
across-the-board requirement of anyone who wants to engage in 
one of the other types of multiple use. That is what you are 
saying.
    Secretary Haaland. I want to say that, with respect to this 
rule, we feel that it will restore balance to our public lands.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, that may be your thought, but what you are 
really saying is it is applicable across the board. It doesn't 
say that clearly in this rule. I wish it did, so at least 
people knew what is going on.
    On the gray wolf, we have a bunch of them in my state, and 
we are going to have a hearing this week. Unfortunately, I 
don't think you guys are going to be there, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife, I wish they were, up in Minnesota.
    My question, I am happy that the U.S. Fish decided that the 
wolf was not in danger. I am very happy with that result. The 
court came out and suggested otherwise. But do you agree that 
the wolf is not endangered, as your U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
subdivision so agreed?
    Secretary Haaland. Of course, Congressman, as you know, we 
follow the science on all of these issues. I am not the 
scientist in the group, but scientists, they do study these 
things and let us know what the data is.
    I want to say that, yes, the science tells us that wolves 
are not at risk of extinction in the western United States now 
for the foreseeable future. However, you know that there are a 
lot of factors that we have to consider in moving forward, and 
one of those is climate change.
    To better understand the conservation needs and challenges 
and inform future policy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 
undertaking a process to develop a first-ever nationwide gray 
wolf recovery plan, also creating a new effort to foster a 
national dialogue around how communities can live with gray 
wolves and include conflict prevention, long-term stability, 
and community security.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired, and I am 
going to ask unanimous consent to submit to the record this 
report from the Congressional Research Service entitled, 
``Federal and Indian Lands on the U.S.-Mexico Border,'' and it 
states that DOI manages 607 miles out of 693 miles of Federal 
land on the border, and that is why we held a field hearing 
down there and I would encourage everyone to visit the border. 
It has a relation to this Committee.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                 __
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Gallego, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good morning, Secretary Haaland. It is good to see you back 
in the Committee room.
    As you mentioned in your statement, this budget includes 
resources to keep communities safe, protect our resources, and 
upholding our Federal trust responsibility. One important 
example is the work to coordinate Federal efforts to address 
Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. This is something you 
and I have worked on together since your time in the House 
through legislation and hearings. It also increases resources 
for tribal public safety, something I have championed through 
my bill, the BADGES Act.
    Second, by increasing funding to maintain and expand 
wildland firefighter pay, the budget prioritizes rapid response 
to wildfires. I met with firefighters last year to hear about 
the importance of this pay increase. Our workforce absolutely 
needs and depends on it.
    Finally, this budget also invests in Western water 
solutions, especially around drought in the Colorado River 
system and tribal water rights in Arizona. Water shortages 
continue to be a top issue in Arizona, and we need investments 
that meet the moment and secure our access to sustainable 
growth. To highlight these important investments, I do have a 
couple of questions for you.
    In Arizona, only 14 of 22 tribes have fully resolved, 
adjudicated, or partially resolved water rights, with many of 
the tribes relying heavily on the Colorado River as their 
primary water supply. I know the Bureau of Reclamation has been 
engaging in tribal consultation regarding post-2026 Colorado 
River operations, but I also want to ensure that tribal water 
rights are protected, and tribes with unsettled water rights 
are not left out of these important decisions that will impact 
their communities.
    Secretary Haaland, how is your Department working to ensure 
that the ongoing negotiations over the post-2026 Colorado River 
operations will protect tribal water needs?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, 
Congressman.
    And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, this is the first 
time tribes have been given a meaningful seat at the table. 
Enactment of our request for $2.8 billion in permanent funding 
for the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund will 
enable us to make tremendous progress on completing our 
commitments to complete our ongoing water rights settlements.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary Haaland.
    As you know, recruitment and retention of wildland 
firefighters has consistently been a challenge. How does that 
Fiscal Year 2025 budget support recruitment and retention of 
wildland fire personnel?
    Secretary Haaland. The Department's budget request includes 
additional funding to hire more wildland firefighters. Our 
funding request will also help to enhance mental health and 
well-being services and improve government housing. Those are 
all important issues.
    And as we have in the past, we are also continuing to push 
for the establishment of a special base rate for wildland 
firefighters and permanent authorization to grant paid rest and 
recuperation leave, as we can imagine how difficult it must be 
to be out there on the front line.
    Our budget request also includes provisions to create a 
premium pay category tied to incident response, and provide 
waiver authority for streamlined pay cap.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And when I did 
meet with the wildland firefighters, it was very clear that 
they did need this kind of permanent pay, this transparency on 
where their promotions will be going, payment, as well as to 
retain them, because many times, once they are trained, they 
will also be recruited by local fire departments that 
sometimes, many times, will pay better and have way better 
benefits.
    And just kind of along that thread of line, why is 
permanent comprehensive pay reform for wildland firefighters a 
necessary reform?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, as you said, the demands on the 
wildland firefighter workforce continue to grow, as our fires 
become year-round and not just a fire season. They are fire 
years. And permanent and comprehensive pay reform will help 
improve firefighter recruitment and retention, which is the No. 
1 thing that we need. It will also lead to stronger workforce 
capacity and fire operations.
    I have had opportunities to visit with firefighters across 
the country. They are heroes of this climate change era, and we 
feel very committed to ensuring that they are respected in 
their jobs.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight, Mr. Gosar.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
    Ms. Secretary, as the first Indigenous woman to serve in 
your position, I know that the health and safety of young 
Native students is a top priority of yours, especially as it is 
highlighted not only in your testimony today, but also in the 
DOI budget. That is why I would like to take some time today to 
bring to light a situation that is taking place at Haskell 
Indian Nations University in Kansas.
    For those of you who do not know, Haskell University is a 
Bureau of Indian Education school which ultimately reports to 
the BIA and the Secretary is their boss. That is why I was 
disturbed to learn about students making very serious 
allegations of things like harassment, bullying, theft, sexual 
assault, fraud, and more for years now. It is my understanding 
that the BIE investigated some of these claims, and then they 
went to great lengths to hide them until recently, when media 
reports made the findings public.
    My first question, Secretary Haaland, yes or no, given your 
very strident and understandable support for the Native 
community, do you agree that the Bureau of Indian Education and 
BIA was slow to respond to the concerns of these students?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I do want to say that I 
have visited Haskell Indian Nations University. We care deeply 
about every single student----
    Dr. Gosar. I know, but my question is, were they very slow 
in reporting this?
    Secretary Haaland. I don't have a timeline, Congressman, 
of----
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, I have so many things to ask you, so I 
am just going to leave it at that.
    Madam Secretary, yes or no, do you believe that the 
students at Haskell University deserve better than what they 
have been presented by the BIE?
    And as the ultimate administrator, you have a role in 
ensuring that they receive the answers they deserve.
    Secretary Haaland. I believe that every single Native child 
at any of our BIE schools deserves a quality, culturally 
relative education.
    Dr. Gosar. And you accept the role as being the ultimate 
person overseeing the BIE?
    Secretary Haaland. Tony Dearman, the BIE Director, is 
very----
    Dr. Gosar. I know, but you are ultimately the boss, right?
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.
    Dr. Gosar. OK.
    Secretary Haaland. I care about every single student.
    Dr. Gosar. I have a number of things. Will you commit today 
that you will work to make things better at the school on 
behalf of the students?
    Secretary Haaland. I work every day to make things better 
for everybody, Congressman.
    Dr. Gosar. Got you.
    Secretary Haaland. And certainly for our students.
    Dr. Gosar. I hear you. Now, let me ask you a question.
    One of the things I represent is northwestern Arizona. Are 
you familiar with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, I am.
    Dr. Gosar. Is there anything you could do in this 
Administration to get that exposure that was limited to 
southeastern Clark County and northwestern Mojave County? They 
were excluded by administrative fiat. This is the Hualapai 
Tribe. This is a whole bunch of different individuals that have 
been excluded for years. Is there anything you could do to help 
us compensate that with this Administration?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, we would be very happy to 
take a look at that. I know that there are a lot of communities 
in New Mexico, as well, who have been working to be 
acknowledged for a very long time. I appreciate knowing that, 
and we will take a look.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes, this was an administrative mistake. 
Congress wanted to have all of Nevada and Arizona placed in 
there, and they did not. Somebody made an administrative 
mistake, OK?
    Secretary Haaland. I appreciate your concern for our tribal 
communities, Congressman.
    Dr. Gosar. No. 2, I know that we helped settle the Bill 
Williams water settlement with the Hualapai, but they haven't 
had any adjudication along those lines. Would you be very 
receptive to looking at an old infrastructure aspect to form a 
consortium of water up in northern Arizona?
    Would you be interested in kind of knowing more about that 
so that we have a mix of the tribes with local stakeholders 
like cities and towns to work together to form a co-op that 
would benefit the whole northern part of Arizona?
    Secretary Haaland. We absolutely want to always work 
together with tribes and local communities, and we will be 
happy to reach out to the Hualapai on this issue.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Now, I assume you agree that 
transparency in our government is better than secrecy. Would 
you agree to that?
    Secretary Haaland. Transparency?
    Dr. Gosar. Yes, transparency----
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. So, is it fair to say that you would 
consider Citizens United to be wrongly decided?
    Secretary Haaland. Citizens United, the Supreme Court case?
    Dr. Gosar. Yes.
    Secretary Haaland. I don't necessarily have an opinion on 
that at a budget hearing here, Congressman.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Would you consider that all NGOs, that if 
they take Federal money, they should disclose all their 
supporters?
    Secretary Haaland. First of all, I want to say that if we 
are involved with any meetings, grant requests, anything like 
that, there is a process that we follow. It is closely 
monitored by our Solicitors Department, and we follow all the 
rules.
    Dr. Gosar. But you agree that, if they take Federal money, 
they should be able to put out all their donors.
    Secretary Haaland. I think people should represent 
themselves in a correct manner, absolutely.
    Dr. Gosar. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record, I am trying to be nice, this memo by 
Defend the Brooks Range that says these deposits do not hold 
significant quantities of critical minerals. Copper is not a 
critical mineral. The Ambler Mining District does not contain 
any economically viable deposits of cobalt.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 __
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Gosar, you are recognized.
    Dr. Gosar. I would like to submit for the record this 
report out of Haskell University for the record.
    The Chairman. All right. Without objection, so ordered.

    Does anybody else want to submit something to the record?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It is Jeopardy after all.
    Dr. Gosar. For $200.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Exactly.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sablan for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
apologize to my colleagues who I cut into first.
    Secretary Haaland, good morning and welcome. Welcome back 
to the House. It continues to be your House also, as a former 
Member.
    I want to commend the Administration's recognition of 
important insular area programs administered by your Department 
under the Office of Insular Affairs and the 2025 budget 
request. I think I have a second bite at this part of your 
budget because there is another one coming up next week in the 
Subcommittees.
    The budget would increase by $1 million the top money that 
supports the Marianas. These, as you very well know, are very 
important to the communities in getting funding not in normal 
situations or normal programs. So, thank you for that.
    Your budget continues investment in the Energizing Insular 
Communities programs, which helps the insular areas reduce 
their reliance on expenditures on imported fuel. I think we 
could work more on this, but thank you for that also.
    It also requests a modest increase, but an increase 
nonetheless, for the brown tree snake program and the coral 
reef initiatives.
    CIP money, Madam Secretary, has been fixed at $27.7 million 
since its inception 40 years ago, even though the 
infrastructure needs of the islands continue to expand. It was, 
by law, designed for the Northern Marianas exclusively, and 
then that changed, so it is now shared with the other 
territories. So, I hope appropriators will agree to it.
    Madam Secretary, I do want to bring one thing to your 
attention. It was a remarkable accomplishment for us, for the 
United States and the Freely Associated States, to renew the 
Compacts of Free Association for another 20 years. The new 
agreements provide a meaningful funding increase, which will no 
doubt benefit our national security interest, as well as the 
future prosperity and well-being of the COFA nations and the 
people of the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States 
of Micronesia.
    And I commend the Administration. I again commend for 
enlisting Ambassador Joseph Yun as Special Envoy to serve as 
the President's envoy for compact negotiations. His seasoned 
diplomacy and commitment to fairness and respect proved 
instrumental in renewing the compact. That was a really good 
decision.
    But with the increase in funding, there is the obvious need 
for OIA to be equipped with the resources to exercise effective 
oversight in the management of the funds. Are you able to 
assure us that OIA will continue to do all of this task with 
the funds you request?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sablan. Yes? I think yes, right? No?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, and thank you for 
recognizing the hard work of everyone who worked long hours and 
a very long time on the COFA package.
    I want to just assure you that our implementation is 
underway and is required by the new law. We are working to 
appoint DOI's representatives to the Interagency Group for 
Freely Associated States, and require DOI members for the 
Compact Economic Management and Trust Fund Committees. So, it 
is all underway. We worked hard to get it done, and we will 
make sure that it gets done in the right way. Thank you.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Sablan, do you have your microphone on?
    Mr. Sablan. OK, so I lost 20, 30 seconds. I will have 
another bite at OIA's budget.
    So, I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Huffman, if you wish.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman. It is not quite enough 
time to ask the question that I wanted to ask the Secretary, so 
I will thank you and defer.
    Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you, Madam Secretary. Nice seeing 
you again.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Lamborn.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, it is good to have you back. I remember 
when we served together on this Committee. So, welcome.
    The National Park Service is a great asset to our nation. 
In 2023, NPS recorded 325 million visits at more than 400 
Federal sites. With the fact that these parks are the jewels of 
America, and I have been to over 300 of them myself, I must 
continue to ask about the quality of guest visits.
    Many of our concessionaires stand ready and waiting to take 
up the slack. Our concessionaires are constantly judged, 
however, on some unknown and ambiguous criteria. And while the 
Commercial Visitor Services concession contracts rule went into 
effect earlier this year, I still find some concern at the 
amount of transparency. Will you commit to a more transparent 
process for the concessionaire contracting process?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, and 
of course, we always love to be more transparent. I will take a 
look at this when I get back to the office, and see how that is 
going forward. But we rely on our concessionaires.
    Mr. Lamborn. Very good. Thank you. Has NPS considered 
looking to the concession industry to support immediate capital 
investment needs?
    Secretary Haaland. I couldn't answer that, but I would get 
with Chuck Sams and find out, and make sure we get back with 
your office.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you, because I would like to explore 
how NPS can allow for increased capital investment from willing 
concession industry members under existing contracts to improve 
the park guest experiences. I think with some creativity, 
flexibility, and willingness to work together, we could make 
some really good gains there.
    Secretary Haaland. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Now, changing subjects, since the Biden 
administration took office, 3.5 million acres of working 
Federal lands have been locked up through antiquities 
designations, resource management plans, mineral withdrawals, 
et cetera. The most egregious land lockup is Administration's 
Land Conservation and Health Rule, which will allow so-called 
mitigation and restoration leases to lock up tens of thousands 
of acres per lease across the country.
    Your agency states that the authority to implement this 
rule comes from 43 CFR part 2920. However, section 2920.1 
clearly states that the only authorized uses for leases under 
this section are for residential, agricultural, industrial, and 
commercial uses. There is no mention of mitigation and 
restoration. Do you really think that this rule will stand up 
to legal challenge in court?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
And I do want to say that, with this rule, we engaged in a 
robust and transparent public process. Many people had 
opportunities to weigh in, including our hunters, anglers, 
outdoor recreation enthusiasts. This rule will not inhibit any 
current grazing leases or anything like that.
    And I want you to know that everybody thought about so many 
of these things when they were working through the rule, and I 
feel confident that we have done it in the right way.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, it is my belief, though, that whether or 
not it breaks existing leases, it expands the definition of 
leases to unintended areas that Congress never authorized. And 
that is why we are doing a CRA on this issue this week. And we 
are going to send it over to the Senate, and hopefully they can 
repeal this rule.
    Let me ask you about another subject. In Colorado, in the 
first 3 years under your control, the Department has held one 
lease sale, leasing a single 290-acre parcel, bringing in $1.2 
million in revenue to State and Federal Governments. And it 
looks like BLM has one scheduled upcoming lease sale in 
Colorado for a mere 120 acres. This lease sale, along with the 
only other lease sale that I just mentioned, shows neglect of 
the Western Slope of Colorado.
    Will you commit to holding more lease sales on the Western 
Slope of Colorado this year?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I do want to just say, 
because I haven't said it yet, that production on public lands 
is at an all-time high. So, we have been doing our jobs. 
Onshore in the last 2 years, the BLM has sold the drilling 
rights to more than 230,000 acres----
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, excuse me for interrupting, but what 
about in Colorado? There has only been one lease sale.
    Secretary Haaland. Oh, I beg your pardon. In Colorado 
specifically, we are moving forward with what we are required 
to do, and I am happy to get back with you on any specific 
areas in Colorado, if that is what you would prefer.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. We will look forward to that.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning and welcome, 
Secretary Haaland. Always wonderful to have you back in the 
House, which is also your former House.
    And also, welcome to Assistant Secretary Daniel-Davis and 
Director Flanagan. It is wonderful to have such good friends 
here.
    I want to start today by focusing on the broad scope and 
historic nature of the work that the Department of the Interior 
is doing right now under the leadership of our extraordinary 
cabinet secretary. We have already talked a little bit about 
that this morning, but under your leadership, Madam Secretary, 
there have been historic leases for clean energy, protection of 
vast swaths of our public lands, and, of course, a focus on 
climate resilience. And a lot of that was made possible because 
of this Administration and our President and your commitment to 
climate change.
    And this body just two summers ago passed the Inflation 
Reduction Act, which is not only the largest investment in 
climate change in our nation's history, but of any nation ever 
in the history of this planet. And to watch the Department of 
the Interior implement the bill has been really extraordinary 
and impressive.
    And I think it is also important to acknowledge that the 
work that you all are doing to involve our Tribal Nations and 
around the Justice40 Initiative is especially important to make 
sure that our low-income communities that have been 
historically excluded from those processes have a seat at the 
table.
    I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that the 
Department has done on public lands. There has been a lot of 
political hype put forward today about the public lands rule. 
But, of course, as you know, as a New Mexican, we implemented a 
similar rule at the state level through our awesome public 
lands leader, Ms. Garcia Richard, just a couple of years ago. 
And not only did it not lock up our public lands, we had 
historic revenues and it enabled us to protect more sacred 
sites and conserve lands that are environmentally sensitive.
    So, I strongly support the Department of the Interior's 
public lands rule, and I know it will be an important tool to 
put conservation and tribal sacred sites on par with the other 
uses that we use our lands for.
    I also want to personally thank you for your leadership on 
Chaco Canyon. Of course, our tribes and pueblos have worked for 
decades, well, actually, over a century, to get those lands 
protected, and we greatly appreciate your leadership on that 
and also the Buffalo tract set-aside that just happened a 
couple of weeks ago. That land is, of course, important to many 
of our pueblos and our communities in Sandoval County as a 
historic and cultural site and a wildlife corridor.
    I also want to commend you on your water resources work. I 
think you have the best water resources team probably in 
history, though you have had some good ones in the past. Your 
Colorado River work is really important for making sure that 
the West does not go dry. We are working on a similar bill for 
the Rio Grande with our colleagues in Texas and Colorado, and 
we strongly ask for your support on that, as well as for the 
Water Data Act, which is a bipartisan bill that we are trying 
to get across the finish line.
    I also want to note that you all have a water rights 
settlement proposal in the budget which would enable us to fund 
many of our water rights settlements. And New Mexico has 
probably a historic number of water rights settlements in front 
of Congress right now, so one of the things I would like to ask 
for your support and commitment today is to help us get the Rio 
San Jose, Rio Jemez, Navajo, Gallup, Taos, and soon Zuni, and 
Navajo Arizona settlement across the finish line. That is very 
important for us in New Mexico.
    May I have your commitment that you will assist us with 
that?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, we are working every day on those 
settlements. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we want 
to make sure that we have funding for that particular issue.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. I know another issue that is very 
important and related to that is making sure that there is 
sufficient funding for the Pueblo Irrigation Fund, and we want 
to make sure that the funding makes it into the next budget for 
that, as well as to make sure that we have a settlement team 
for the middle Rio Grande pueblos. So, those are some of the 
priorities for our communities, as you know very, very well.
    But I want to take the rest of my time to have you talk 
about the work you have been doing on boarding schools, and the 
historic work you have been doing to lift up Native voices in 
history and really reconfigure the Department and its 
priorities around tribal consultation and healing.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. I am 
happy to answer that.
    Of course, we have our second report coming out for the 
boarding school initiative. That should be out sometime very 
soon. We finished our road to healing. There will be an oral 
history project that the Smithsonian is helping us to 
implement, and I think the main issue that came out of all of 
those meetings with tribes, all of the opportunities that 
survivors and descendants had to speak directly with us is that 
language preservation, language revitalization across the 
board, even though things were so different from tribe to 
tribe, it was consistently said that their Native languages had 
been stolen from them. So, we are proud that the President and 
Dr. Biden are very supportive of our language revitalization 
efforts, and we will continue to make that a priority.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I will just 
finish by saying every single day we are so deeply proud to 
have you as our Secretary, and as a New Mexican, and as a 
leader. And every single day I hear from members of our tribal 
communities of how grateful they are for your leadership, 
including yesterday, when a friend and colleague of mine from 
Washington State who is a tribal council member said that you 
are their hero, and they are so grateful that you are there 
serving our country. So, thank you for your service.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Madam Secretary, welcome back to the Committee. 
I appreciate you being here today.
    One of the biggest things that I hear, last week I had the 
opportunity to be home during recess week, and hearing a lot 
about just the unaffordability of living in America today, and 
specifically watching as we are seeing higher energy prices 
related to gasoline, related to utilities. I am just curious. 
What message do you have to the American family that can't 
afford to make ends meet, and many of the policies that are 
coming out of the Department of the Interior are actually 
contributing to that as a result of higher gasoline and utility 
prices?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman, and I will just 
say I missed your king cake this year, but that is all right.
    [Laughter.]
    Secretary Haaland. I had to travel all the way to your 
state to get one.
    But I will say, of course, we recognize that. And I know 
President Biden is working every day to lower costs for 
Americans. We believe that all the work we are doing on this 
clean energy transition will lower energy costs across the 
board for Americans across the country, and we feel confident 
about that. I know that we don't set gas prices.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Graves. Madam Secretary, I guess just this table here 
really concerns me in that you would have to go back to the 
Jimmy Carter administration to even find any time in our 
nation's modern history where you would have such few acres 
that are offered for energy production.
    And just to put things in perspective, during Jimmy 
Carter's administration they leased 100 times more acres than 
during the Biden administration during the same period of time. 
So, I feel like this is a direct result of this 
Administration's actions that are causing these higher, 
unaffordable prices for American families.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I do, first of all, want to 
say that it is undeniable that production of oil on public 
lands is at an all-time high. It truly is. There are also a lot 
of leases and permits that are----
    Mr. Graves. Madam Secretary, very quickly, just because I 
don't want to mislead the public, how long does it take to go 
from a lease sale to production onshore, and how long does it 
take to go from a lease sale to production offshore?
    Secretary Haaland. Of course, that depends greatly on the 
industry.
    Mr. Graves. But a ballpark.
    Secretary Haaland. I would love to pass it to Laura.
    Mr. Graves. I tell you what, just so we don't delay too 
long, it takes on average maybe 4 to 5 years for onshore. The 
only lease sale you have had for onshore was in 2022, which 
means none of the production occurring right now has anything 
to do with this Administration. For offshore, it is actually 
closer to about 10 years. Once again, none of the production 
today has anything to do with this Administration.
    What you are doing is you are creating an energy crisis for 
the future, not just for right now as a result of future 
supply, but you are creating an energy crisis for the next 
Administration and the one after, as well, by not producing.
    Now, we have had senior Administration officials that have 
come and testified before this Committee that have said when 
you stop producing, it doesn't cause a reduction in demand. All 
it does is it causes other countries to fill the void. So, 
let's take a look here.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Graves. This is Iranian crude, and this shows the 
increase in Iranian crude. Because again, voids are going to be 
filled. Voids will be filled. So, even though sanctions and 
everything else, we are actually seeing their exports increase, 
right? So, things like the LNG pause, the LNG ban effectively, 
it just creates market opportunity for other countries.
    And here is Iran. I am going to guess that you don't 
support the Israel-Iran war that is going on right now with the 
terrorists and others that are occurring. Some estimates have 
indicated that Iran has profited to the tune of $60 to $65 
billion, that money is going to Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, 
and American service members have been killed. Does it concern 
you that U.S. energy policy is funding the Iranian war?
    We just came in and provided $14 billion in funds to 
Israel. So, effectively, U.S. energy policy is funding Iran, 
U.S. taxpayers are funding Israel's defense. Does that concern 
you at all, and the death of American troops associated with 
this? Is that concerning?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, with respect to your 
original question on production, as I said it is at an all-time 
high.
    Mr. Graves. I am sorry, I have moved on from that one. But 
on the Iran issue, does that concern you at all?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I am concerned about 
everything about our country. I love this country. I am 
concerned about everything.
    Mr. Graves. What message would you say to the troops' 
families that were killed as a result of Iranian proxies funded 
effectively with U.S. energy policy dollars that have been 
killed? What would you say to them as a result?
    Secretary Haaland. I would like to say to you, Congressman, 
that there are millions of acres of leased, non-producing 
Federal land currently in this country, and there are thousands 
of approved permits to drill.
    Mr. Graves. And Madam Secretary, you have sat before this 
Committee and told us that there were 9,000, only to come back 
and realize that the number was grossly overestimated, and also 
not really understanding the process, and that that doesn't 
necessarily mean the ability to actually produce.
    Once again, there was just $60 billion provided in U.S. 
taxpayer funds to Russia. Russia is also profiting from U.S. 
energy policy. We are funding both sides of the war. Bad U.S. 
energy policy impacts American families and funds the Russians, 
and then American taxpayers fund the other side of the war. I 
am very concerned about what is going on.
    I would strongly urge you to think about the problem you 
are causing for the next administration and the one after. 
Think about the fact that this Administration's energy policies 
are funding both sides of the wars, and American service 
members have died as a result.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I hope the Chairman is as indulgent with 
Democratic Members as he was with our colleague from Louisiana.
    The Chairman. I think Ms. Stansbury went over about a 
minute.
    Mr. Neguse. Oh, right. I appreciate that. I will just say 
this, maybe my friend is confused about the particular witness 
that we are hearing from today. Ms. Haaland is not the 
Secretary of State. She is not the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. She is the Secretary of the Interior. And in my view, 
she is doing an effective job.
    And I would also say I think the questions in particular 
that were posed by the gentleman from Louisiana, and perhaps he 
didn't mean to convey them this way, but context matters. I 
know that the Secretary has a bone deep commitment to the 
United States. Perhaps he is unaware that her father was a 
veteran, was a distinguished officer in the United States 
Marine Corps who earned a Silver Star for his service during 
the Vietnam War. I find it offensive.
    Mr. Graves. Is the gentleman suggesting something I said 
was inaccurate?
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. Graves, it is not your time. It is my time.
    Mr. Graves. I wanted to make sure I understood.
    Mr. Neguse. To the extent the Chairman wishes to intervene, 
perhaps he can----
    Mr. Graves. I wanted to make sure I understood.
    Mr. Neguse [continuing]. Because I haven't yielded time to 
anyone.
    The Chairman. It is----
    Mr. Neguse. I am addressing the Secretary. And I say to 
you, Madam Secretary, that we are proud of your service and 
your family's service to our country, and grateful for the work 
that you were doing at the Department of the Interior, 
notwithstanding the histrionics from, unfortunately, some of my 
colleagues today. I am surprised by it, to be candid.
    As you know, Madam Secretary, and it is good to see you, 
and welcome back to the Natural Resources Committee, I am proud 
to represent the 2nd Congressional District of Colorado, which 
includes the headwaters of the Colorado River, and to serve as 
co-Chair of the bipartisan Colorado River Caucus. We have been 
grateful for the communication and the leadership of your 
agency as we continue to face drought conditions throughout the 
Colorado River Basin.
    I understand, of course, that the Department is currently 
developing post-2026 operating guidelines for the Colorado 
River through a multi-year and collaborative stakeholder 
process. I think it is important that we acknowledge the need 
to be proactive in our efforts to conserve this critical 
resource, rather than the solely reactionary and crisis driven.
    To that end, I am proud that we have introduced two bills, 
one of which has passed the Natural Resources Committee and 
passed the House on a bipartisan basis: the Drought 
Preparedness Act, which would support a critical program in 
your Department, Madam Secretary, that the Bureau of 
Reclamation uses, the Drought Response Program, to provide 
assistance through drought contingency planning, drought 
resiliency projects, and emergency response actions. I am 
hoping the Senate will take that bill up.
    As you know, your budget request includes $25 million for 
the Drought Response Program. I wonder if you could briefly 
talk about how that investment will help increase drought 
mitigation work in the Colorado River Basin?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congressman, and I 
thank you for recognizing how important the Drought Response 
Programs are as part of the $66 million request for WaterSMART 
programs to work cooperatively with communities to address 
water shortages.
    And I will just tell you that if those authorities are not 
reauthorized, the Drought Response Program, it provides 
assistance to water managers to build long-term resiliency to 
drought. As you know, people have said that it is a 1,200-year 
drought in the West. And you recognize that every single day, 
as I do, being a New Mexican. So, we feel these programs are 
incredibly important so we can continue to do the work and make 
sure that communities have the water that they need.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank you, Madam Secretary, and I certainly 
hope that the Senate will heed your call and our call to pass 
that bipartisan bill, as well as the House with respect to the 
second bill in reference to the authorities that you mentioned.
    I just want to briefly touch on SRS, the Secure Rural 
Schools, and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. Of course, 
understanding that SRS is primarily a Forest Service program, 
but there is a portion operated by the Bureau of Land 
Management, we have introduced legislation. It is bipartisan 
legislation, Representative McMorris Rodgers of Washington is 
the co-sponsor, to reauthorize the SRS program for an 
additional 3 years.
    The program is critical for rural communities across the 
country, including communities in my district. This program has 
broad bipartisan support. There are 70 co-sponsors on this 
particular bill, and I am certainly grateful for that. But, 
unfortunately, I will just say, Madam Secretary, that we have 
been frustrated that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have not put this bill on the Floor for a vote. The 
authorization lapsed, as you know, back in September 2023.
    There are a lot of communities and congressional districts 
that will be harmed if we don't get this bill done. Just to 
give you, by way of example, Chairman Bentz's district received 
more than $51 million. Representative Fulcher, he and I have 
worked closely together for many years, his district received 
$16.6 million. I know, Representative LaMalfa, you care about 
this program, $11.4 million in your district.
    We have to get this done. I know the Department is 
supportive of this effort. I am just hoping that we can implore 
the Speaker and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we can enlist your 
support in getting this done so that all of our communities in 
rural America aren't harmed disproportionately.
    I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for appearing with us today, Madam Secretary. 
Welcome back.
    About 8 years ago, several secretaries ago, Secretary 
Jewell signed an agreement to remove the four hydroelectric 
dams along the Klamath River. And now we are seeing, with the 
partial work of that being done, devastation to that river that 
you, well, I won't say can't imagine, because we could imagine 
that. We knew there were untold amounts of silt that had 
gathered behind those dams over the years. Now they have been 
unleashed upon the whole river system, all the way out to the 
mouth into the Pacific Ocean.
    And I mentioned this to you when we saw each other. Have 
you had a chance to take a look at any of the video or 
photographs of that devastation, what it meant to the wildlife 
and water quality, et cetera, along there?
    Secretary Haaland. I am sorry, Congressman, I didn't hear 
the exact question.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Have you had a chance to take a look at any of 
the photographs or videos or what have you of the devastation 
by the unleashing of that material into the river system, all 
the way out to the mouth of the ocean?
    Secretary Haaland. I have not seen photographs, but I would 
be happy to look at photographs. And of course----
    Mr. LaMalfa. You really should. And if you have a chance to 
visit in person because what we are talking about, ostensibly 
this is about salmon, and the life cycle of the salmon involved 
is 3 years, and there are people from the Department and other 
entities claiming it will be a 10- to 12-year project for the 
silt to actually disappear at the same time while they have 
equipment scooping silt out from the lake bottom and dumping it 
in the river.
    Now, if you were a miner, if you were anybody else, that 
would probably be life in prison for what they are doing there. 
Yet, somehow that is deemed to be OK.
    So, what we are looking at is the dam removal project so 
far is a disaster. And at the same time, we hear a lot of talk 
about climate change and replacing our vehicles, replacing the 
power generation with CO2-free, you know? I am sure 
the Department has a lot of goals on CO2, right? I 
mean, in general, right?
    Secretary Haaland. CO2?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Carbon dioxide, goals on reducing it.
    [No response.]
    Mr. LaMalfa. Just from the hip, ma'am, we don't have to----
    Secretary Haaland. Sorry.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Anyway, I will keep moving on. Everybody has 
goals in the California Government, the U.S. Government on 
climate change and reducing all that.
    At the same time we are talking about this, we are getting 
rid of the source of CO2-free electricity in dams 
and then dewatering other dams and making it where they are 
ineffective at running water through their hydro plants. We 
have barely kept alive the Diablo Canyon power plant in central 
California.
    At the same time, we are talking about mining and the 
inability to extract the metals that are needed for producing 
the electrified vehicles and electrified everything else. We 
are going in the opposite direction on both things to meet the 
goals that the Administration and California Government seems 
to be placing upon people to their detriment economically, 
jobs, et cetera.
    So, what do you say to the public with goals like this that 
are wrecking the river and making it much more expensive?
    And let me zero in on this part. The Klamath Lake is at 
90.6 percent capacity as of yesterday, as the lakes around 
California are filling up. Shasta, Oroville, Folsom is on its 
way up. New Melones is as high as it has been in quite a while. 
Yet, we are seeing 40 percent allocation to some of the San 
Joaquin Valley districts. So, how does your Department explain 
that in context with people seeing skyrocketing food prices?
    And then we talked about hydroelectric and electricity 
prices. What am I supposed to say to them about the direction 
that this Administration and your Department is going?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
And I know you and I have had conversations about this, and you 
have also essentially had an open door to the Bureau of 
Reclamation staff.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
    Secretary Haaland. I know they are also going to be here 
later in the month. So, I want to tell you that, yes, we 
understand that there was record moisture in some parts of the 
West. However, it is my understanding that the drought 
persists. So, they are working to be careful with the water 
that we have so that people will have it into the future.
    Mr. LaMalfa. But there is not a drought. Two years in a 
row, almost record snowpack. The lakes are essentially full if 
they are allowed to be topped off, all except for the San Luis 
Reservoir, which is about 25 percent down.
    So, the farmers in the Klamath are still, with a nearly 
full lake, are going to still be at maybe two-thirds of their 
allocation, as well as the 40 percenters down south in San 
Joaquin. So, with all that, how do you explain it to the 
farmers?
    And then let me come back to the CO2 one more 
time. Again, you have CO2 climate goals. What 
percent of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide?
    Secretary Haaland. I understand that you will tell me how 
much it is.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. LaMalfa. No, I would like to hear it from you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon----
    Mr. LaMalfa. 0.04 percent.
    The Chairman. We have heard that before.
    Ms. Hoyle. Once or twice. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 
Oregon.
    Ms. Hoyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Haaland, I just want to thank you for being here 
today. I want to thank you for your work and your availability 
and accessibility, specifically in talking about Federal lands, 
and timber and wildfire issues.
    With that, I would like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. 
Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady from Oregon.
    Madam Secretary, it is great to see you. And I want to 
start by commending you for the composure and dignity you have 
maintained throughout some questioning that in many cases is 
just absurd. You have been lectured about American national 
security interests and apparently helping Iran and even Russia 
by a Member of Congress who just last week voted against aid to 
Ukraine, handing Vladimir Putin an incredible gift just as his 
incredible, unfailing obeisance to the American oil and gas 
industry has helped over the years to essentially enrich and 
empower and create Vladimir Putin and his war machine. There is 
no amount of shame or hypocrisy that will stop some of my 
colleagues from rolling out the political theater and trying to 
score cheap points, but you have maintained your cool and 
professionalism. I think it speaks to who you are.
    It has to be especially tough, though, to be lectured about 
tribal consultation from members of this body who, at best, are 
ambivalent about tribal rights. And their hypocrisy and 
spottiness on this can be seen just in the last 24 hours. So, I 
am going to ask you a little bit about the gray wolf.
    Am I correct, Madam Secretary, that the gray wolf is a 
sacred spirit animal to most American tribes?
    Secretary Haaland. I believe that wolves for many tribes 
have a deep cultural meaning.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes. And, in fact, in the past, when there has 
been legislative delisting of the gray wolf and states have 
proceeded to slaughter them in incredible numbers, Native 
American tribes have actually had to go to court and file 
lawsuits to protect this culturally significant and sacred part 
of their heritage. Am I correct about that?
    Secretary Haaland. I believe you are, Congressman. And I 
just want to say that all life is essentially sacred to Native 
Americans, and I know that they care deeply about every animal 
that has a right to be on our landscape.
    Mr. Huffman. And should Native American tribes have a 
voice? Should they be consulted in wildlife management 
decisions affecting the gray wolf?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, across the board I appreciate you 
raising that because we have entered into 200 co-stewardship 
agreements with tribes across the country, not just for animals 
but for landscape health as well. And we feel that their 
Indigenous knowledge has a lot to offer us.
    Indigenous knowledge is science, and we can rely on that as 
a tool that we use to protect our lands for future generations.
    Mr. Huffman. And that, I would say, is as it should be. But 
just yesterday, to a person, every member, every Republican 
member of this Natural Resources Committee, on the Floor voted 
to reinstate a Trump rule that did not involve any tribal 
consultation for the gray wolf. And then they went a step 
further and prohibited any judicial review which kind of gives 
up the game. It would certainly suggest that they don't care 
very much about tribal consultation when it comes to the gray 
wolf.
    But more broadly, it has been suggested that because you 
don't agree with the Native American voices that want to do oil 
and gas drilling in some places, and you have listened to other 
Indigenous voices that may oppose oil and gas drilling or may 
support land conservation, that somehow you are insensitive to 
tribal consultation. I find that offensive. It has to be hard 
to listen to while keeping your cool. But you have done it.
    Let me just give you the remaining time that I have to 
speak to just what a serious value this is and priority this is 
to consult and lift up Native voices.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. And, of course, 
since President Biden has been in office, tribal consultation 
has been a top priority of his. As I mentioned earlier, he 
restarted the White House Council on Native American Affairs. 
Many of us have Secretaries' Tribal Advisory Committees. We 
want to make sure that tribes have a seat at the table.
    At one point, it seemed like we were doing so many 
consultations that the tribes were just asking us to slow down 
a little bit. I know that their voices are incredibly 
important. And there were decades and decades where tribes 
never were asked to have a seat at the table, where they never 
had opportunities to tell the Federal Government what their 
policies were doing to them and their communities. That is one 
of the reasons why our Federal boarding school initiative has 
been so important to tribes across the country.
    I appreciate you being with me when we went to visit with 
the tribes in your district, that was incredibly important. And 
I know it means a lot to them for you to listen.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Madam Secretary, thanks for coming and for being back 
here. It is good to see you. I have had a chance to look at 
some of your written testimony, and also heard some of your 
verbal testimony, as well. But I haven't picked up, at least 
clearly, the answer to the following, and it has to do with the 
number of renewable energy projects that the Department has 
approved in this Administration.
    Do you happen to know how many of those, approximately, 
renewable energy projects have been approved?
    Secretary Haaland. I feel like I know that number, but I 
would love for Laura to answer that question because I don't 
want to get it wrong, if that is OK with you.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, please.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And Congressman, I can tell you the megawatts approved, and 
it is somewhere exceeding 7,000 megawatts.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. We would have to get back to you on the 
specifics of the numbers.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, let me do a follow-up question, then. How 
many mining projects have been approved in the approximate same 
window of time?
    Secretary Haaland. Since the President has been in office, 
we have approved 40 mining or mining modification permits as 
well as 5 critical mineral mines.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, there appears, at least from my vantage 
point, that there is a disparity, where there is a focus much 
more in favor of renewable energy projects and over the mines 
at a time where we have so many needs for critical minerals.
    Mr. Chairman, with that I would like to yield some time to 
Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Representative Fulcher.
    Secretary Haaland, Chair Westerman put into the record the 
Voice of the Arctic Inupiat Resolution No. 2024-1, meaning 
their first resolution of this year. And I want to say that 
they are called the Voice.
    The Voice membership is comprised of local governments, 
tribal governments, tribal service providers, and Alaska Native 
Corporations across the North Slope of Alaska. In this 
resolution it says, ``Whereas, prior to the convention,'' that 
is the Alaska Federation of Native American Convention, ``held 
October 13, 2023, the North Slope Trilateral regional 
leadership wrote Secretary Haaland a letter asking for a 
meeting regarding both the ANWR and NPR-A announcements and 
lack of meaningful engagement with the region's leadership. AFN 
Convention came and went without a response granting or denying 
the meeting request, and to date no response has been 
received.'' Do you dispute that?
    Secretary Haaland. I do.
    Mr. Stauber. So, are you telling us today that you 
specifically met with the Voice of the Inupiat on ANWR and NPR-
A Alaska?
    Secretary Haaland. I am saying that we have not ignored any 
voices in Alaska, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, this is a yes-or-no question. 
I am asking you specifically. Did you meet with the North Slope 
Alaska Natives, the Voice of the Inupiat, those groups on the 
North Slope? Did you specifically meet with them? That is a 
yes-or-no question.
    Secretary Haaland. I feel like I need to explain further on 
how this whole issue was dealt with, because we gave 
opportunities for the tribes in Alaska, as well as the 
corporations to respond to a tribal consultation request.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary----
    Secretary Haaland. It was not responded to.
    Mr. Stauber. With my minute-and-a-half left, this is just a 
simple question: Did you specifically and individually meet 
with the Alaska Natives on the North Slope?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, if you would like a 
detailed list of everyone that we have met with, we are more 
than happy to get with you or your staff after this meeting.
    I want to say that we----
    Mr. Stauber. No, I don't need you to get with me, I need 
you to get with the Alaska Natives on the North Slope.
    Secretary Haaland. I understand that----
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, I have asked you three times. 
It is a simple yes or no. Did you specifically meet with the 
Alaskan Natives on the North Slope before you put this rule 
forward? That is a yes or a no.
    Secretary Haaland. My first trip to Alaska I went up to 
Utqiagvik. I had a tribal meeting, a tribal roundtable with 
tribes all over the district, as well as a State Legislator 
from the area.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, this will be the fourth time 
I ask you specifically. Did you meet with the Alaska Natives on 
the North Slope? Specifically and for your ANWR rule and NPR-A 
Alaska, did you meet with them?
    Secretary Haaland. I can say that the BLM held three in-
person meetings on the proposed rule.
    Mr. Stauber. With that, I find it difficult that the NPR-A, 
23 million acres, is entirely located within the boundaries of 
the North Slope region of Alaska, and she can't answer the 
question whether she met with them or not, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I 
wanted to respond to the Secretary that my understanding is 
there have only been five mines that have been approved in this 
Administration. The others were related to some sort of 
expansion. With that, I yield back.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Does the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin, for 5 
minutes.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. OK, I recognize the gentleman from Hawaii, 
Mr. Case, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Madam Secretary, aloha.
    Secretary Haaland. Aloha.
    Mr. Case. It is good to see you. I want to commend you and 
recognize you and your Department on a number of items that I 
think are relevant to the hearing.
    First of all, I detect in the questions from the other side 
some fundamental misunderstandings about what tribal 
consultation actually consists of. An essentially, government-
to-government interaction with the Indigenous peoples of our 
country that occurs on many levels, but is fundamentally an 
interaction and a sign of respect and inclusion of the 
Indigenous peoples.
    And I know this for a fact, because you have been exemplary 
in terms of your understanding of the Native Hawaiians, the 
Indigenous peoples of our country whose Native lands are in 
Hawaii, and the consultation level in the Department of the 
Interior over your Administration has been superior. So that, 
obviously, indicates, from my perspective, a complete 
understanding of what consultation actually means. That is No. 
1.
    No. 2, I certainly believe that you have been exemplary in 
terms of your understanding of the critical threats presented 
to many species across our country in your administration of 
our endangered species laws. Half of the endangered species in 
our country are in Hawaii. Clearly, you have focused there.
    No. 3, Mr. Sablan has already talked about the Compacts of 
Free Association which were critical agreements for our country 
on a number of levels. The Department of the Interior was 
central to getting the COFA over the finish line. I just met 
with the leaders of those countries, and they are still talking 
about the fact that it was a critical set of understandings and 
agreements.
    No. 4, you understood and your Department understood the 
significant and severe tragedy of the Maui wildfires, and was 
part of a government-wide response in Lahaina and Maui overall. 
You took a personal interest in that. I deeply appreciate that.
    No. 5, I believe that your management of our national 
parks, our treasures, as was already said, has been exemplary. 
And your administration of the Great American Outdoors Act, 
which you championed as a Member of Congress, where you are now 
administering some half-a-billion-dollars a year to address our 
national parks, has been a very significant contribution.
    No. 6, we are in the middle of implementing generational 
reinvestments in our infrastructure through the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, also called the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act, 
trillions of dollars. And the Department of the Interior is 
personally responsible for getting out the door and into 
communities tens of billions of dollars under those 
infrastructure laws to critical areas that I think we could all 
agree are essential from the perspective of our broader 
interests. These fall in the areas of climate resiliency, 
including wildfire resiliency, tribal electrification, which I 
think we believe is of critical importance, and then legacy 
pollution projects, where we simply have to clean up. The 
infrastructure dollars have been going out of your Department 
for that.
    And then finally, I would note your responsibility for the 
territories of our country, who often feel that they are not 
fully included. And you have embraced them, both as a 
Department and personally, and these are critical parts of our 
country.
    Those are just seven of the areas where I believe that the 
Department's contributions and your contributions personally 
have been noted, both for our country, as well as for my 
Hawaii. And I thank you for all of that.
    What I would like to do is give you a little bit of time to 
comment on one area that comes out of the Maui experience, and 
that is wildland fire management, which is an area that you are 
responsible for. Could you just give us a little bit of 
amplification of how the budget addresses wildfire prevention, 
which is impacting so much of our country?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman, and I 
just want you to know that one of our staff is still detailed 
to Maui, working with FEMA to make sure that things are right 
for the Native Hawaiian communities there.
    Of the $7.1 million, about $3.4 million is for NAGPRA 
grants. Let's see, this funding will support the Native 
Hawaiian community by providing grants to Native Hawaiian 
organizations, as well as to museums. The remaining $3.7 
million in funding will be used to assist Interior's bureaus 
and offices with prioritizing and expediting repatriations.
    That is not what you asked me. I apologize, Congressman. In 
2023, DOI completed more than 2.5 million acres of priority 
wildfire risk reduction using annual appropriations and BIL 
funding. With the BIL funding, 71 percent of the acres Interior 
treated were in the wildland urban interface, protecting places 
where people live on or adjacent to Federal lands. And I think 
those are some of the areas that you spoke about.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much. And I also thank you on 
NAGPRA. That is really critical, as well.
    Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record this legal analysis from the University 
of Colorado Law School and the University of Utah College of 
Law that details the statutory authority of BLM to update their 
multiple use mandate to incorporate conservation as a use on 
par with other traditional uses.
    The analysis states that, based on the plain language of 
the Federal Lands Policy Management Act, the Public Lands Rule 
represents a sound interpretation of the mandates provided to 
Congress by BLM.
    Mr. Fulcher. Unanimous consent has been granted.

    [The information follows:]

              A Legal Analysis of BLM's Public Lands Rule

                             April 19, 2024

                           A White Paper by:

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Bureau of Land Management (``BLM''), in the U.S. Department 
of the Interior, oversees more than 245 million acres of federal public 
land, or one-tenth of the total land base in the United States. BLM 
lands provide important benefits to the American people, including 
clean water, wildlife habitat, renewable and nonrenewable energy 
resources, grazing, timber, and outdoor recreation. In managing these 
public lands, BLM must balance this wide variety of uses to benefit 
current and future generations.
    On April 18, 2024, BLM finalized a new rule--``the Public Lands 
Rule,'' to advance the BLM's stewardship mission by focusing on the 
health and resilience of ecosystems across public lands managed for 
multiple use and sustained yield. The Public Lands Rule implements the 
existing ``multiple use and sustained yield'' statutory framework 
adopted by Congress in the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 
1976 (``FLPMA''). Consistent with the duty BLM was assigned by Congress 
almost fifty years ago, the new rule updates BLM planning and 
management regulations ``to conform to changing needs and conditions'' 
on public lands and to achieve the right ``combination of balanced and 
diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of 
future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c) (defining ``multiple use'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since FLPMA's passage in 1976, BLM has been tasked with managing 
``recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, 
and natural scenic, scientific and historical values'' in a 
``harmonious and coordinated'' balance that avoids ``permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 
environment.'' \2\ The new rule recognizes that ``BLM's ability to 
manage for multiple use and sustained yield of public lands depends on 
the resilience of ecosystems across those lands.'' \3\ Without 
resilient ecosystems that can withstand disturbance, the productivity 
of public lands and the quality of the environment face the risk of 
permanent impairment. The new rule clarifies and formalizes regulatory 
tools for protecting intact, functioning landscapes, restoring degraded 
habitats and ecosystems, and making wise management decisions based on 
science and data.\4\ The new rule provides predictability, expands 
transparency, and formalizes pre-existing policies as BLM manages 
public lands in a new era of challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Unofficial pre-publication version of the BLM's Final 
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule 3 (Apr. 18, 2024), to be 
codified at 43 C.F.R. Part 6000 and 1600 available at https://
www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule (last visited Apr. 18, 2024) [hereinafter 
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF]
    \4\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM provided for extensive public involvement in the preparation of 
the Public Lands Rule. The rule was subject to a 90-day public comment 
period, during which a total of 216,403 people voiced their opinion.\5\ 
BLM received over 152,673 comment letter from Tribes, state and local 
governments, industry groups, conservation organizations, and citizens 
across the country. BLM also held three in-person meetings and two 
virtual meetings during the comment period to better engage the public 
on the proposed rule. BLM actively engaged in government-to-government 
consultation with Tribes, and received over 20 formal comment letters 
from Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Corporations, and tribal 
entities.\6\ The final rule includes thoughtful adjustments 
demonstrating that it benefited from this robust and inclusive public 
participation process, and the level of engagement indicates the degree 
to which BLM lands provide important public benefits that must be 
thoughtfully managed for the long-term benefit of current and future 
generations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 34.
    \6\ Id. at 33.
    \7\ Compare 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(c) (defining ``multiple use'' to 
include a ``combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that 
takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 
renewable and non-renewable resources'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This white paper provides detailed information on the Public Lands 
Rule, including: (1) summaries of the policy tools and initiatives 
included in the rule; (2) the legal foundation for the rule with a 
focus on the multiple use and sustained yield mandate in FLPMA; and (3) 
a discussion of the conditions of BLM land that warrant the management 
approaches embodied in the rule.
1. What Management Tools Are Included in the Public Lands Rule?

    In formulating the Public Lands Rule, BLM starts from the 
foundational policy statement provided by Congress in FLPMA. Congress 
has plenary power over the 245 million acres of land managed by BLM, 
and in FLPMA Congress set forth the policy of the United States that:

        the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the 
        quality of the scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 
        environmental, air and atmospheric, water resources, and 
        archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve 
        and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; 
        that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and 
        domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation 
        and human occupancy and use.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(a)(8).

    As BLM recognizes in the rule, ``[m]any of these resources and 
values that FLPMA authorizes the BLM to safeguard emanate from 
functioning and productive native ecosystems that supply food, water, 
habitat, and other ecological necessities.'' \9\ BLM has therefore 
developed the Public Lands Rule with the understanding that prudently 
managing the ecological health of public lands is necessary to achieve 
the important policies set forth by Congress in FLPMA. As the preamble 
observes, ``widespread degradation of land health significantly limits 
the ability of public lands and their ecosystems to provide such 
resources and values and is inconsistent with the management direction 
and responsibility conferred to the BLM through FLPMA.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 9.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM recognizes that ``degradation of the health of public lands 
threatens the BLM's ability to manage public lands as directed by 
FLPMA.'' \11\ Invasive species, wildfire, drought, and fragmented 
wildlife habitat threaten the health and resilience of these lands and 
undermine their ability to support multiple uses and provide for a 
sustained yield of resources for the public. To address these threats, 
and to advance the national policy as set forth in FLPMA, BLM focuses 
on the resilience of ecosystems, that is the ability of ecosystems to 
recover from the threats of disturbances and environmental change.\12\ 
``Ecosystems that collapse due to disturbance cannot deliver ecosystem 
services, such as clean air and water, food and fiber, wildlife 
habitat, natural carbon storage, and more.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id. at 7.
    \12\ Id. at 3.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Public Lands Rule recognizes that BLM has three primary ways to 
build and maintain the resilience of ecosystems on public lands: ``(1) 
protecting the most intact, functioning landscapes; (2) restoring 
degraded habitat and ecosystems; and (3) using science and data as the 
foundation for management decisions across all plans and programs.'' 
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rule defines ``conservation'' as ``the management of natural 
resources to promote protection and restoration'' in order to build 
resilient lands or reach desired land use conditions through planning, 
permitting, and decision-making.\15\ In this sense, ``conservation is a 
use'' while ``protection and restoration are tools to achieve 
conservation.'' \16\ The preamble and discussion emphasize that 
``conservation takes many forms on public lands'' and is not 
necessarily exclusive of other multiple uses. In fact, it may support 
other uses like sustainable grazing, recreation, or wildlife and 
fisheries management.\17\ The preamble also emphasizes that 
conservation is not a landscape designation, nor is it a permanent use. 
Instead, it is a deliberate use of land for specific ecological values, 
particularly ecological health and resilience. ``Conservation is both a 
land use and also an investment in the landscape intended to increase 
the yield of certain other benefits elsewhere or later in time.'' \18\ 
Within this context, conservation is treated as a use on par with other 
multiple uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id. at 4, 38, 134-35 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6101.4(b)).
    \16\ Id. at 4 n.2.
    \17\ Id. at 10.
    \18\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commenters identified potential confusion between the terms 
``conservation,'' ``preservation,'' and ``protection'' and requested 
clarification.\19\ The final rule addresses this concern directly and 
updates the definition of ``protection,'' clarifying that it ``is not 
synonymous with preservation.'' For example, it ``allows for active 
management of other uses consistent with multiple use and sustained 
yield principles.'' \20\ In the final definition, `` `protection' means 
the act or process of conservation by maintaining the existence of 
resources while preventing degradation, damage, or destruction.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id. at 47.
    \20\ Id. at 139 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6101.4(t)).
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Within this broader framework, the Public Lands Rule clarifies or 
expands upon five primary regulatory tools the BLM will use to advance 
resilience of BLM lands and to achieve the objectives of multiple use 
and sustained yield management. Clearly articulating these management 
priorities promotes transparency, predictability, and consistent policy 
application across field offices.

        A. Fundamentals of Land Health--The rule provides a framework 
        to manage for resilient public lands by applying the 
        fundamentals of land health and related standards and 
        guidelines to all BLM-managed lands.\22\ The four fundamentals 
        include: (1) watershed function; (2) ecological processes; (3) 
        water quality; and (4) wildlife habitat. The framework and 
        standards have applied to grazing activities and rangeland 
        management since the 1990s and are consistent with BLM's 
        existing legal authorities.\23\ The fundamentals and standards 
        will facilitate informed and science-based decision-making by 
        providing a consistent, predictable methodology for identifying 
        baseline environmental conditions, assessing ecological 
        conditions and trends, implementing adaptive strategies, 
        authorizing uses, and making long-term management decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id. at 168 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6103.1); id. at 
5-6 (providing explanation).
    \23\ Rangeland Health, BLM, https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-
resources/rangelands-and-grazing/rangeland-health (last visited Apr. 
18, 2024).

        B. Protection of Landscape Intactness--The rule focuses 
        attention on landscape intactness, which ``is the resource 
        value that the BLM is seeking to identify and protect.'' \24\ 
        Intact landscapes promote resilience across public lands, and 
        for that reason are a resource to be inventoried, monitored, 
        and deliberately managed.\25\ The rule offers a thorough 
        definition of ``intact landscapes,'' that can be summarized as 
        an ``unfragmented ecosystem'' that is large enough to maintain 
        native biological diversity, including viable populations of 
        wide-ranging species. For example, ``an intact landscape would 
        have minimal fragmentation from roads, fences, and dams; low 
        densities of agricultural, urban, and industrial development; 
        and minimal pollution levels.'' \26\ In order to properly 
        manage this resource value, BLM will maintain an inventory of 
        landscape intactness and incorporate that value into planning 
        and management decisions.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Id. at 53-54 (providing discussion of revised rule in response 
to comments).
    \25\ Id. at 95-96 (describing clarifications made between the 
proposed and final rule); id. at 137 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6101.4(j)).
    \26\ Id. at 137 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6101.4(j)).
    \27\ Id. at 144 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6102.2(a)).

        C. Restoration and Mitigation Leasing--The rule authorizes 
        restoration leases and mitigation leases as tools to advance 
        ecosystem resilience.\28\ Referred to as ``conservation 
        leases'' in the proposed rule, the final rule adopted two more 
        clearly defined categories to clarify the uses that would be 
        authorized. ``These leases will be available to entities 
        seeking to restore public lands or mitigate reasonably 
        foreseeable impacts from an authorized activity.'' \29\ 
        Contrary to fears that these leases would ``lock up federal 
        lands,'' the preamble clarifies that these leases ``will not 
        override valid existing rights or preclude other, subsequent 
        authorizations so long as those authorizations are compatible 
        with the restoration or mitigation use.'' \30\ In response to 
        public comments, the discussion specified that these leases 
        ``will not preclude access to or across leased areas for 
        recreation use, research use, or other authorized use that is 
        compatible with the restoration or mitigation activities.'' 
        \31\ Depending on implementation, these leases have the 
        potential to streamline permitting by establishing a formal and 
        predictable mechanism to achieve mitigation when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id. at 149-55 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6102.4); id. 
at 14-15 (discussing the leases).
    \29\ Id. at 15.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id. at 57.

        D. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (``ACECs'')--The 
        rule clarifies and standardizes the process for designation and 
        management of ACECs to protect unique ecological, historic, 
        scenic, or cultural values. Congress created ACECs and directed 
        BLM to prioritize their identification and protection when it 
        passed FLPMA almost 50 years ago. Until now, procedures for 
        considering and designating ACECs had been partially described 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        in regulations and partially described in BLM policies.

        E. Mitigation Hierarchy--The rule promotes consistency and 
        predictability in mitigation by adopting the definition of 
        mitigation provided by Council on Environmental Quality 
        Regulations,\32\ and clarifying that ``BLM will generally apply 
        a mitigation hierarchy to address impacts to public land 
        resources, seeking to avoid, then minimize, and then compensate 
        for any residual impacts.'' \33\ The rule supplements existing 
        DOI policies, which among other things provide boundaries to 
        ensure that compensatory mitigation is durable and 
        effective.\34\ Consistent with that approach, it clarifies how 
        permittees may use third-parties to achieve mitigation through 
        multiple strategies including ``mitigation banks,'' ``in-lieu 
        fee programs'' and ``third-party mitigation fund holders.'' 
        \35\ These mechanisms can be an important tool for simplifying 
        and streamlining permitting while achieving ecological outcomes 
        required by mitigation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1508.20.
    \33\ Id. at 44-45; id. at 164 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. 
Sec. 6102.5.1).
    \34\ Id. at 45.
    \35\ Id. at 66-67.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Is the Public Lands Rule Authorized by Law?

    Yes. The Public Lands Rule and the associated management tools are 
consistent with the broad, flexible authority granted by Congress to 
BLM under FLPMA, the BLM's organic act, which authorizes and requires 
BLM to manage its lands for the purposes of ``multiple use and 
sustained yield.'' \36\ The implementation of the multiple use and 
sustained yield mandate has long been entrusted to the discretion of 
BLM, within certain limitations, recognizing that the agency must 
strike a balance between competing uses within a system of complex 
resource needs and conditions.\37\ Congress charged BLM with protecting 
public resources for the benefit of current and future generations over 
the long-term, and the Public Lands Rule faithfully builds upon and 
adheres to this statutory structure by standardizing the use of land 
health standards, confirming conservation as a use, and implementing a 
variety of management tools to ensure long-term ecosystem resilience 
and sustainability of natural, cultural, historic and scenic resources 
found on public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732(a).
    \37\ See, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 
518 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (evaluating natural gas mandate according to the 
multiple use mandate and noting BLM ``has wide discretion to determine 
how those principles should be applied''); New Mexico ex rel. 
Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 710 (10th Cir. 2009) (``It is past 
doubt that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to 
prioritize development over other uses.''); Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. 
Zinke, 877 F.3d 845, 872 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting withdrawal of lands 
from mining satisfies multiple use as it ``does not . . . require the 
agency to promote one use above others'' but to ``weigh competing 
interests and, where necessary, make judgments about incompatible 
uses''). See also George Cameron Coggins, Of Succotash Syndromes and 
Vacuous Platitudes: The Meaning of ``Multiple Use, Sustained Yield'' 
for Public Land Management, 53 U. COLO. L. REV. 229, 230, 280 (1982) 
(stating that ``[m]any managers believe that the management authority 
delegated to the agencies by Congress amounts to little more than a 
request to them to `go forth and make wise, balanced decisions,' but 
finding provisions that afford effective judicial review, which in turn 
means ``more protection for users, less reliance on questionable 
economic theory, and more conservatism in management practice'').

    Congress defined the terms ``multiple use'' and ``sustained yield'' 
to provide both direction and discretion to BLM, and those definitions 
are essential in understanding how the Public Lands Rule builds on the 
statute that was passed by Congress in 1976.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1732.

    First, FLPMA's definition of ``multiple use'' contains many 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explicit references to conservation considerations and values.

        The term ``multiple use'' means the management of the public 
        lands and their various resource values so that they are 
        utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and 
        future needs of the American people; making the most judicious 
        use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 
        services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude 
        for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 
        and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the 
        resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses 
        that takes into account the long-term needs of future 
        generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, 
        including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, 
        minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 
        scientific, and historic values; and harmonious and coordinated 
        management of the various resources without permanent 
        impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of 
        the environment with consideration being given to the relative 
        values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination 
        of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the 
        greatest unit output.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Id. Sec. 1702(c) (emphasis added).

    In this definition, Congress provided a multigenerational 
management requirement in its layered definition of multiple use.\40\ 
This includes: (1) a conservation directive to avoid ``permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 
environment''; \41\ (2) enumeration of several environmental and 
ecological resources, including watersheds, wildlife and fish, natural 
scenic places, forests, rangelands, that should be managed for the 
long-term needs of future generations; (3) recognition of natural, 
scenic, scientific, and historic values that should be considered in 
land management decisions; (4) recognition that ``changing needs and 
conditions'' may require ``periodic adjustments in use;'' and (5) an 
acknowledgement that prioritizing short-term benefits may not always be 
the best way to manage the relative values of resources.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id. (noting public lands are to be managed to ``best meet the 
present and future needs of the American people'' and uses balanced to 
take ``into account the long-term needs of future generations'' in 
balancing resource use).
    \41\ Id. (providing BLM should avoid ``permanent impairment of the 
productivity of the land and the quality of the environment'').
    \42\ Id. (noting coordinated management should be done with 
``consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and 
not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest 
economic return or the greatest unit output'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the plain language of the statute, the Public Lands Rule 
represents a sound (and overdue) interpretation of the mandates 
provided by Congress to BLM. In particular, Congress defined the term 
``balanced and diverse uses'' to include considerations like watershed, 
wildlife, natural, scenic, and scientific values. Those same values are 
prioritized within the conservation use set forth in the Public Lands 
Rule. Other portions of the rule also reflect the need to balance 
multiple uses as required by FLPMA. For example, FLPMA prohibits 
unnecessary or undue degradation (``UUD'') across all BLM-managed 
public lands \43\ and the Public Lands Rule defines the term and 
applies that prohibition through regulation to BLM land management 
activities. Additionally, by expanding the fundamentals of land health 
to consider, in part, watershed health and compliance with legal water 
quality standards in management decisions, BLM maintains ``watershed'' 
and ``fish and wildlife'' values--one of FLPMA's specific 
directives.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Id. Sec. 1732(b).
    \44\ Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 
17-18, 169 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. Sec. 6103.1(b)); 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1702(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, the Public Lands Rule is consistent with the statutory 
definition of ``multiple use'' and translates those requirements into 
regulations governing resource planning and day-to-day management of 
the public lands. The rule recognizes modern resource planning 
realities, wherein activities like grazing, timber harvests, oil and 
gas drilling, and renewable energy projects, are planned in 
coordination with long-term resource conservation objectives that 
include watershed functions, wildlife habitat, and soil health. 
Conservation does not displace multiple use, but rather helps achieve 
the important policy objectives set forth in FLPMA.

    Second, FLPMA's ``sustained yield'' requirement enshrined in FLPMA 
also provides for conservation focused management.

        The term ``sustained yield'' means the achievement and 
        maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 
        periodic output of the various renewable resources of the 
        public lands consistent with multiple use.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1702(h) (emphasis added).

    Like multiple use, the definition of sustained yield also imposes a 
multigenerational management requirement. The definition articulates a 
management horizon ``in perpetuity'' with periodic ``output of the 
various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with 
multiple use.'' \46\ ``Various renewable resources'' is not statutorily 
defined, but its meaning is informed by FLPMA's declaration of policy 
to protect ``scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 
air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values'' as well 
as food and habitat for animals and outdoor recreation 
opportunities.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ Id. Sec. 1701(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM clarifies that the Public Lands Rule is intended to protect 
resilience of the public lands to absorb and recover from disturbances 
and environmental change. By focusing on resilience, the new rule is 
designed to ensure that public lands can continue to support multiple 
uses including timber, minerals, and renewable and nonrenewable energy 
projects, as well as environmental services like water supplies and 
wildlife habitat over the long-term. Again, the rule is premised upon 
the policy set by Congress and the statutory definitions, and BLM has 
adapted those concepts into clear and predictable management direction.
    Opponents of the Public Lands Rule suggest that its conservation 
emphasis is contrary to BLM's mission and statutory authority. But a 
close analysis of the rule and FLPMA do not bear this out. Those 
objections are premised either on an incorrect reading of the statute 
or a misunderstanding of the rule.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ For more detailed treatment of this legal question, see Jamie 
Pleune, BLM's Conservation Rule and Conservation as a ``Use,'' 53 ENV. 
L. REP. 10824 (2023); Sandra B. Zellmer, Conservation as Multiple Use, 
66 ARIZ. L. REV. 1 (2024).

    First, in addition to the plain language of the statute discussed 
above, FLPMA's legislative history reveals that its drafters saw the 
Act as a vehicle to give BLM a clearer mandate for management of public 
lands-one that expressly included conservation.\49\ Prior to passing 
FLPMA, Congress established the Public Land Law Review Commission and 
tasked it with studying the existing laws governing public land 
management and recommending improvements. The opening statement of the 
final 1970 Report emphasized that conservation must be a central tenet 
of BLM's land management duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See PLLRC, ONE THIRD OF THE NATION'S LAND: A REPORT TO THE 
PRESIDENT AND TO THE CONGRESS BY THE PUBLIC LAND LAW REVIEW COMMISSION 
1-7 (1970) (providing recommendations to reform public land law and 
include environmental considerations pre-FLPMA); Pleune, supra note 49 
at 10828 (noting the words of the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources Chairman after FLPMA's passage: ``The policies 
contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act will shape the 
future development and conservation of a valuable national asset, our 
public lands.'') (quoting S. COMM. ON ENERGY & NAT. RES., 95TH CONG., 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 
1976, at vi (Comm. Print 1978)).

        We . . . have looked in vain to find assurance in the public 
        land laws that the United States, as a landowner, had made 
        adequate provision to assure that the quality of life would not 
        be endangered by reason of activities on federally owned lands. 
        We find to the contrary that . . . there is an absence of 
        statutory guidelines by which land management agencies can 
        provide uniform, equitable, and economically sound provision 
        for environmental control over lands retained in Federal 
        ownership.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ PLLRC, supra note 50, at 3.

    The Commission emphasized that BLM should, in some cases, emphasize 
what it called ``nonmarket values'' like protecting fish, wildlife and 
watersheds.\51\ It also recommended the development of statutory 
guidelines for land management that ``will not endanger the quality of 
the environment, but will, where feasible, enhance the quality of the 
environment, both on and off public lands.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ JOHN D. LESHY, OUR COMMON GROUND: A HISTORY OF AMERICA'S 
PUBLIC LANDS 492-93 (2022).
    \52\ PLLRC, supra note 50, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the 1970 Report, Congress passed FLPMA, which implemented 
many of the recommendations. For example, FLPMA's opening statement of 
policy directs that ``public lands be managed in a manner that will 
protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, 
environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 
values . . . .'' \53\ In other words, conservation was a motivating 
justification for the passage of FLPMA, and it has always been a part 
of multiple use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Comparing FLPMA's definition of multiple use to the Multiple Use, 
Sustained Yield Act of 1960, which applied to the U.S. Forest Service, 
demonstrates that Congress deliberately included conservation of 
ecological values in FLPMA. In FLPMA, Congress evolved the terms and 
defined ``multiple use'' to include the ``long-term needs of future 
generations'' for resources such as ``natural, scenic, scientific and 
historical values''--language that was not included in the earlier 1960 
statute. Congress also called for BLM to manage ``without permanent 
impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the 
environment.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Id. Sec. 1702(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on this language in FLPMA, federal courts have repeatedly 
held that the multiple use and sustained yield mandate provides BLM 
with broad discretion in how to achieve the appropriate balance of 
uses. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals clarified in 2010 that BLM 
``has substantial discretion to decide how to achieve the multiple use 
and sustained yield objectives.'' \55\ The Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals has provided similar guidance, holding that it ``is past doubt 
that the principle of multiple use does not require BLM to prioritize 
development over other uses.'' \56\ ``Development is a possible use, 
which BLM must weigh against other possible uses--including 
conservation to protect environmental values.'' \57\ The Public Lands 
Rule, which provides a framework for maintaining critical ecological 
functions on public lands by formalizing the practice of conservation 
along with other uses, falls well within the discretion that rests with 
BLM under the statute, as recognized by federal courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Theodore Roosevelt P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 518 (D.C. 
Cir. 2010).
    \56\ New Mexico ex rel. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 683, 710 (10th 
Cir. 2009).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, opponents of the Public Land Rule have suggested that by 
designating conservation as a use, BLM will manage entire landscapes to 
exclude other uses such as grazing, timber, mining, and oil and gas 
activities, thereby running afoul of the multiple use mandate. This 
argument misreads the rule. BLM is clear that conservation is a use 
that is ``on par with'' but not dominant over other uses across the 
public lands.\58\ ``The rule does not prioritize conservation above 
other uses; instead, it provides for considering and, where 
appropriate, implementing or authorizing conservation as one of the 
many uses managed under FLPMA, consistent with the statute's plain 
language.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 
4, 24, 52.
    \59\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mitigation leases, as an example, would be issued subject to valid 
existing rights--i.e., other uses--and those leases may not be 
appropriate in places where other existing uses preclude the mitigation 
or restoration activities to be achieved through the leases. In 
addition, those leases are specifically designed as a tool to offset 
the impacts from other uses of public lands like degradation of 
wildlife habitat. Similarly, the mitigation hierarchy has long been 
used to address potential adverse impacts to resources from other uses 
of BLM lands.\60\ Standardizing these practices will provide more 
predictability, efficiency, and consistency for land users during the 
permitting process. Thus, both mitigation leases and the mitigation 
hierarchy are intended to be tools of multiple use management that will 
standardize and improve land management decisions that may result in 
adverse resource impacts without strategic and wise management. The 
purpose of these management tools is to incorporate principles of 
conservation throughout public lands management to ensure that 
potential adverse impacts do not result in permanent impairment or 
unnecessary or undue degradation of resource values. This is a modern 
approach to land management and decision-making--an allocation of 
scarce resources among competing uses where development activities and 
conservation are considered together in a multiple use framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Id. at 44-45, 86-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the Public Lands Rule flows from the direction provided by 
Congress to BLM to manage for multiple uses, to ensure a sustained 
yield for the benefit of current and future generations, and to avoid 
permanent impairment or unnecessary or undue degradation of public 
resources. While the rule has been characterized as a shift from BLM's 
historic emphasis on resource extraction, Congress in fact directed BLM 
to move in this direction when FLPMA was passed in 1976. The Public 
Lands Rule is well supported by FLPMA, and it updates and the 
modernizes BLM's land management framework to align with current best 
practices.
3. Are BLM Lands Facing Significant Threats?

    Yes. BLM has made clear in preparing the Public Lands Rule that the 
245 million acres under its control are facing serious threats as a 
result of natural and human causes that undermine their health and 
natural functions. For decades, BLM has emphasized traditional 
extractive uses like oil and gas, mining, grazing, and timber over 
conservation values, an approach that has historically and continues to 
cause ongoing negative environmental impacts like degradation of 
watersheds, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and impairment of soil 
resources.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ See Pleune, supra note 49 at 10830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil and gas leases abound. Nearly 37 million acres of federal land 
have been leased for oil and gas production, while less than half of 
those acres are currently producing oil and gas.\62\ This has two 
implications: first, that a large amount of land has already been 
leased but has yet to go into production; and second that there is a 
legacy of idled, orphaned and abandoned wells resulting in further 
degradation of public lands. In 2018, EPA estimated the population of 
unplugged abandoned wells to be around 2.1 million. A legacy of hard-
rock mining and oil and gas drilling have left many BLM-managed lands 
in need of mitigation to restore the land to functioning condition.\63\ 
The BLM also allows grazing on over 60% of its lands, which has 
resulted in well-documented impacts on resource values.\64\ Meanwhile, 
only roughly 15% of BLM's lands are protected as National Conservation 
Lands.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Robert B. Keiter & Matthew McKinney, Public Land and Resources 
Law in the American West: Time for Another Comprehensive Review?, 49 
ENV'T L. 1, 11 (2019); Pleune, supra note 49 at 10830.
    \63\ There are at least 22,500 identified abandoned hard-rock mines 
on public lands that threaten human health and wildlife through 
pollution. A total of 140,000 abandoned hard-rock mining features have 
been identified, with an estimated additional 399,000 abandoned hard-
rock features yet to be identified on public lands. U.S. GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO), GAO-20-238, ABANDONED HARDROCK MINES: 
INFORMATION ON NUMBER OF MINES, EXPENDITURES, AND FACTORS THAT LIMIT 
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS HAZARDS 1, 16-17 (2020). In 2019, the Government 
Accountability Office also found identified 2,294 idle wells that have 
not been plugged or reclaimed. GAO, GAO-19-615, OIL AND GAS: BUREAU OF 
LAND MANAGEMENT SHOULD ADDRESS RISKS FROM INSUFFICIENT BONDS TO RECLAIM 
WELLS 17 (2019).
    \64\ BLM, Livestock Grazing on Public Lands, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing 
(stating 155 million acres of BLM's over 245 million are leased for 
livestock grazing); PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, 
Agency Field Data Paints Bleak Picture of Western Lands, https://
storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d199635585f741e3afe875e72dd84263 (finding 
of the 54 million acres that fail BLM rangeland health standards, 72% 
list grazing as a cause).
    \65\ See BLM, National Conservation Lands, https://www.blm.gov/
programs/national-conservation-lands (stating over 37 million acres of 
BLM's over 245 million are protected under National Conservation Land 
designation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change is also a major concern, as its effects are likely 
to exacerbate existing threats and lead to more significant and 
detrimental changes into the future. Landscape degradation, habitat 
fragmentation, and biodiversity loss are all likely to accelerate as a 
result of climate change. These changes threaten not only natural 
landscapes, but also human health and livelihoods that depend on the 
natural resources these landscapes support.\66\ Additionally, future 
conditions will not mimic the past, resulting in potential volatility 
and uncertainty in planning and resource management.\67\ Working to 
address the threat of climate change on public lands is imperative to 
provide for their health into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ See NATIONAL SECURITY, MILITARY, AND INTELLIGENCE PANEL ON 
CLIMATE CHANGE, A SECURITY THREAT ASSESSMENT OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 
19 (2020) (``Human health and livelihoods depend directly on the 
stability of the natural world, from the renewable resources that we 
consume daily, to the habitats in which we build settlements.'').
    \67\ U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, IMPACTS, RISKS, AND 
ADAPTATION IN THE UNITED STATES: FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, 
VOLUME II: REPORT IN BRIEF 26 (David Reidmiller et al. eds., 2019), 
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Report-in-Brief.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2021, the Department of the Interior released their Climate 
Action Plan, acknowledging that ``climate change is widely impacting 
the people the Department serves, the lands, waters, and natural and 
cultural resources the Department manages, and the mission-critical and 
mission-dependent infrastructure managed by the Department.'' \68\ Yet, 
a study published just the year before found that BLM had no 
comprehensive plan to adjust management strategies or provide guidance 
to land managers on how to respond to the effects of climate 
change.\69\ The Public Lands Rule provides direction for how BLM will 
respond to the impacts of climate change, directing management of 
public lands for ecological resilience within the multiple use and 
sustained yield framework of FLPMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, DEP'T OF THE INTERIOR 4 (2021), https://
www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/department-of-interior-climate-action-
plan-final-signed-508-9.14.21.pdf.
    \69\ Pleune, supra note 49 at 10832 (citing Elaine M. Brice et al., 
Impacts of Climate Change on Multiple Use Management of Bureau of Land 
Management Land in the Intermountain West, USA, 11 ECOSPHERE 1, 2 
(2020)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development pressures and population growth adjacent to public 
lands puts added pressure on the connectivity and functionality of 
public lands. Population in the West has exploded in the previous half-
century,\70\ resulting in growth of urban development and habitat 
fragmentation. Along with this development comes physical impacts to 
the landscape and resulting negative implications for biodiversity.\71\ 
Many of the largest threats to biodiversity--including land use 
changes, natural resource exploitation, pollution, and invasive 
species--either result from, or are worsened by, growing population and 
development.\72\ If BLM does not have a plan and ability to address 
these negative impacts, present and future generations will not enjoy 
the same quality of natural values as earlier generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Keiter & McKinney, supra note 63, at 7.
    \71\ Pleune, supra note 49 at 10830.
    \72\ See generally id. at 10829-31 (discussing threats to 
biodiversity); see also LANDSCOPE, Development Pressure, http://
www.landscope.org/explore/threats/sprawl/ (describing impacts of human 
development on climate change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, there is a pressing need for BLM to modernize its approach 
to managing the 245 million acres of land entrusted to its care. 
Climate change, a history of extractive uses, population growth, and 
other forces are all putting pressure on the ability of these lands to 
provide the many important ecosystem services and values that Congress 
recognized in FLPMA. The Public Lands Rule acknowledges these threats 
and seeks to establish a management framework that ensures the long-
term sustainability of these public resources for current and future 
generations.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    Mr. Fulcher. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Radewagen for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Westerman and Ranking 
Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing.
    And thank you, Secretary Haaland, for your testimony. It is 
always good to see you, as always.
    I want to thank Interior for the work they do on behalf of 
the territories. I appreciate the support and testimony 
Assistant Secretary Cantor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Nakoa 
gave on behalf of my bill, H.R. 6062, and our efforts towards 
self-determination and self-governance.
    I also appreciate that the Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal 
includes level funding for the American Samoa Operations 
Account. The stated goal of OIA's assistance to the territories 
is to offset the difficulties caused by our geographic and 
economic isolation, and encourage our island's eventual self-
sufficiency.
    On a related note, in an often overlooked bit of history, 
American Samoa's first cannery many decades ago was built with 
support from a DOI initiative to kick-start our economy. Now, 
Starkist is second only to the local government as an employer. 
Unfortunately, our fishing industry and our self-sufficiency is 
now under existential pressure from overzealous and 
shortsighted green politics.
    As part of President Biden's 30x30 Initiative, the 
Administration has a pending marine sanctuary proposal covering 
the area around the Pacific Remote Marine Island Monument. The 
monument was already doubled in size by the Obama 
administration, and with this expansion, 777,000 square miles 
of tuna fishing grounds, which supply our cannery, will be 
subject to multiple layers of environmental oversight. To put 
that in perspective, that is over four times the size of 
California.
    Our natural resources are already protected under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and adding another layer of bureaucracy 
adds no further protection. Expanding the monuments without 
allowing for commercial fishing will devastate American Samoa's 
economy.
    I will be requesting report language directing no less than 
$3 million from the operations account be allocated to the 
American Samoa Community College. The territories do not want 
to be a charity case, and we will invest in education, and our 
island's future leaders and business owners will work to make 
every dollar count, and we need Interior to ensure the money is 
going to go where it needs to go.
    However, I assure you that, if the fishing industry fails 
in American Samoa, the long-term cost to the Federal Government 
will increase exponentially. Instead of our little $28 million 
buffer account, the territory will instead require hundreds of 
millions in Federal assistance as our island drops even further 
below the poverty line.
    So, Secretary Haaland, would you be able to get us an 
update on the status of the marine sanctuary proposal since 
NOAA has sponsored a workshop? They did it last September. We 
have not heard anything.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific update 
now, but we would be more than happy to ensure that we reach 
out to your staff soon after this. And certainly, if there is 
anyone in NOAA that you need to be in touch with, we will try 
to make sure that you are in touch with them.
    But you are absolutely right. Indigenous voices are 
incredibly important here, and I appreciate you saying that, 
and we abide by that.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Considering DOI's obligations to the 
territories and the fact that nearly 80 percent of American 
Samoa's exports and port traffic revolve around the cannery, 
what is your contingency plan to cover the potential GDP loss 
if the cannery closes?
    Secretary Haaland. Again, I apologize. I can't answer that 
specifically. But absolutely, we will take that back and make 
sure that we get you detailed information on that question.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Secretary Haaland, can I have your 
commitment to DOI and OIA's oversight authority of the 
territory?
    Will you ensure that Federal funding going to the 
territories is being used for intended social programs, and 
that territorial governments get the technical assistance they 
need to implement those programs and avoid waste?
    Secretary Haaland. We absolutely will follow the law, and 
we appreciate all of your support on the work that we did on 
the COFA.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I also have some questions for the record regarding the 
marine monument and its impact on the territories that I am 
hoping you will be able to bring back for an Administration 
response.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time, which is none.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The 
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my 
remarks, and it is great to see the Secretary here, I would 
like to ask for a unanimous consent request to enter into the 
record a report from the non-partisan Cato Institute.
    There have been many people making arguments this morning 
that illegal immigrants are smuggling drugs across the border 
and contributing to the fentanyl crisis, wreaking havoc across 
the country. This report debunks some of the rhetoric and 
distortions we have heard this morning about fentanyl.
    Now, to quote the report, here are the facts. In 2021, U.S. 
citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted fentanyl drug 
traffickers, 10 times greater than convictions of illegal 
immigrants for the same offense. Over 90 percent of fentanyl 
seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle 
checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes. So, U.S. 
citizens, who are subject to less scrutiny when crossing 
legally, are more often the smugglers. Just .02 percent of the 
people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally 
possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.
    Annual deaths from fentanyl nearly doubled from 2019 to 
2021, I had a family member myself who I lost, after the 
previous Administration banned most travel and asylum. And the 
fact that so many Americans are dying from fentanyl is a 
tragedy. We all need to care about it. But let's not scapegoat 
asylum seekers or shift blame on where some of the problem is.
    And I would like to insert this----
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens By U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum 
Seekers

CATO Institute Blog, September 14, 2022 by David J. Bier

https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-
not-asylum-seekers

                                 *****

Fentanyl overdoses tragically caused tens of thousands of preventable 
deaths last year. Many politicians who want to end U.S. asylum law 
claim that immigrants crossing the border illegally are responsible. An 
NPR-lpsos poll last week found that 39 percent of Americans and 60 
percent of Republicans believe, ``Most of the fentanyl entering the 
U.S. is smuggled in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border 
illegally.'' A more accurate summary is that fentanyl is overwhelmingly 
smuggled by U.S. citizens almost entirely for U.S. citizen consumers.

Here are facts:

     Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers 
            who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are 
            U.S. citizens.

     In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted 
            fentanyl drug traffickers--ten times greater than 
            convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.

     Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal 
            crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on 
            illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (who are subject 
            to less scrutiny) when crossing legally are the best 
            smugglers.

     The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs 
            at ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be 
            stopped than are people crossing illegally between them.

     Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol 
            for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.

     The government exacerbated the problem by banning most 
            legal cross border traffic in 2020 and 2021, accelerating a 
            switch to fentanyl (the easiest-to-conceal drug).

     During the travel restrictions, fentanyl seizures at ports 
            quadrupled from fiscal year 2019 to 2021. Fentanyl went 
            from a third of combined heroin and fentanyl seizures to 
            over 90 percent.

     Annual deaths from fentanyl nearly doubled from 2019 to 
            2021 after the government banned most travel (and asylum).

It is monstrous that tens of thousands of people are dying 
unnecessarily every year from fentanyl. But banning asylum and limiting 
travel backfired. Reducing deaths requires figuring out the cause, not 
jumping to blame a group that is not responsible. Instead of attacking 
immigrants, policymakers should focus on effective solutions that help 
people at risk of a fentanyl overdose.
U.S. Citizen Consumers Fund Fentanyl Smuggling

U.S. consumer payments for illicit opioids ultimately fund fentanyl 
smuggling. Consumers pay retail dealers who pay wholesalers, and the 
cash is then transferred back in bulk cash form to Mexico. These funds 
are then used to pay smugglers to bring drugs back into the United 
States again. The best evidence indicates that about 99 percent of U.S. 
consumers of fentanyl (or products containing fentanyl) are U.S. 
citizens.[i] Noncitizens appear to be about 80 percent less likely to 
be fentanyl consumers than their share of the population would predict. 
Fentanyl smuggling is almost entirely conducted on behalf of U.S. 
citizen consumers. Of course, consumers would prefer much safer and 
legal opioids over illicit fentanyl, but the government has 
unfortunately forced them into the black market with few safe options.
U.S. Citizens Are Fentanyl Traffickers

Fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens. The U.S. Sentencing 
Commission publishes data on all federal convictions, which includes 
demographic information on individuals convicted of fentanyl 
trafficking. Figure 1 shows the citizenship status of fentanyl 
traffickers for 2018 to 2021. Every year, U.S. citizens receive the 
most convictions by far. In 2021, U.S. citizens accounted for 86.3 
percent of fentanyl trafficking convictions compared to just 8.9 
percent for illegal immigrants.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Note that since trafficking involves movement from Mexico to the 
United States, it is unclear how to measure the likelihood of 
conviction for a noncitizen without U.S. lawful immigration status or 
citizenship since the denominator would include most Mexicans in Mexico 
as well as anyone who crosses through Mexico. But regardless, the 
reality is that people with U.S. citizenship or residence traffic the 
vast majority of fentanyl, not illegal border crossers specifically or 
illegal immigrants generally.

Indeed, this appears to be the case even for the most high-profile 
cases. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council 
analyzed every Customs and Border Protection press release mentioning 
fentanyl over a 6-month period and found just 3 percent involved 
illegal immigrants. This means that the agency itself believes the most 
important smugglers are U.S. citizens.
U.S. Citizens Bring Fentanyl Through Legal Crossing Points

That U.S. citizens account for most fentanyl trafficking convictions is 
not surprising given the location of fentanyl border seizures. Over 90 
percent of fentanyl border seizures occur at legal border crossings and 
interior vehicle checkpoints (and 91 percent of drug seizures at 
checkpoints are from U.S. citizens--only 4 percent by ``potentially 
removable'' immigrants). In 2022, so far, Border Patrol agents who were 
not at vehicle checkpoints accounted for just 9 percent of the fentanyl 
seizures near the border (Figure 2). Since it is easier for U.S. 
citizens to cross legally than noncitizens, it makes sense for fentanyl 
producers to hire U.S. citizen smugglers.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


The DEA reports that criminal organizations ``exploit major highway 
routes for transportation, and the most common method employed involves 
smuggling illicit drugs through U.S. [ports of entry] in passenger 
vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with legitimate 
goods on tractor-trailers.'' Several agencies including CBP, ICE, and 
DHS intelligence told Congress in May 2022 the same thing: hard drugs 
come through ports of entry.

Some people posit that less fentanyl is interdicted between ports of 
entry because it is more difficult to detect there. But the opposite is 
true: fentanyl is smuggled through official crossing points 
specifically because it is easier to conceal it on a legal traveler or 
in legal goods than it is to conceal a person crossing the border 
illegally. Customs and Border Protection estimates that it caught 2 
percent of cocaine at southwest land ports of entry in 2020 (the only 
drug it analyzed), while it estimated that its interdiction 
effectiveness rate for illegal crossers was about 83 percent in 2021 
(Figure 3).[ii] This means that drugs coming at a port of entry are 
about 97 percent less likely to be interdicted than a person coming 
between ports of entry, and this massive incentive to smuggle through 
ports would remain even if Border Patrol was far less effective at 
stopping people crossing illegally than it now estimates that it is.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


Closing Ports Increased Fentanyl Smuggling

During the early days of the pandemic, the Trump administration 
drastically restricted legal travel to the United States, banning 
nonessential travel through land ports of entry from Mexico in 
particular in late-March 2020. Because there were fewer opportunities 
to traffic drugs at ports of entry, traffickers switched to trafficking 
more fentanyl. Because fentanyl is at least 50 times more potent per 
pound than heroin and other drugs, smugglers need fewer trips to supply 
the same market. The seizure data demonstrate the change in tactics. 
From October 2018 to February 2020, about a third of fentanyl and 
heroin seizures at southwest ports of entry were fentanyl with no clear 
upward trend. By the time the travel restrictions were ended (at least 
for vaccinated travelers) in January 2022, over 90 percent of heroin-
fentanyl seizures were fentanyl. Unfortunately, the market shift has 
continued. The absolute amount of fentanyl being seized quadrupled 
(Figure 4).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that in mid-
2020, as a result of travel restrictions, ``Many countries have 
reported drug shortages at the retail level, with reports of heroin 
shortages in Europe, South-West Asia and North America in particular'' 
and that ``heroin users may switch to substances such as fentanyl.'' 
The DEA predicted in 2020 that ``additional restrictions or limits on 
travel across the U.S.-Mexico border due to pandemic concerns will 
likely impact heroin DTOs [drug trafficking organizations], 
particularly those using couriers or personal vehicles to smuggle 
heroin into the United States,'' leading to ``mixing fentanyl into 
distributed heroin.''

Unsurprisingly, the increased reliance on fentanyl has increased 
fentanyl deaths. Indeed, it appears that the border closures rapidly 
accelerated the transition from heroin to fentanyl, leading to tens of 
thousands of additional deaths per year (Figure 5). Note that 2021 data 
undercount the true number of deaths because not all locations have 
reported. Nonetheless, the annual number of fentanyl deaths have nearly 
doubled between 2019 and 2021. Banning asylum under Title 42 of the 
U.S. code probably had no effect on these trends, but it certainly did 
not help reduce fentanyl deaths, as some have claimed.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


Asylum Seekers Don't Aid Fentanyl Smuggling

Fentanyl smuggling is not a reason to end asylum. The people arrested 
by Border Patrol are not smuggling fentanyl. Just 279 of 1.8 million 
arrests by Border Patrol of illegal border crossers resulted in a 
fentanyl seizure--too small of a percentage (0.02 percent) to appear on 
a graph--and many of these seizures occurred at vehicle checkpoints of 
legal travelers in the interior of the United States.

Nonetheless, some officials have asserted that asylum seekers distract 
Border Patrol from drug interdiction efforts. If asylum seekers were 
indirectly aiding drug smuggling, however, we would expect the effect 
to show up in the seizure trends by changing the locations, times, or 
amounts of the seizures in some way. But drug seizure trends simply do 
not deviate measurably with greater arrests of asylum seekers. This is 
true on several different metrics: across time, between sectors, along 
mile-distance from the border, or the share of seizures at ports of 
entry versus between them. If the administration legalized asylum at 
ports of entry, even this hypothetical problem would disappear.
Aggressive Drug Interdiction Exacerbates Fentanyl Smuggling

The fentanyl problem is a direct consequence of drug prohibition and 
interdiction. As my colleague Dr. Jeff Singer has written:

        Fentanyl's appearance in the underground drug trade is an 
        excellent example of the ``iron law of prohibition:'' when 
        alcohol or drugs are prohibited they will tend to get produced 
        in more concentrated forms, because they take up less space and 
        weight in transporting and reap more money when subdivided for 
        sale.

Fentanyl is at least 50 times more powerful per pound than heroin, 
which means you have to smuggle nearly 50 pounds of heroin to supply 
the market that a single pound of fentanyl could. This is a massive 
incentive to smuggle fentanyl, and the more efforts are made to 
restrict the drug trade, the more fentanyl will be the drug that is 
smuggled. The DEA has even admitted, ``The low cost, high potency, and 
ease of acquisition of fentanyl may encourage heroin users to switch to 
the drug should future heroin supplies be disrupted.'' In other words, 
heroin interdiction makes the fentanyl problem worse.
Conclusion

Border enforcement will not stop fentanyl smuggling. Border Patrol's 
experience with marijuana smuggling may provide even clearer evidence 
for this fact. Marijuana is the bulkiest and easiest-to-detect drug, 
which is why it was largely trafficked between ports of entry. Despite 
doubling the Border Patrol and building a border fence in the 2000s in 
part to combat the trade, the only thing that actually reduced 
marijuana smuggling was U.S. states legalizing marijuana. It is absurd 
to believe that interdiction will be more effective against a drug that 
is orders of magnitude more difficult to detect.

The DEA plainly stated in 2020 that fentanyl ``will likely continue to 
contribute to high numbers of drug overdose deaths in the United 
States'' even with the ban on asylum and travel restrictions. But 
ending asylum or banning travel has been worse than useless. These 
policies are both directly and indirectly counterproductive: first 
directly by incentivizing more fentanyl smuggling and then indirectly 
by distracting from the true causes of the crisis.

My colleagues have been warning for many years that doubling down on 
these failed prohibition policies will lead to even worse outcomes, and 
unfortunately, time has repeatedly proven them correct. The only 
appropriate response to the opioid epidemic is treatment of addiction. 
But for this to be possible, the government must adopt policies that 
facilitate treatment and reduce the harms from addiction--most 
importantly deaths. To develop these policies, policymakers need to 
ignore the calls to blame foreigners for our problems.
Notes

[i] This is based on overdose statistics, and last year, fentanyl 
caused 88 percent of opioid overdose deaths.

[ii] The cocaine seizure effectiveness rate includes an estimate of all 
cocaine that escaped detection, while the interdiction effectiveness 
rate for people only includes detected crossings. Including undetected 
crossings would lower the effectiveness rate for people, but because 
many arrests are the same person crossing after a prior arrest (27 
percent in 2021), the interdiction effectiveness rate is a better 
estimate of the likelihood of being arrested during a first attempt, 
which would be all that is necessary to disrupt a drug smuggling 
attempt. Regardless, in 2020, DHS estimated an apprehension rate that 
included undetected crossings of 66.2 percent compared to 79.4 percent 
using only detected crossings. This would mean that drugs were only 
96.8 percent rather than 97.4 percent less likely to be apprehended.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, it is great to see you. I am going to now, 
because I did that, have a shorter period of time.
    You are doing a great job today. I am sure you would rather 
be at the dentist office having some really awful work.
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Dingell. But one priority we share are our wildlife 
refuges, which are an integral part of conservation programs in 
the United States. Our refuges conserve 850 million acres of 
Federal lands and waters that help manage, conserve, and 
restore our fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
    You know, you visited it, my district is home to America's 
only international wildlife refuge. The Detroit River 
International Wildlife Refuge has islands, wetlands, marshes, 
shoals, and waterfront lands along the Detroit River. It is the 
last undeveloped mile along the river. It supports over 300 
species of birds.
    Unfortunately, refuge managers have been juggling many 
responsibilities with small budgets for too long. The refuge 
system's budget has seen nearly no change since 2010. When 
accounting for inflation, it has less funding capacity now than 
it did 15 years ago. And despite a 36 percent increase in 
visitors since 2010, full-time refuge employees have decreased 
by 16 percent. Only half of the 500 refuge field stations are 
staffed, so we are only able to monitor less than a third of 
the over 1,300 threatened and endangered species found in the 
refuges.
    Madam Secretary, I have a few questions. About how many 
visitors come to the refuges every year?
    Secretary Haaland. It is upwards of 68 million visitors.
    Mrs. Dingell. And how has the budget shortfall impacted how 
the refuges can be used and enjoyed by Americans?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman, for this line 
of questioning.
    Our over 500 wildlife refuges, as you know, play an 
important role in conservation. The refuge system delivers 
recreational, ecological, economic benefits to local 
communities of all sizes. Recreational visits to the refuge 
system also generate over $3 billion for local communities, 
local economies, and over 41,000 jobs across our nation. Those 
are all important by-products of a healthy refuge system.
    And, of course, we recognize that we make the most out of 
limited staffing funding and other resources. We do the best we 
can, but our wildlife refuges are valuable gems in our national 
culture.
    Mrs. Dingell. Our colleagues across the aisle often 
complained that the Endangered Species Act isn't recovering 
species as quickly as they would like, but national wildlife 
refuges are an integral part of the recovery plans, and they 
are severely underfunded. How does a lack of ESA recovery 
funding, plus a lack of refuge funding, hinder species 
recovery? Can you provide an example?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for that question, as 
well. And I am thinking right now, as you are talking, about a 
wildlife refuge I visited in Wyoming, there is a toad there 
that almost went extinct. And were it not for the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the dedicated staff ensuring that what 
little resources they had went to this project, we would add 
another species to the list of species that went extinct.
    Extinction means forever. They say that all the time. We 
just finished our 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species 
Act, and I am proud of the dedicated staff every day who 
recognized the value that these species bring to our world.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    I am out of time and yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Madam Secretary, I can't help but be here with you and 
think about, with fond memories, serving together with you here 
in Congress. Thank you for your work and thank you for being 
here.
    Now, that said, you know that I am going to bring up a sore 
subject in Utah. The BLM Landscape and Conservation Rule has 
once again irritated the wound that makes Utahns feel like they 
are neglected and that people here in Washington have it out 
for them, adding further divide to something that is already 
divided.
    And let me be clear, I believe Utah's farmers and ranchers 
have cared for this land for generations and generations. They 
want to leave it better than they found it, and have done a 
fantastic job of that. Yet, this takes just another poke at 
them, and these are the people who are most impacted by your 
rule.
    I know there have been some comments today about the 
impressive groups of letters that have flooded, the messages 
that they want to support this, and I feel like it is a little 
bit like bragging about the Valentine's cards you got when you 
asked people to send them to you.
    More importantly, a million artificial messages aren't 
worth one comment from somebody who actually lives on this 
land. And to that point, I wrote you a letter last year asking 
you to have a listening session in Utah before this rule was 
implemented.
    Let me remind everybody. I know I say this a lot, I just 
don't think it sinks in. Utah is 66 percent owned by the 
Federal Government. The rural parts of my district are over 90 
percent federally owned. I think everybody needs to think about 
what it would be like to run a community when 90 percent of the 
property is managed by somebody 2,000 miles away.
    You didn't respond to this request. We got no listening 
sessions in Utah. Can you tell me why you weren't willing to do 
that?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I will say with respect to 
the Public Lands Rule that it was a very transparent process, 
where whoever wanted to comment publicly was able to do so.
    And I feel very confident that the staff that we have in 
Utah is very close with the local community there. We saw that 
when I visited your state on several occasions. And I feel 
confident that those local communities have complete access to 
the BLM staff.
    Mr. Curtis. Let me agree with you. We do love your BLM 
staff on the ground. They are good people. They integrate into 
the community, so they understand the community needs. And that 
is the problem with people from Washington who don't understand 
those community needs. And that is where the pushback comes 
from.
    Let me go to a term in the rule that says ``sustainable 
recreation.'' The agency uses the term ``sustainable 
recreation'' multiple times, but never defines it. Can you 
define what is sustainable recreation?
    Secretary Haaland. It is my understanding, and please don't 
quote me on this, even though I am on the record, sustainable 
recreation, to me, says that we want this outdoor recreation 
industry to continue to be able to use these areas for 
recreation. And that will be there----
    Mr. Curtis. But that implies there is a non-sustainable 
recreation. Can you tell me the difference between sustainable 
and non-sustainable recreation?
    Secretary Haaland. I can't at the moment, but I would be 
happy to answer that for the record.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, we would love to know that. I mean, people 
on the ground are wondering what does ``sustainable 
recreation'' mean.
    Let me also then go to, ``The rule is not intended to 
prevent or decrease recreation,'' and that word, ``intend,'' is 
very bothersome to me. How do we know how that gets 
interpreted?
    And then just a little bit more. One paragraph lower you 
say, ``The BLM clarified mitigation language that would allow 
for renewable energy and development or other kinds of 
projects, even when that development produces unavoidable 
impacts.'' That isn't multiple use. That sounds like a 
hierarchy to me. The rule literally says renewable supersedes 
conservation as a use, and conservation can supersede 
recreation. Help me understand that language.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, with your permission I 
would like to pass to Acting Deputy Secretary Daniel-Davis to 
answer that question.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Congressman, thank you for the question. And I would not 
agree with your characterization and reading. And I am not 
saying you have it wrong, I am saying that the intent is not to 
suggest that, I think the BLM in that instance was trying to 
provide examples to be more clear that the Public Lands Rule 
and what is set forth provides a process to assure balance----
    Mr. Curtis. We are going to run out of time, but let me 
read this again. ``Renewable energy development or other kinds 
of projects, even when that development produces unavoidable 
impacts''--why does it say renewable and nothing else?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. I think they were seeking to provide an 
example, and it is not meant to suggest that other multiple 
uses are not situated in the same manner.
    Mr. Curtis. So, what is the purpose of the rule, if the 
projects supersede conservation?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. I am sorry. I didn't quite hear the 
question.
    Mr. Curtis. We are out of time, but I just want to make the 
point. There is no purpose for the rule if projects that want 
to be done supersede the rule, which is how I am reading this 
language.
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. I am sorry. I really don't understand the 
question.
    I do want to reaffirm that the rule is meant to assure that 
multiple use in practice can continue through the decades and 
through generations.
    Mr. Curtis. OK, I am out of time. I will yield. I will just 
simply say it says renewable energy will supersede. So, that is 
not clear to me.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Haaland, I first want to thank you for your 
recent visit to my district and for touring the Don Edwards San 
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge with me. We are very 
fortunate to have this land set aside both as a critical 
habitat for migratory birds and also as a space for our 
community to enjoy nature.
    During your visit, I learned about ecosystem restoration at 
the refuge. And my first question to you, Secretary, is about 
Interior's approach on these issues. So, the question is, how 
is Interior working to restore ecosystems on Federal lands and 
how do these efforts ensure benefits for both conservation and 
recreation?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. And thank you for 
hosting us at that beautiful refuge. It was just amazing, the 
Don Edwards. We continued to have conversations, even after we 
left you, and it was really wonderful.
    I am immediately thinking about our keystone initiatives. 
Across the country, we have certain areas where we are working 
to restore landscapes in various areas that are keystone 
initiatives. For example, the bison on our grasslands.
    I apologize, I am so cold right now that it is hard for me 
to concentrate on anything else.
    [Laughter.]
    Secretary Haaland. Forest birds in Hawaii, salt marshes on 
the East Coast, these are all ways that we are working to make 
sure that our ecosystems are restored, and that means that 
connecting these places around the country means that we all 
can work together and make sure that these landscapes last into 
the future for future generations.
    Mr. Mullin. And as you saw, my district, we are surrounded 
by the San Francisco Bay on one side, Pacific Ocean on the 
other side. So, our communities are very aware of the dangers 
posed by sea level rise due to climate change. California has 
already experienced roughly 8 inches of sea level rise over the 
past century, and current projections predict an additional 10 
to 12 inches over the next 30 years. So, I want to thank you 
for Interior's $2 million in funding for climate resilience 
projects specifically at that refuge.
    Secretary, can you share with us some of the recent impacts 
of sea level rise on Interior lands and assets?
    And what are some approaches Interior plans to use to 
mitigate flooding on public lands?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. I want to say yes on 
Interior lands, but also on tribal lands, as well. Sea level 
rise, nobody can escape that. And the Quinault Nation in 
Washington State, for example, is working to move their entire 
traditional village inland about 4 miles because of this issue. 
So, we are supporting tribes when they have to move in this 
way, and we are working to do whatever we can.
    There are a number of sites around the country that are 
currently being impacted by that sea level rise and storm 
surge, as you mentioned.
    The building over the USS Arizona at the Pearl Harbor 
National Memorial is experiencing greater strain due to rising 
sea levels.
    Here in DC, the work to rehab the sea walls at the Tidal 
Basin. I think the cherry trees that need to be pulled out got 
the most media around the country, but we need to make sure 
that we are paying attention to that.
    In Florida, the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge is 
sinking due to sea level rise; in South Carolina, the Cape 
Romain National Wildlife Refuge.
    All of these areas we have to pay attention to. There are a 
lot of birds that nest on land in these areas. If it is 
flooded, we don't have the next generation of sea birds. So, 
there is a lot at stake with this issue, and that is why 
everything we are doing, from renewable energy to landscape 
restoration to the work in these areas, it helps immensely.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for your leadership on all of those 
fronts, Madam Secretary.
    With that, I yield back.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    Madam Secretary, I will say that a lot of things change 
over time, but the temperature in this room is not one of those 
things.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It is consistently cold in here.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, may I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record e-mails from the Voice, the regional 
tribe of the Arctic, by Doreen Leavitt? She is the Director of 
Natural Resources. It was dated October 13, 7:02 p.m., 
requesting a meeting with the Secretary, and a response 3 days 
later: ``Unfortunately, Secretary Haaland is unable to join the 
meeting.''
    I would like to enter that into the record, please.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 __
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Duarte, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to yield 
back to the Chair for a short time.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Madam Secretary, you mentioned earlier that you have not 
been to the border. I have been to the border many times, and 
the fact that 35 percent of the border is Federal lands, I 
think, is a good reason for us to go, and it is a reason why we 
held a field hearing in Arizona along the southern border.
    And my question to you is, do you have plans to go to the 
border, or will you commit to go to the border just to see and 
understand what is down there? Because it is shocking to me 
every time I go.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for that 
question.
    I do want to tell you, and we recognize, in fact, I think 
in this Committee we had a hearing about our national parks and 
refuges that are on the border. So, yes, there are a lot of 
important wildlife and landscapes in that area.
    I want you to know that the DOI has a strong working 
relationship with other Federal agencies in the southwest 
border area----
    The Chairman. But my question, and I need to yield back to 
Mr. Duarte, will you go to the border?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I can't answer that at the 
moment, but I am happy to take that request back to my 
scheduling staff, and we will be happy to let you know.
    The Chairman. I hope you will make that a top priority.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And I would also like to point out that CBP's 
fentanyl seizures have increased more than 800 percent since 
Fiscal Year 2019, and our Fiscal Year 2023 seizures of fentanyl 
as reported by CBP have already surpassed the Fiscal Year 2022 
seizures. So, it is a massive problem, and everybody knows the 
fentanyl is coming across the southern border.
    I yield back to Mr. Duarte.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here with us today. I 
am a freshman. I am from California, farming district. I do a 
lot of resource work. We rely on a lot of natural resources.
    As Secretary of the Interior, do you recognize your 
important role in rural community development? Do you realize 
that resource utilization, whether it be fisheries, forestry, 
water on the farms, drilling American oil, providing American 
energy is really the backbone of economics for rural America 
and keeping the American dream alive with affordability and 
opportunity?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, rural communities are incredibly 
important. And, in fact, I represented rural communities when I 
was in this Committee.
    Mr. Duarte. Well, I have a few specific questions because I 
am highly confused.
    I think what we see in America today is what I would call 
resource abandonment, complete abandonment of our natural 
resources at many different turns that are really hammering the 
American dream for many people in my district and many, many 
families throughout America, whether they be lobstermen in 
Maine or farmers in the Valley.
    Let's use the Valley for an example. Our reservoirs, after 
two robust years of rain, very, very heavy rainfall and 
snowpack years, the reservoirs are over 90 percent full, most 
of them 95-plus percent full, just keeping a little bit of 
flood space and managing their levels. But downstream, we see 
water allocations from the Bureau of Reclamation under your 
charge at 35 percent. We see downstream offstream storage at 
San Luis Reservoir with half-a-million acre-feet left to fill 
it as we get towards the end of our runoff season.
    What are you doing here? Why are we not getting this water 
on the farms? Why are we not getting it for municipal and 
industrial use? Why are we letting this critical natural 
resource go to waste?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, 
Congressman, and I look forward to you having the opportunity 
to speak with Camille Touton, who will be in front of this 
Committee sometime this month. I believe she is the expert on 
the water in California.
    I recognize that, yes, there were several good years, two 
great winters. However, my understanding is that we have to 
plan for the future, and I know that Reclamation is working to 
maximize storage and groundwater recharge in these areas. We 
are incorporating the best science into the operations and 
investing in water infrastructure.
    Mr. Duarte. I am sorry. I see that you are reading 
something that you were handed there. That is great.
    You are not planning for the future. These dams are 92 
percent full. We have farms that need this water to produce 
crops this year. At the end of the season, come summer, we will 
be dumping a very large amount of this water into the rivers to 
create flood control space in these same Bureau of Reclamation, 
Army Corps of Engineering dams. And this water will be wasted 
after the farmers have already made their crop plans and missed 
their opportunity to prosper from it. So, I don't know how you 
are planning for any, other than a dystopian future, quite 
honestly.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Duarte. I yield back, thank you.
    The Chairman.  The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New 
Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you so much, Madam Secretary, for being here and 
laying out all the great work that the Department of the 
Interior has been doing.
    I would like to recognize also that in the 117th Congress, 
when Democrats were in control, President Biden signed into law 
magnificent bills that have led to the largest investment in 
rural America, basically, since the New Deal and 
electrification. And a lot of those amazing investments in 
rural America, which are making the difference so that we can 
have kind of work in rural America that ranges from recreation, 
which often occurs on lands that you oversee, to renewable 
energy to your new rule, which is going to be a benefit to 
ranchers, right? That there are many ways in which we can have 
economic development in rural America and on lands that the 
public owns and that belong to the public. So, I really want to 
thank the fact that your agency has been implementing those 
laws with great effect.
    I also want to recognize that in this hearing room, we have 
had some of your assistant secretaries come and talk about the 
great work they are doing with more 638 contracts that are 
being processed. But really, no more staff. Like, you have the 
same amount of staff doing a lot more work. And you were kind 
of understaffed and overworked, and we appreciate how you are 
rising to that occasion. So, thank you for doing that.
    I want to talk a little bit about something that we dealt 
with on the Floor regarding the 1872 Hardrock Mining Law. The 
date tells you everything: 1872. It is old. It needs updating. 
Unfortunately, the updates that have come out of this Committee 
would make it easier for mining corporations, foreign mining 
corporations, China, for example, to actually mine our 
resources. And we have seen the effect of that in New Mexico. 
You have seen, as you have driven home, as I have driven home, 
the piles, the tailings, and the effects.
    I hiked to the Pecos watershed, where we had such an 
abandoned mine, and where we are looking at the possibility of 
withdrawal. The Forest Service is reviewing that, and we want 
to make sure that if the Forest Service sends you that 
information, that in fact, the Department of the Interior will 
work quickly to analyze it to make a determination. Because you 
know that river flows not just from New Mexico, but it flows 
down through New Mexico into Texas. And those waters are 
important for agriculture, as was just pointed out. These 
waters are essential for our rural economies and keeping them 
clean.
    So, with regards to reviewing the, if there is a request 
for a minerals withdraw, whether you will be able to act 
swiftly upon that.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. And, 
of course, we take our obligations to manage the public lands 
and waters on behalf of all Americans very seriously, and 
recognize that some lands warrant special protection. I am 
happy to know that you go there personally and enjoy those 
lands.
    Withdrawals often build upon decades of efforts by local 
stakeholders, local communities, people just like you who like 
to be on those lands. And I would like to say that the 
principles of President Biden's America the Beautiful 
initiatives to support this locally-led and voluntary 
conservation and restoration efforts--we pay attention to those 
immensely.
    And I understand that the Pecos watershed is a special 
place. If requested by the Forest Service, we will work 
diligently to consider the request.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. While we are on water, I 
want to talk about an issue that I think affects many of us in 
this Committee on both sides of the aisle of the need to get to 
Indian water rights settlements.
    As we know, those water rights settlements come out of 
decades, sometimes half a century of negotiations or 
litigation. And we are moving away from litigation to try to 
get to settlements. And we know that they are very difficult 
because water is life. Agua es vida. They mean everybody, 
right? Whatever state you are in, but especially in the West, 
has to make compromises. And the Department included a proposal 
for $2.5 billion in mandatory water funding for Indian water 
rights settlement.
    We have very little time, but can you speak to why this is 
important to have that much money in there?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Reliable water is crucial to tribal communities, and this 
permanent funding for settlements will help us work with tribes 
and Congress to meet our trust responsibilities to ensure that 
tribal communities receive the water resources they have long 
been promised.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, thank you, and I have run out of 
time. Thank you for such a quick answer.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Haaland, it is good to see you here today. Your 
written testimony highlights the facts that the Department is 
the steward of 20 percent of America's land, and in that 
capacity serves critical roles for the nation, including 
generating jobs, supporting local economic growth, and managing 
important national and cultural resources.
    As a business owner myself, I like to think of your budget 
kind of like as a Bible. I think it speaks volumes about your 
values, the good, the bad, and even the ugly. And while it may 
not always be pretty to look at how we prioritize our spending, 
I do think it says a lot about who we are. And in any budget, 
just like in any business, there will be things that we agree 
on and things that we don't, and that is OK.
    But frankly, as part of my job here, both in traveling 
across my district and across this country as part of this 
Committee, I get the privilege, much like you, of listening to 
people and hearing what is working, what they like, and a lot 
more times what they don't like. In your budget, I am also 
seeing some things that are concerning.
    Your written testimony also devotes a significant amount of 
space to promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion. And this 
is both for underserved communities and employees at the 
Department as part of its ongoing Equity Action Plan. The 
Department's budget calls for a number of program budget 
increases among various bureaus to achieve its goal related to 
the Equity Action Plan, which in my understanding was just 
recently updated.
    To start, Madam Secretary, I would like to clarify. Just a 
simple yes or no would be good. The Department does require its 
employees to abide by all Federal laws regarding equal 
employment, civil rights, and anti-discrimination practices. 
Correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes. We follow all the laws, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Collins. OK, good. We got that straight.
    So, the mission of the Department is to protect and manage 
the nation's natural resources and cultural heritage, provide 
scientific and other information about these resources, and 
honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and 
affiliated island communities. I don't see anything in the 
mission statement about DEI or even environmental justice, 
which I know you are going to tell me is a direct order from 
President Biden because of his Executive Order.
    But let's get back to the budget, because, to me, that is 
where the rubber meets the road. We need to be talking about 
priorities here. At the same time, you are endorsing a budget 
that asks for millions of dollars to require staff to do more 
DEI training, you will also sign off on a blanket lease to 
house migrants on park land in New York City, and not worry 
about the impact that it could have on the park employees 
there. Am I correct with that?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, you are correct that there 
is a contract between----
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. And just for the record, the 
community surrounding the Floyd Bennett Field area, using CEQ's 
own screening tool, has a number of both environmental and 
social justice issues, none of which seem to be a concern for 
the Department in practice when it came to waiving 
environmental standards and signing a lease.
    Instead of increasing programing for DEI classes for staff 
while at the same time complaining that you need more money to 
hire staff, there are times in life when we need to figure out 
how to prioritize. And Madam Secretary, I say that because of 
this: We are in high inflation right now. As a matter of fact, 
we are going to stagflation. And your Department is directly 
responsible for not issuing leases for offshore drilling right 
now. And that could provide 15 percent of the oil that is 
needed.
    You are also dragging your feet on LNG permits to the point 
where the DOE had to pause LNG. So, you are not only harming 
Americans, you are harming our allies, and you are also 
emboldening Russia, who is our enemy, who is going to be 
selling that LNG to Europe. And you are also emboldening Iran, 
which was held to 300,000, 400,000 barrels a day, and now they 
are producing over 3 million barrels a day to sell it where we 
should be doing that and have our own energy independence.
    With that, I don't think I have time to yield to you, Mr., 
I will yield 30 seconds.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, what percentage of the Biden 
administration's policies are responsible for the record gas 
and oil development that you mentioned earlier?
    Secretary Haaland. I am not sure I understand the exact 
question, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. How many oil and gas leases will be held in 
the Gulf of Mexico Fiscal Year 2024-2025?
    Secretary Haaland. There will be three.
    Mr. Stauber. Three. Do you think that is adequate?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, we are following the law. 
And I will just say we are following the law and we are having 
three.
    Mr. Collins. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Stauber. I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. You didn't issue any. You are not planning on 
issuing any this year.
    Mr. Huffman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no time 
to yield. Who are we yielding? What is going on here?
    The Chairman. I have been gracious with people's time. I 
will keep that in mind when you go, Mr. Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. I counted 56 extra seconds.
    Mr. Collins. You are being sued because you didn't issue 
leases now. And we had a hearing here earlier to where somebody 
representing you said that they weren't going to issue any 
leases this year, and probably not next year, as well.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Collins. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. That question can hopefully be answered for 
the record.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Porter, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Secretary Haaland, my colleagues across the 
aisle have leveled some strong accusations against the 
Department of the Interior today. I am an avid national park 
visitor. I have been to, I think, 43 and counting, including 
about 12 since I have served on this Committee. These 
accusations against the National Park Service and your 
management of it are really concerning. I can't in good 
conscience drive my minivan with its oversight license plate 
onto these national parks unless we dissect these allegations.
    First, Republicans on this Committee have accused the 
National Park Service of providing inaccurate and unreliable 
backlog figures when accounting for deferred maintenance. They 
have cited mismanagement, waste, and fraud. What methodology 
are you using to determine cost estimates for the national 
parks' maintenance backlog, and is it in line with standards 
used across the government?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question.
    In Fiscal Year 2021, the Department transitioned away from 
estimating deferred maintenance cost estimates based on work 
orders. We revised our methodology, and are now consistently 
estimating deferred maintenance across the bureaus. We are 
using accepted industry standard approaches to generate our 
current estimates.
    Ms. Porter. Are there any uncontrollable factors that the 
Department accounts for when determining the remaining costs of 
deferred maintenance?
    Secretary Haaland. As you noted, we have national parks all 
over the country. Many of those are old. They have historical 
buildings and historical inventories on those. Sometimes, yes, 
it takes a lot more work to find the carpenters and workers 
that can work on these historical inventories such as the ones 
that we have across the country.
    Ms. Porter. And, of course, many of these deferred 
maintenance projects are also in remote locations.
    Secretary Haaland. Indeed.
    Ms. Porter. The maintenance work requires things that have 
been impacted by supply chain problems. Extreme weather like a 
fire or a flood, I know, cannot only create new maintenance 
issues that can also halt the plan for planned maintenance.
    So, it seems to me like you are using accurate, consistent 
calculations that are widely accepted across the government.
    I want to go to the second claim that I heard my colleagues 
make. They said that the Department of the Interior lacks 
strategic planning and coordination, and they have cited in the 
past a September 2023 Office of Inspector General report that 
did identify numerous weaknesses in the National Park Service 
deferred maintenance process going back as far as 1999. So, 
these were pretty long-term problems.
    Secretary Haaland, that report, that September 2023 
Inspector General report, included several recommendations for 
the National Park Service to address and improve its deferred 
maintenance process. Has the National Park Service addressed or 
begun to address those recommendations?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, of course, and I want to assure 
you, Congresswoman, that the NPS maintenance program is very 
strong.
    We had a very complex portfolio of 75,000 assets, from 
Yosemite's Ahwahnee Hotel, to Mount Rushmore, to the Washington 
Monument. There is never a one-size-fits-all for any of these, 
as I mentioned earlier. And estimates now comply with DOI 
policy and require less time for field staff to develop. So, we 
are working on all of those issues to make sure that we can do 
it in----
    Ms. Porter. In fact, in January 2024, the GAO also released 
a new report on the Department's deferred maintenance backlog. 
What did that report find?
    Secretary Haaland. The GAO found that the Department was 
managing the deferred maintenance backlog and selecting 
projects for LRF funding appropriately.
    Ms. Porter. So, we have seen huge improvement. There was a 
problem, the Department of the Interior addressed it, and they 
addressed it promptly. We see a lot of recommendations that go 
unaddressed for years. In this case, the agency acted quickly, 
and the GAO has already told us that there is progress being 
made.
    I want to move to the final claim, which is that the 
Department, and this is so ironic, as you have been sitting 
here for hours with your very competent staff, that the 
Department is somehow not engaging with Congress for us to 
conduct oversight of this deferred maintenance. What do you say 
to that allegation?
    Secretary Haaland. I want to say that our door is open. 
And, in fact, if any Member of Congress requests a phone call 
from any one of us, we work hard to meet that request in a 
timely manner.
    Ms. Porter. I think your Department has also held some 
staff briefings. I mean, it seems to me that the Republicans 
are focused on the wrong problems.
    Secretary Haaland, I just want to close by asking, did 
Congress increase or cut the National Park Service's budget in 
2024?
    Secretary Haaland. Congress cut the National Park Service's 
budget in Fiscal Year 2024.
    Ms. Porter. And did that help the National Park Service 
deal with its deferred maintenance backlog?
    Secretary Haaland. Budget cuts never help us.
    Ms. Porter. So, the real problem here are budget cuts. The 
Department has the right system. They have the right 
accounting. But we can't do those projects if they don't have 
the resources.
    Thank you, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. Boebert, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Haaland, is it the Department's practice to use, 
my time is still here----
    The Chairman. Gentlelady, suspend.
    Ms. Boebert. We are going to reset the clock.
    The Chairman. And please reset the clock.
    Ms. Boebert. We will have fun later, Jared.
    Secretary Haaland, is it the Department's practice to use 
the best available science in rulemaking? Science, data, facts?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we always 
work to use the best----
    Ms. Boebert. Will you commit to using the best available 
science, meaning the 2016 USGS study, when finalizing the 
Colorado River Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office 
RMP?
    Secretary Haaland. We always work to use the best science 
available, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Boebert. I would disagree. But last summer, the 
Department issued a Draft Resource Management Plan to lock up 
1.6 million acres from responsible oil and gas production in 
Colorado and in my district. Unfortunately, the analysis in the 
draft RMP relies on an outdated USGS study from 2002 instead of 
a more up-to-date analysis conducted in 2016.
    Secretary Haaland, how is locking up 1.6 million acres out 
of 1.9 million acres from oil and gas production, how is this 
going to ensure lands are managed for multiple use and 
sustained yield?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I am not quite sure 
specifically which acres you are referring to.
    Ms. Boebert. One point six million acres in western 
Colorado. And it sounds like this is just another strategy the 
Department is employing to lock up more lands across the West 
and undermine American energy dominance.
    Now, are you not familiar with the monument designation 
that is being proposed?
    Secretary Haaland. Are you talking of----
    Ms. Boebert. I am talking about 1.6 million acres, and it 
is kind of----
    Secretary Haaland. Are you speaking of the Thompson Divide 
area?
    Ms. Boebert. I am not. Secretary Haaland, I strongly oppose 
this misguided effort by extremists to designate this national 
monument in the Dolores River corridor and its surrounding 
areas in southwest Colorado. And it is very concerning that you 
are not familiar with what is going on. The Senators have had 
press conferences there. There has been public comment. I have 
constituents like Sean Pond who are talking about this each and 
every day and reaching out to your offices without a response, 
trying to protect these lands for multiple use. And they are 
being absolutely ignored on this.
    And I have a letter here for you. And typically, when I do 
send letters I get some sort of half response from staff. So, I 
would like to hand this to you directly today.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Secretary Haaland. And with this 
letter there is more information about this monument. And I 
want to just iterate here that Senator Bennet and I, we have a 
bipartisan, community-led bill to protect the Dolores River 
corridor without a national monument designation. And I need 
you to commit to Coloradans to working with us on this 
particular bill, and oppose this unilateral land grab that will 
cause harm to the people who live there.
    And I just want to say, disregarding the agreements that 
have been achieved on a bipartisan basis and the much time that 
has been invested in this Dolores NCA, this would be a complete 
insult to Southwest Colorado. And it would contradict the DOI's 
direct description of the Antiquities Act, which I have quoted 
there in my letter.
    Secretary Haaland, the Department is asking for an 
additional $2.8 million. You know what? I am not even going to 
go into this right now. I mean, this is just more DOI and civil 
rights issues, but I really want to stay focused on the land 
here.
    But I need to know that you are looking into this issue, 
are familiar with the 1.6 million-acre land grab that is being 
proposed, and will have conversations and responses to actually 
working on this bipartisan Dolores NCA that the Senators of 
Colorado and I have been diligently working on with 
stakeholders who are local and familiar with this area to 
prevent this national monument land grab, this designation.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
letter. I will read it when I get back to my office.
    I also am happy to know that you are working with your 
Senators. As you know, I have been to Colorado many, many 
times. We care about your state, and I appreciate your work----
    Ms. Boebert. Well, we care about our state, and we care 
about the multiple uses that take place on our public lands. 
This is the people's land. And at every turn, the Federal 
Government is trying to lock up more and prevent this multiple 
use, prevent the mineral resources from being produced, prevent 
recreation. And this designation is going to further harm 
western Colorado.
    And just while I have you in my last few seconds, you have 
made multiple references to the 30x30 land and water grab in 
your testimony. How much taxpayer money does your Department 
plan to spend or waste this Fiscal Year in pandering to the 
enviros in this pursuit of this radical initiative?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. The America 
the Beautiful initiative is just that. It is an initiative. It 
is not a line item in our budget whatsoever. But we feel that 
the work that we are doing essentially moves the initiative 
forward.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Boebert. America the Beautiful, locking up land and 
water from sea to shining sea.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Secretary. I just have to commend you on 
your grace and your temperament. I am sure that your ancestors 
are proud. They are probably meditating, hoping that you get 
out of here soon.
    I have some clarifying questions for you. So, 90 percent of 
fentanyl is coming through ports of entry. Does the Department 
of the Interior have jurisdiction over ports of entry?
    Secretary Haaland. No, Congresswoman. No, Vice Chair.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I didn't think so.
    OK, so tell me this. Does DOI have jurisdiction over the 
containment and/or the enforcement of controlled substances?
    Secretary Haaland. No, we do not.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, I didn't think so. Is your 
Department also responsible for bussing in and transporting 
these migrants into New York and all over the country?
    Secretary Haaland. No, that is not under our mission.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, I didn't think so.
    Is DOI responsible for sending troops overseas? There had 
been some articulation earlier in this Committee that somehow 
you are responsible for sending troops to Iran.
    Secretary Haaland. No.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, I didn't think so. My colleagues 
have also been adamant about you taking over Mayorkas' job. I 
know that women often do so much more than men. That is true. 
But I don't think you want that job. Can you remind us for the 
record the mission of your Department?
    And can you also share with us where you have traveled 
across this country?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Vice Chairwoman. 
And, yes, the mission of the Department is to manage our public 
lands, to protect our cultural resources and cultural heritage 
for every American. Also to uphold the trust and treaty 
obligations of our nation's 574 federally recognized tribes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. Are you also actively 
preventing recreation from happening across this great country?
    Secretary Haaland. Not at all. And in fact, I feel 
confident that our outdoor recreation industry has grown since 
President Biden has been in office.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Amen. OK, so my Republican colleagues 
have continuously been complaining about the dwindling oil 
production that is happening on public lands in this country. 
Is there legitimacy to these complaints?
    Secretary Haaland. Vice Chairwoman, it is undeniable that 
U.S. oil production on public lands and waters is at an all-
time high, and that is verifiable information on a website.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I love facts, I do love science and 
data. Thankfully, so do you.
    Madam Secretary, a lot has been said about your leasing 
policies. Can you confirm the amount of leased acres and 
permits that have been approved but are not being used?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question.
    I will say that there are millions of acres of leased, non-
producing Federal lands, and there are thousands of approved 
permits to drill that the industry is letting sit unused. We 
would be happy to work out a specific number for you, if you 
would like that.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. For the record.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Because I don't want you saying anything 
from the hip.
    Is it true that the Department of the Interior has recently 
finalized a number of important rules that will both promote 
clean energy and also ensure stronger protections for our 
public lands and waters while holding fossil fuel industry 
accountable?
    Secretary Haaland. That is correct.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK, thank you. And in my last remaining 
moments, I have to say I have been getting Killers of the 
Flower Moon vibes up here in this Committee today when it comes 
to some of the tribal interrogatory questions that have been 
asked of you. Incredibly offensive. Foul.
    You did say, I would like you to reiterate, that you have 
been hearing from tribal communities, and that they are not a 
monolithic group. Is this true?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And can you just share, why is the 
Federal Indian Boarding School initiative so important to the 
tribal community?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, first of all, I believe very 
strongly that it helps tribes to heal. This was a horrific era 
of our country's history. It is a history that every single 
American shares, and that every single American should know 
about.
    We, on our road to healing, we were able to essentially 
find out the priorities of tribes and how they want to move 
forward with this issue. And as I mentioned earlier, Native 
language revitalization is one of those areas. And we are very 
proud to support that in tribes in the way they want to move 
their Native language revitalization forward.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from----
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for 
unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record an article that is titled, 
``Tribes Worry About Police Staffing, Not Cartels.'' It is from 
Indian Country Today, and it is an appropriate item to 
introduce after the Vice Chair's questions, because it is 
really about the hearing that we had a few weeks ago in which 
tribal leaders talked to us about their public safety concerns, 
not border issues.
    The other thing I want to just note is that the Department 
of the Interior has had unprecedented consultation with tribes 
during this Administration, and consults with tribes daily on 
every possible issue you can imagine. So, the accusations that 
we have heard today are just absolutely false.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
Tribe worries about police staffing, not cartels

The comments came during a meeting with South Dakota Republican US Rep. 
Dusty Johnson about the Yankton Sioux Tribe's law enforcement

ICT News, April 5, 2024 by Joshua Haiar--South Dakota Searchlight

https://ictnews.org/news/tribe-worries-about-police-staffing-not-
cartels

                                 *****

    WAGNER, S.D.--Yankton Sioux Tribe officials said Wednesday they 
know where the drugs on their tribal lands are coming from.

    ``Not the cartels,'' said Justin Song Hawk, a former tribal police 
officer.

    Other citizens of the Ihanktonwan Oyate--as the tribe is called in 
the Dakota language--chuckled in response. The comment was a reference 
to Gov. Kristi Noem, who's alleged repeatedly in recent months that 
Mexican cartels are bringing drugs to tribal reservations, and has 
accused tribal leaders of benefiting from the activity.

    Song Hawk's comments came during a meeting with South Dakota 
Republican U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson about the tribe's law enforcement 
needs. The tribe, headquartered in southeast South Dakota, is one of 
nine tribes in the state.

    Tribal Chief of Police Edwin Young said drugs are coming from 
cities including Sioux Falls, and the primary drug is methamphetamine. 
He also told Johnson about several problems his department faces.

    Young said he has one day off per month and has been working that 
schedule since December. He said there are only three officers, and the 
tribe needs about 12.

    ``About 80 percent of my time is spent patrolling,'' he said. ``The 
other tribes are the same way.''

    He said one of the causes for short staffing is that tribal law 
enforcement officers have to train in New Mexico for months at a Bureau 
of Indian Affairs officer school.

    Johnson said that's a problem. He suggested allowing prospective 
tribal officers to train at the South Dakota Law Enforcement Training 
Center in Pierre.

    ``I can't imagine anything but good coming from tribal law 
enforcement training alongside the state's law enforcement,'' Johnson 
said.

    Young said another problem is that non-tribal, local law 
enforcement cannot help enforce tribal law on tribal land. He said more 
agreements allowing for that could be beneficial. That's something Noem 
has also called for.

    The federal government has treaty responsibilities to fund public 
safety work for tribes. Johnson said the U.S. Attorney's Office and the 
FBI don't have time for lower-level offenses. He said that creates an 
enforcement gap.

    ``You're stuck with this big doughnut hole, where the tribes don't 
have the authority to fill that gap, and the federal government doesn't 
have the capacity to fill that gap,'' Johnson said.

    Young also said low bond amounts--which arrested people post to 
avoid jail time--are another problem. Johnson agreed.

    ``You get a lot of people bonded out on a $20 bond,'' Johnson said, 
``for something where if you did that in Mitchell, you'd be doing six 
months in jail.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 
Colorado.
    Ms. Boebert. I ask unanimous consent to submit the letter 
that was handed to Secretary Deb Haaland into the record, and I 
won't go through and make a speech with my request.

    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Wittman, for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
thank our witnesses for joining us today.
    Secretary Haaland, can you tell me who owns our lands under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior?
    Secretary Haaland. The American people.
    Dr. Wittman. Thank you. Can you tell me the mission of the 
Department of the Interior as it relates to these natural 
resources and to the scientific information that you put out?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes. It is to manage those public lands 
and, essentially, make sure that the cultural heritage and all 
of that is there for the American people.
    Dr. Wittman. Specifically, the mission says to conserve and 
manage the nation's natural resources and cultural heritage for 
the benefit and enjoyment of the American people. It doesn't 
say, ``for some,'' it says, ``for the American people'' to 
provide scientific and other information about natural 
resources and natural hazards, to address societal changes, and 
create opportunities for the American people. It doesn't say, 
``for some.''
    Let me ask you, when you look at how you regulate, is it in 
the interest of all American people, or is it in interest 
groups that happen to be louder than other aspects?
    And do the policies that specifically limit access to the 
owners of these lands that you manage and that, in your mission 
statement, say for the American people, not some, when you 
limit access there, does that take into account all the 
American people?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I wake up every single day, 
as does my really amazing team and staff of nearly 70,000 
career staff, they wake up every day to do their jobs for all 
Americans.
    Dr. Wittman. OK. So, when you make these decisions, the 
mission says you are about getting science and other 
information out, but also, I am assuming, using that in your 
decisions.
    Can you tell me, when you make a decision to ban lead in 
ammunition and in fishing sinkers on a large number of refuges, 
can you cite the science that you use for how there are 
specific impacts on these properties and the resources on those 
properties? Because there is nothing that I have seen that has 
been published or anything out there that has been part of that 
decision making.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
And the best available science shows that lead ammunition and 
tackle have negative impacts on wildlife and human health, 
notably for species like eagles----
    Dr. Wittman. What specific studies? That is a generic 
answer, Madam Secretary. What specific studies? Can you name 
the studies and the authors of the studies, the journals that 
they are published in to show the risk that is shown 
scientifically?
    Secretary Haaland. I would be more than happy to answer 
that for the record, Congressman, to make sure that you have 
those studies.
    Dr. Wittman. So, you are not aware of the studies, but you 
will put those together after the fact.
    Secretary Haaland. Well, I can't cite them at the moment, 
but we would be happy to give you the scientific approach to 
all of this, if you would like.
    Dr. Wittman. Are there other criteria that you use in 
making decisions about management of Department of the Interior 
properties?
    Secretary Haaland. We talk to a lot of people. We make sure 
that local communities and people that use the land, hunters, 
anglers, fishers, people who use those lands have opportunities 
to speak with us. And we actually do hold a lot of roundtable 
discussions with people around the country.
    Dr. Wittman. So, if a group comes to you and says, ``Madam 
Secretary, we just don't want these people to use the land. We 
don't like hunters and fishermen. We are anti-hunting or anti-
fishing,'' do you take their ideas into account in how you 
develop a management strategy?
    Secretary Haaland. I can't say that I know of anyone in 
this country who would say they don't like hunters or fishers, 
but----
    Dr. Wittman. Oh, Madam Secretary, I will give you a whole 
list of people that do not like hunters and fishermen.
    Secretary Haaland. Well, hunters and fishers, hunters, 
anglers, outdoor recreation folks, really, we want them to be 
happy on our public lands, and we take their conversations very 
seriously.
    And, quite frankly, you know that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, that is really their job, is to make sure that we have 
those resources on our public lands.
    Dr. Wittman. So, if one of these groups just says, hey, 
listen, Madam Secretary, we just don't like these anglers and 
hunters, we don't want them on the lands, you are saying that 
none of that goes into any of the decision making that you look 
at how these lands are supposed to be managed for the folks 
that go there to enjoy them?
    And the folks that said, ``we don't want those people 
there,'' you are saying that those either don't get considered 
or they do get considered?
    Secretary Haaland. On the contrary, we are working to make 
sure that everybody has access to our public lands.
    Dr. Wittman. OK.
    Secretary Haaland. Every single American should and must 
have access to our public lands. That goes for accessibility 
issues all over our public lands. And the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is actually expanding hunting and fishing on various 
refuges. We would be happy to make sure that you have a status 
update on that, as well.
    Dr. Wittman. But when you ban particular types of uses, 
when you say you can't use lead for hunting and fishing, and 
all of a sudden you make it unattainable for many people that 
are on limited incomes that have to deal with high gas prices 
today and the failure of Bidenomics, the failure there of 
grocery prices, you are saying it is not a problem to get them 
to suffer a little bit more and make sure there are additional 
costs for them to access the lands that they own.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Ms. Kamlager-Dove, you are recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record Appendix B from the Congressional 
Research Services report, ``National Monuments and the 
Antiquities Act,'' which shows the historical use of the 
monument authority since 1906. All but three presidents have 
used this Act to declare at least one monument.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
The full document is available for viewing at:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41330.pdf

                                ------                                


    The Chairman. While we are asking unanimous consent, I 
would like to remind the Secretary that the Department owes 
this Committee responses to over 20 letter requests. And I am 
asking unanimous consent to submit each of these outstanding 
requests for the record.
    And I would also ask the Secretary to commit to responding 
to the outstanding document requests.
    Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

   List of Oversight Letters and Overdue Production Requests to the 
                       Department of the Interior

   1.   January 31, 2023 letter to DOI IG Mark Greenblatt re DEO Audit, 
            BLM ethics pledge, and Nada Culver ethics concerns.

   2.   February 8, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland and USFS 
            Chief Randy Moore re ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
            and Plants; Regulations for Interagency Cooperation'' 
            rulemaking and resolution of the Cottonwood decision 
            precedent.

   3.   March 3, 2023 letter to NPS on Korean War Remembrance Wall 
            errors. NPS was invited to multiple meetings, but has 
            refused to participate with DOD, to our knowledge. Briefing 
            and update on current situation requested.

   4.   March 14, 2023 letter to FWS Director Martha Williams re 
            ecogrief training sessions. Note: This had a partial 
            response, with a briefing with staff. However, additional 
            information is due to the Committee (tied to follow up 05/
            19 letter request).

   5.   March 24, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland following up 
            on January 2022 letter re onshore leases for mining and oil 
            & gas production. Partial response provided, additional 
            information/production due to Committee.

   6.   March 28, 2023 letter to DOI Land and Minerals Management 
            Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis re 
            obstruction of domestic energy production. Note: DOI has 
            provided several productions, but the Committee is 
            continuing to seek additional documents.

   7.   May 19, 2023 Letter to FWS Director Martha Williams re outside 
            consultants for social change initiatives. Note: DOI 
            provided initial production, Committee seeks additional 
            documentation.

   8.   June 5, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland re ethics 
            compliance and conflicts of interest. Note: DOI provided 
            initial production, Committee seeks additional 
            documentation based on letter requests.

   9.   July 27, 2023 letter to NPS Director Charles F. Sams III re 
            Capital Concerts, Inc.

  10.   August 8, 2023 letter to President Joe Biden, DOI Secretary Deb 
            Haaland, BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning, and USFS Chief 
            Randy Moore re creation of a Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni 
            Grand Canyon National Monument.

          a.  Follow-up sent on October 2, 2023. Note: initial 
        production provided, Committee seeks additional documents.

  11.   September 15, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland and NPS 
            Director Charles F. Sams III re Floyd Bennett Field.

  12.   September 27, 2023 letter to DOI IG Mark Greenblatt re Liz 
            Klein Report.

  13.   September 28, 2023 letter to DOI IG Mark Greenblatt re BSEE 
            Servicing Report.

  14.   October 23, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Haaland and DOI DEO 
            Director Heather Gottry re Secretary Haaland's impartiality 
            and misuse of office. (follow up from June 5 letter.)

  15.   November 20, 2023 letter to DOI Secretary Haaland and BLM 
            Director Tracy Stone-Manning re Twin Metals and the 
            withdrawal of two decades-old mineral leases in the 
            Superior National Forest.

  16.   December 20, 2023 letter to ONRR Director Cantor regarding 
            oversight into methodology royalties from energy production 
            on Federal Lands.

  17.   February 1, 2024 letter FWS Director Williams regarding Gray 
            wolf being delisted in the lower 48 states.

  18.   March 25, 2024 letter NPS Director Sams regarding safety 
            concerns at Floyd Bennett Field.

   Outstanding 2023 QFR Responses from the Department of the Interior
                           as of May 1, 2024

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearings:

    1. Date of Hearing: 11.29.23

         Hearing Title: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 6285

         Witness Name and Title: Dr. Steven Feldgus, Deputy Assistant 
        Secretary for Land and Mineral Management

         Agency/Bureau: Department of the Interior

    2. Date of Hearing: 12.12.23
         Hearing Title: Legislative Hearing on 3 bills: H.R. 5482, H.R. 
        6474, and H.R. 6481

         Witness Name and Title: The Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary 
        [Invited]*

         Agency/Bureau: Department of the Interior

    *  Agency did not provide a witness, but BLM did provide a 
statement for the record

Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs hearing:

    3. Date of Hearing: 12.05.23

         Title of Hearing: Legislative Hearing on 4 bills: H.R. 4524, 
        H.R. 4748, H.R. 6368, and H.R. 6443

         Witness Name and Title: Mr. Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant 
        Secretary for Management

         Agency/Bureau: Department of the Interior

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing:

    4. Date of Hearing: 12.05.23

         Title of Hearing: ``Limiting Access and Damaging Gateway 
        Economies: Examining the National Parks Air Tour Management 
        Program''

         Witness Name and Title: Mr. Ray Sauvajot, Associate Director 
        of Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

         Agency/Bureau: National Park Service

Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing:

    5. Date of Hearing: 10.25.23

         Hearing Title: Legislative Hearing on 7 bills: H.R. 520, H.R. 
        2990, H.R. 5103, H.R. 5504, H.R. 5509, H.R. 5874, and a 
        Discussion Draft To prohibit the implementation of certain 
        documents until the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of 
        the National Marine Fisheries Service issues documents relating 
        to the Rice's whale.

         Witness Name and Title: Mr. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director 
        for Ecological Services

         Agency/Bureau: Fish and Wildlife Service

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thanks again, Madam Secretary. I think we are almost 
done here. We have just a little bit of cleanup that I would 
like to do on this issue of tribal consultation. You were asked 
a couple times about a group, Voice of the Inupiat, and whether 
there was consultation with this particular group. Let me just 
clarify a few things with you, if I could.
    That particular group is a non-profit advocacy group, not a 
tribal government. Correct?
    Secretary Haaland. That is my understanding, Congressman.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes, and does the legal requirement to engage 
in tribal consultation extend to every advocacy group, or is it 
for tribal, government-to-government consultation?
    Secretary Haaland. They are government-to-government tribal 
consultation, and we do send out letters to the actual tribe, 
and they respond if they are interested in consulting with us.
    Mr. Huffman. Right. You have said, and others have said, 
that tribes are not a monolith, which is certainly true. But it 
seems like across the aisle they are a monolith because the 
only tribal voices they talk to are the ones that want to 
develop oil and gas, or want to support a mining project.
    But when they are simply part of an advocacy group or maybe 
some individual member of a tribe, do you personally have an 
obligation to meet with them and call that tribal consultation, 
or is there some confusion, perhaps, about what tribal 
consultation even is?
    Secretary Haaland. Tribal consultation is government-to-
government consultation with federally recognized tribes.
    Mr. Huffman. And you have been criticized for not 
personally meeting with this particular advocacy group, as 
well. When the Department of the Interior does tribal 
consultation, are you personally involved in every one of those 
meetings, or do you sometimes involve other leaders within the 
Department?
    For example, if BLM is engaged in a rulemaking, would you 
personally take all the tribal meetings, or is it expected that 
maybe someone from BLM would take care of that?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, that is correct. Generally, 
depending upon the issue that is being consulted about, the 
Assistant Secretary or bureau leader will meet with the 
respective tribe and make sure that they are consulting with 
them on that basis.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you. And since my colleagues 
across the aisle apparently have some short-term memory 
problems, they have suggested that tribes actually were better 
consulted under the Trump administration.
    I do have a unanimous consent request, Mr. Chairman. It is 
to enter into the record an article from Native News Online 
entitled, ``Trump's Tribal Record: The Destructive Era,'' and 
it explains that during the Trump administration tribal leaders 
saw, and I quote, ``how fast the doors of access were closed to 
tribes,'' and ``the failure to reconvene the White House Tribal 
Nations Summit'' was pointed out in this article, and the fact 
that meaningful tribal consultation was ``nearly non-existent'' 
during the Trump administration.
    So, I would ask that we enter that into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

Trump's Tribal Record: The Destructive Era

Native News Online, August 22, 2023 by Amber Torres

https://nativenewsonline.net/opinion/trump-s-tribal-record-the-
destructive-era

                                 *****

Guest Opinion. As a nation and global society, we are still recovering 
from two life altering events: a pandemic and the Trump presidency. 
While the memories of these events seem to fade with time, as a former 
tribal leader, I am here with a stark warning: We cannot forget Donald 
Trump's record, especially on tribal matters, or that of his supporters 
and enablers.

Many Americans are unaware of the government to government relationship 
between the federal government and tribal nations. It is a relationship 
recorded in the U.S. Constitution and initially practiced through the 
negotiation of treaties. However, the history largely ignores the 
treatment of tribes, which has been full of turmoil and shame as the 
nation broke its promises time and time again. Tribal leaders have 
traveled to Washington year after year advocating for meaningful forms 
of engagement, like tribal consultation. It is a method that I have 
seen Democrats embrace wholeheartedly through their efforts to optimize 
in practice.

During the Trump administration, I saw firsthand how fast the doors of 
access were closed to tribes. He unleashed an era where Native people 
endured a constant assault on our spiritual health and wellness. Trump 
failed to reconvene the White House Tribal Nations Summit, an annual 
meeting that provides the administration and Tribal leaders with time 
to discuss ways to strengthen nation-to-nation relationships through 
federal investment and ensure that progress in Indian Country will 
endure for future generations.

In addition to that failure, meaningful Tribal consultation was nearly 
nonexistent, and without these vital meetings, detrimental projects 
were approved near our tribal communities. For example, Trump 
immediately reduced the Bears Ears National Monument, home to thousands 
of sacred sites, by 85 percent, and his administration approved the 
advancement of the border wall that led to the destruction of Tohono 
O'odham Nation's cultural and burial sites.

Trump drained funds from the very programs created to fulfill the 
federal government's trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribes. Year 
after year, tribal leaders had to fight against his proposals to cut 
funding for Native education and health programs. It is crucial to 
remember that he submitted budget requests to Congress every year that 
could have zeroed out funding for Bureau of Indian Education facilities 
and the only existing CDC Tribal budget item.

At times, Trump was outright transparent about his thoughts and 
feelings about the Native peoples. When asked about issuing a 
proclamation for Indigenous Peoples' Day, he outright proclaimed, ``Not 
as long as I'm president.'' He appalled the nation when he could not 
even hold back expressing his racism during a White House event planned 
in honor of our national heroes, the Navajo Code Talkers.

President Joe Biden ran on the promise to ``restore the soul of the 
nation'' and to rebuild the backbone of America, and since he took 
office, he has taken active steps towards healing the relationships his 
predecessor hurt. President Biden reconvened the White House Tribal 
Nations Summit and issued the Memorandum on Uniform Standards for 
Tribal Consultation to every executive department and agency head. 
Tribes have seen progress for our communities because we have a seat 
and voice at the table.

Bidenomics includes Indian Country with historic levels of funding 
specifically for Tribal communities and Native people, including $32 
billion in the American Rescue Plan, $13 billion in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, and $700 million in the Inflation Reduction Act.

President Biden became the first president to accomplish many positive 
firsts for tribal communities, including issuing a proclamation to 
designate Indigenous Peoples' Day, appointing Native Americans, 
including Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo) as secretary of the Interior and 
Marilynn ``Lynn'' Malerba (Mohegan Tribe) as the of the United States, 
and securing advance appropriations for the Indian Health Service.

Dignity and humility are two valued qualities in Native cultures. 
Importantly, these are two qualities that President Biden exemplifies, 
and this has had a positive impact on revitalizing tribal relations. He 
cares about people and their wellbeing, which is why he has dedicated 
resources and has supported Tribal courts in exercising special 
criminal jurisdiction to address the missing and murdered Indigenous 
peoples crisis.

With all the progress that we have made under the Biden administration 
to uphold the government's responsibility to tribal nations, why do we 
want to reopen the gates to power for people whose hearts are full of 
xenophobia and lies?

This election matters. The presidency matters. The actions of a 
president matter.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. And then, lastly, because I find it, frankly, 
just remarkable that my colleagues across the aisle would even 
deign to ask you any questions about tribal consultation or 
tribal sovereignty or tribal rights in any regard, I have been 
in Congress for 12 years, and I have not seen a single time 
when tribal interests conflicted with oil and gas development, 
a pipeline, a mining project, a dam, anything else, where my 
Republican colleagues did not summarily throw tribes under the 
bus in favor of those industrial interests.
    And I want to challenge my colleagues if they can find a 
single case where I am wrong about that. I want to know. I want 
to know a single time that any of them have ever voted against 
the interests of a dam or an oil and gas development, or a 
pipeline, or a mine, or anything else where tribes were opposed 
to it, because my experience is they threw the tribes under the 
bus every single time.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, Secretary Haaland, thank you so much for 
being here. And I want to thank you and your team for your 
support of my bill last week, H.R. 7377, the Royalty Resiliency 
Act. Thank you so much for helping us with that. Thank you so 
much for supporting us in that. I know we don't get to talk 
about very much bipartisan stuff these days, but again, greatly 
I appreciate it. This legislation will provide a common-sense 
solution to implementing communitization agreements and how 
royalties are paid to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 
So, again, I greatly appreciate your support for that.
    While I do support this issue, I do have some concerns that 
I would like to address today. I have said it before and I will 
say it again: American offshore oil and gas operations produce 
the world's cleanest barrel of oil and gas in the Gulf of 
Mexico and the entire world. We do it safer and better than 
anywhere else. But since Day 1 this Administration, and during 
your tenure, ma'am, have had obstacles placed in the way of 
American excellence, in my opinion.
    The American people have repeatedly seen this 
Administration cave to extreme environmental activists, and 
this Administration has placed Federal Government's thumb on 
the scale against American oil and gas. And, again, we as a 
country must unleash American energy not just for us, but for 
the entire world. I do not want to empower Iran. I do not want 
to empower Venezuela. I do not want to empower rogue nations.
    I am a combat veteran that fought against these extreme, 
rogue nations, and I want to make sure that the world is 
powered by our clean, abundant resources that we have sitting 
right here in this country in our grasp. And that is kind of 
what I want to fight for every single day.
    My first question for you, ma'am, is why has this 
Administration included only three offshore oil and gas lease 
sales in the past 5 years, in the past 5-year plan, if you 
don't mind answering that one?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman, for the 
question.
    BOEM held 11 lease sales under the 2017 to 2022 National 
OCS Leasing Program. We had 2 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico 
last year, which generated nearly $623 million. And in those 
sales, we leased approximately 3.3 million acres.
    Mr. Hunt. OK. My next question is, are you familiar with 
the Copperhead to Loving pipeline project with BLM?
    Secretary Haaland. Are you familiar with it?
    Ms. Daniel-Davis. No.
    Secretary Haaland. I apologize. We will find out about it, 
and we will be happy to contact you after the----
    Mr. Hunt. I would really appreciate that. If you don't mind 
taking a look at that, and in good faith getting back to us, we 
would greatly appreciate that. This has been sitting at BLM for 
almost a year. It is an essential project for this country's 
domestic supply of oil and gas. If you don't mind, I would 
really appreciate if you got back to me on that.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, we will be in touch with your staff 
soon.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you. And then, lastly, provisions to the 
IIJA granted DOI the ability to pursue CCUS in the Gulf of 
Mexico. It has been 3 years, and the DOI still has not provided 
guidance. Could you please explain why there has been such a 
delay in issuing this guidance?
    Secretary Haaland. I apologize for that, as well. If we 
could answer that for the record, Congressman, we would be more 
than happy to.
    Mr. Hunt. I greatly, greatly would appreciate it.
    Secretary Haaland. We will have somebody reach out to your 
staff, and we will have a conversation about it.
    Mr. Hunt. Yes, of course, ma'am, and I want to thank you so 
much for being here. Thank you for your time. Thank you for 
your help on my bill.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes.
    Mr. Hunt. Again, I really want to make sure that we don't 
regulate this industry to oblivion. So, whatever we could do to 
get projects moved forward and get them going, we greatly 
appreciate it.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. And as I have 
said several times during this hearing, production is at an 
all-time high.
    Mr. Hunt. Well, it could be----
    Secretary Haaland. And the staff, they are working on the 
leases, they are working on the permits. This is an ongoing 
thing since the President has been in office.
    Mr. Hunt. An all-time high is great, but again, it needs to 
be higher. We are not trying to compare ourselves to where we 
were in the past. I want to absolutely have the maximum amount 
of energy produced in this country to fuel the world for 
American excellence, not comparing ourselves to the past, but 
comparing ourselves to what our capacity can be.
    Thank you so much for being here.
    I yield back the rest of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a memo from the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs entitled, ``Fact Checking the Trump 
Administration's Attempt to Rewrite its Native American Record: 
False Promises to Tribes.'' Thank you.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

MEMO: Fact Checking the Trump Administration's Attempt to Re-write its 
Native American Record, False Promises to Tribes

https://www.indian.senate.gov, October 23, 2020, Contact: Ned Adriance

https://www.indian.senate.gov/newsroom/press-release/democratic/memo-
fact-checking-trump-administration-s-attempt-re-write-its-native-
american/

                                 *****

FROM: U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Office of the Vice 
Chairman, Senator Tom Udall

TO: Interested Parties

The Trump White House's newly-released ``Putting America's First 
Peoples First Forgotten No More!'' document attempts to re-write its 
record on Native American issues in numerous misleading ways. The Trump 
administration claims credit for work primarily achieved by Senate and 
House Democrats to advance Indian Country priorities and ignores the 
damage the administration has wrought across Indian Country.

``It's unfortunate, but hardly surprising, that the Trump White House 
is now making highly misleading claims that the president is `fighting 
for Indian Country,' on the eve of an election, when this 
administration's record is one of repeated failures for Native 
communities.'' Udall said. ``Indian Country knows better. Instead of 
putting `first peoples first,' the Trump administration fought to 
exclude Tribes from the CARES Act and has dragged its feet getting 
critical resources out the door to Tribal communities. The 
administration is too busy working to revoke Tribal reservations, 
resisting Tribal access to COVID-19 relief, desecrating sacred lands 
like Chaco Canyon and Bears Ears at the behest of oil and mining 
corporations, and destroying Tribal sacred sites to build his 
ridiculous border wall.

``The truth is the White House is actively undermining Tribal 
sovereignty across the country and mishandling a once-in-a-century 
pandemic that is disproportionately hurting Native communities,'' Udall 
continued. ``As vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs, representing 23 Tribes in New Mexico, I deeply respect Tribal 
leaders and Native communities and cannot stand idly by when the Trump 
administration tries to rewrite President Trump's abysmal record with 
misleading propaganda.''

TRUMP CLAIM: ``Respecting Tribal Sovereignty and Self-Determination: 
The Trump administration is committed to respecting Tribal sovereignty 
and will continue to empower Native American communities with the 
resources they need to promote self-determination.''

FACT: The Trump administration has expressed views that challenge the 
unique legal status of Tribes and has attempted to remove Tribal lands 
from federal trust, while consistently desecrating sacred Tribal land 
on behalf of corporate polluters.

--The Trump administration has made multiple statements expressing 
views that reject the well-established legal status of Tribes and imply 
programs and regulatory considerations for Tribes are ``race based,'' 
including in one of the president's first signing statements in 2017 
and a letter to Tribal leaders from the Centers for Medicaid and 
Medicare Services in 2018.

--The Trump administration failed to reestablish President Obama's 
White House Council on Native American Affairs for the first three 
years of the president's term despite repeated requests from Indian 
Country. It has never convened a White House Tribal Leaders Conference.

--Udall worked to pass the PROGRESS Act, a bipartisan bill that will 
strengthen local control for federally administered Tribal programs. 
While the president signed the bill, he issued a signing statement 
citing concerns with the Act and implying he would prioritize his own 
Executive Orders over Tribal self-determination.

--On March 27, just as the COVID-19 pandemic set in, the Trump Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) informed the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe that its 
reservation will be disestablished and its lands taken out of trust. 
Not since the shameful Termination Era has any Tribe had their 
homelands removed from federal trust.

--The Trump administration has made it more difficult for Tribes to 
rebuild their homelands. When Trump's Interior Department issued new 
guidance complicating the process of taking land into trust under 
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, U.S. District Court 
Judge Paul Friedman described it as ``one of the worst-written 
documents I've ever read from any government agency.'' Judge Friedman 
further noted, ``I don't know how anyone could take that as guidance, 
because it's incomprehensible and so convoluted that it couldn't guide 
any lawyer in the field.''

--Against the fierce protests of the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Trump 
administration has destroyed sacred and burial sites on Tribal 
ancestral homelands to build the president's ineffective border wall, 
in violation of the federal trust responsibility. And on Indigenous 
Peoples' Day, the Trump administration even resorted to using tear gas 
and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors at these locations.

TRUMP CLAIM: ``Promoting Safe Communities: President Trump is committed 
to increasing public safety in Indian Country--particularly by 
continuing to find solutions to long-standing challenges like missing 
and murdered Native Americans and the opioid and meth crises.''

FACT: The Trump administration and Senate Republicans have refused to 
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which would restore 
Tribes' authority to bring violent offenders to justice, give Tribal 
public safety systems more tools, and keep Native communities safe. By 
contrast, Senate Democrats have been instrumental in recent legislative 
victories that will help protect public safety for Native American 
women and girls.

--The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed cutting Tribal 
public safety, substance abuse, and victim services budgets.

--The Senate has led the way on federal action to address the Missing 
and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) crisis, but the Trump 
administration is attempting to take credit for that work. For example, 
a bipartisan group of senators have filed resolutions to designate May 
5th as a national day for MMIW awareness since 2016, but President 
Trump did not declare a similar designation until his third year in 
office. Similarly, a bipartisan group of senators have fought to enact 
the Not Invisible Act and Savanna's Act, two bills that improve MMIW 
coordination between federal agencies and law enforcement agencies, 
since 2017 and 2018, respectively. President Trump did not exercise his 
authorities to convene federal stakeholders to address MMIW until 2019.

TRUMP CLAIM: ``Building a Thriving Economy with Improved 
Infrastructure: President Trump will support improved business 
opportunities and infrastructure in Indian Country so that all 
Americans benefit from the country's historic economic prosperity.''

FACT: The Trump administration excluded many Tribal businesses from 
emergency coronavirus relief funds, and has failed to put forward any 
substantive plans or proposals to improve economic opportunity in 
Tribal communities.

--The Trump Small Business Administration practically excluded Tribal 
small businesses from the first round of applications for Paycheck 
Protection Program (PPP) loans, throwing up regulatory barriers that 
resulted in denying Tribal businesses and governments the revenue 
needed to stay afloat during the intense coronavirus shutdown.

--The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed eliminating the 
Indian loan guarantee program at the Department of the Interior. This 
program is vital to securing private investments in Indian Country.

--In contrast, the Senate has advanced concrete proposals to support 
economic growth in Native communities--including the newly enacted 
Native American Business Incubators Program Act led by Udall and U.S. 
Representative Deb Haaland (D-N.M.). This new law creates a competitive 
grant program within the Department of the Interior to establish and 
fund business incubators that will assist in cultivating Native 
American-owned small businesses.

TRUMP CLAIM: ``Honoring Native American Heritage and Improving 
Education: Working with Tribal leaders, President Trump will continue 
to ensure respect for Native American heritage and will provide 
children with access to high-quality education options that are 
consistent with Tribal traditions, languages, and culture.''

FACT: The Trump administration has put the interests of corporate 
polluters over Tribal concerns, attempting to open sacred lands to 
resource exploitation. The administration has further attempted to cut 
funding for Tribal schools and education.

--Just this month, President Trump disavowed recognition of Indigenous 
Peoples' Day. When discussing whether he would support recognition of 
the day meant to honor the heritage and contributions of Native peoples 
to the U.S., he said, ``Not as long as I'm president.''

--The Trump administration attempted to rip away protections for Bears 
Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments, public lands 
that contain countless antiquities and sites sacred to many Tribes. 
Udall has led the fight in Congress and in the courts to defend these 
sacred places from encroachment.

--The Trump administration is currently attempting to open land 
surrounding world heritage site and ancestral home to Southwest Tribes 
at Chaco Canyon to oil and natural gas exploration. Alongside Native 
communities, Udall and the New Mexico delegation have fought the 
administration's attempts, and secured a $1 million ethnographic study 
to be led by Tribes to guide land management agencies at Chaco Canyon. 
But the administration is moving forward on development plans without 
this study and against the wishes of the Tribes.

--The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed cutting funding for 
Native education programs--including a budget request that would zero 
out funding for Bureau of Indian Education facilities.

--The Trump administration has made no requests to increase investments 
in Native languages. In contrast, the Senate has provided increased 
funding to support Native languages for the past several years, and 
ushered through Udall's legislation to reauthorize the Esther Martinez 
Native American Languages Programs, now law.

--Udall is also leading the PROTECT resolution and partnering on the 
STOP Act with Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) in the Senate to protect 
and repatriate Tribal cultural items.

TRUMP CLAIM: ``Delivering Better Health: President Trump will 
prioritize long-unresolved healthcare challenges in Indian Country that 
have prevented better health for Native Americans.''

FACT: The Trump administration presents one of the clearest threats to 
the health of Native communities across the country. Its policies have 
attempted to gut funding for Native health systems, strip health care 
access from millions of Native families, and leave Tribes without the 
tools they need to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

--Despite acknowledging that Affordable Care Act provisions are 
critical for Native health, including Native veterans' health care 
access, the Trump administration is on a mission to destroy the 
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Tribal leaders have repeatedly made clear 
the ACA is a critical lifeline for Native communities to access health 
care.

--The Trump administration and Senate Republican leaders ignored Tribes 
during initial negotiations on COVID-19 relief-requesting $0 for Tribes 
that are bearing some of the worst consequences of the pandemic. Udall 
and Senate Democrats fought to secure over $10 billion in targeted 
funding for Tribal governments in the CARES Act to address pandemic 
needs.

--The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed cutting funding for 
the Indian Health Service and zeroing out the only existing Tribal 
budget item at the Centers for Disease Control.

--The Trump administration has sought to divert money from the IHS 
community health representative program and remove the mandatory status 
of Special Diabetes Program for Indians funding.


                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for your 
valuable testimony and to the Members for their questions 
today.
    The members of this Committee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
May 6. The hearing record will be open for business 10 days for 
these responses.

    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                          United States Senate

                                                    May 2, 2024    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    I write regarding the competitive oil and gas leasing program (the 
Program) in the non-wilderness Coastal Plain (1002 Area) of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that was established under section 
20001 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Act), and your decision to 
illegally cancel the leases that were awarded in 2021 pursuant to the 
Program. It has come to my attention that documents obtained from a 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit raise new questions about the 
cancellation of those leases and the future of the 2024 sale.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Press Release, Americans for Prosperity, AFP Foundation 
Files Suit for ANWR Lease Cancellation Documents (Oct. 31, 2023), 
https://americansforprosperity.org/press-release/afp-foundation-files-
suit-for-anwr-lease-sale-cancellation-documents/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. BACKGROUND

    In 2017, Congress provided clear approval and a mandate to the to 
the Department of the Interior (DOI) for commercial leasing, 
exploration, development, and production in the 1002 Area when it 
passed the Tax Act and established the Program as a means of improving 
energy security while generating revenue for the United States.\2\ 
Specifically, Congress required the Secretary of the Interior, through 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to develop and maintain an oil and 
gas leasing program within the 1002 Area and conduct at least two area-
wide leasing sales, not less than 400,000 acres each, within seven 
years, with the first lease sale taking place before December 22, 2021, 
and the second lease sale before December 22, 2024.\3\ It also mandated 
that the Secretary of the Interior grant rights-of-way and easements 
necessary for the successful development of the oil and gas resources 
in the 1002 Area and authorizes up to 2,000 surface acres, or 0.01% of 
ANWR's 19.3 million acres, to be covered by production and support 
facilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Pub. L. No. 115-97, tit. II, Sec. 20001, 131 Stat. 2054 (Dec. 
20. 2017).
    \3\ Id. at Sec. 20001(c) (requiring that the first lease sale occur 
within 4 years of the date of enactment of the TCJA and the second 
lease sale within 7 years of enactment).
    \4\ Id.

    BLM moved forward with a final EIS and published the ROD for the 
Program in August 2020.\5\ BLM then responded to Congress' direction 
when it held the first lease sale on January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 
ROD, subsequently entering into contracts with three entities for the 
issuance of 10-year leases that covered nine tracts of land totaling 
more than 430,000 acres.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See Bureau of Land Management, et al., Coastal Plain Oil and 
Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision (Aug. 2020).
    \6\ See Bureau of Land Management, 2021 Coastal Plain Lease Sale 
Bid Recap (Jan. 6, 2021).

    It's important to note that the scope of alternatives analyzed in 
the 2020 final EIS ranged from a ``no action alternative'' to a maximum 
development scenario, as required by the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA). There was and remains no other range of alternatives that 
could be used. Further, the 2020 ROD was vetted by multiple career 
attorneys within DOI's Solicitor's office. These attorneys met at least 
three times each week with professional staff at the BLM and Fish and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife Service (FWS) offices in Alaska.

    This painstaking process was done to ensure that the 2020 final EIS 
comported with each and every law and regulation governing DOI, 
including section 20001 of the Tax Act. As a United States Senator with 
oversight responsibilities over the very legislative language that you 
believe DOI ``failed'' to properly interpret, we can assure you that 
the 2020 final EIS and ROD reflect Congress' intent.
II. THE SCOPE OF THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY

    It is particularly important to detail the scope of authority of 
the Secretary's authorities with respect to the Program. As discussed, 
section 20001 of the Tax Act explicitly requires that the Secretary 
conduct at least two lease sales in the 1002 Area, staggered over a 7-
year period.\7\ Specifically, the Tax Act required that the first lease 
sale be held within 4 years of enactment and the second lease sale 
within 7 years.\8\ Yet despite this direction, BLM stated in the draft 
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) published this fall 
that both must occur by December 22, 2024.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Supra note 2.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Draft Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement at Sec. 1.3.

    BLM therefore has effectively not met its statutory obligation to 
conduct the first lease sale by December 22, 2021 in canceling the 
leases that were issued pursuant to the first sale. BLM is consequently 
now behind on that schedule, and must hold two lease sales, the first 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of which should be held immediately given Congress' mandate.

    More importantly, the Tax Act only provides the Secretary with the 
authority to ``manage'' the Program and ``administer'' it in a manner 
similar to that of the oil and gas leasing Program in the NPR-A.\10\ To 
that end, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA), 
the statute governing the oil and gas leasing program in the NPR-A, 
only provides the Secretary with the authority to ``direct or assent to 
the suspension of operations and production.'' \11\ The only time the 
NPRPA contemplates the termination of leases is under specific, limited 
circumstances that are beyond the control of the lessee.\12\ It is 
clear that neither the Tax Act nor the NPRPA delegate you the authority 
or discretion to terminate a lease, and your actions constitute an 
abuse of administrative power and violate the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Tax Act at Sec. 20001(b)(3).
    \11\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6506a(k)(2).
    \12\ Id. at Sec.  6506a(i).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. FOIA FINDINGS

    The documents provided in response to the FOIA request shed light 
on DOI's decision to cancel the leases and the variety of issues 
related to that decision. One email in particular demonstrates how 
officials in the Biden Administration, including DOI's Office of Budget 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), were caught off guard 
and confused by the absence of legal authority for DOI to cancel lease 
sales in ANWR:

        I just saw this press release after [OMB official] Mike Hagan 
        brought it to my attention. Can we arrange a phone call with 
        the appropriate person(s) to discuss this announcement further, 
        especially the ANWR piece. He wants to make sure he completely 
        understands the decision and rationale, and their implications. 
        For example, how was the 2021 lease sale in violation of (``not 
        correctly interpret'') the the [sic] Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 
        2017? And is it just the existing leases that are not in 
        compliance; e.g. even if these existing leases are canceled, 
        does BLM still have a statutory obligation under the Tax Cut 
        and Jobs Act of 2017 to conduct a new lease sale? \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Email from Bill J. Gordon, Department of the Interior Office 
of Budget, to Bureau of Land Management Budget Director Jessica Huffman 
(Sep. 6, 2023), available at https://bit.ly/4ayIU45.

    These officials were right to be skeptical: the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) is violating the law by canceling the 2021 lease sale. 
Indeed, budget officials were also concerned by the budgetary impacts 
because the President's budget ``reflects ANWR revenues.'' \14\ To 
date, DOI has not released any information about how ANWR revenues 
would have been used in the budget, nor has it provided a public 
estimate of the amount of lost revenue to the federal, state, local, or 
tribal interests from the cancellation of the lease sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id.

    The documents also show that there is little-to-no likelihood that 
DOI will hold the second lease sale required in the Tax Act. In late 
February 2024, BLM responded to Questions for the Record (QFR) from a 
September 2023 oversight hearing held by the House Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. In those QFRs, Chairman 
Bruce Westerman asked if BLM would meet the deadline to conduct the 
2024 ANWR lease sale as required under the Tax Act. BLM responded: 
``Yes, we will follow the law.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Letter from Bureau of Land Management to Chairman Pete Stauber 
of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources (Feb. 23, 2024).

    But another document confirms my suspicions that the Biden 
Administration has no plans to conduct and complete the 2024 lease 
sale. A document prepared for Secretary Haaland's trip to Ottawa in 
September 2023, for example, acknowledges this mandate, but clearly 
implies that the agency has intentions to restrict possible production 
in the 1002 Area to the point where the lease sale will be effectively 
cancelled. This is especially troubling, as the Biden Administration is 
privately suggesting to foreign audiences that it intends to cancel the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 lease sale while keeping Americans--and Alaskans--in the dark:

        [A]lthough we are mandated by statute to hold a second lease 
        sale before December 2024, we have begun a new, comprehensive 
        analysis of potential environmental impacts from the proposed 
        program. We are working on that analysis--in consultation with 
        several Cooperating Agencies--with the goal of completing that 
        analysis next year.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Email from Fish & Wildlife Service International Affairs 
Specialist Gilbert Castellanos to Fish & Wildlife Service officials 
Sara Boario, Wendy Loya, and Bobbie Jo Skibbo with proposed talking 
points for Interior Secretary Haaland's trip to Ottawa, Canada (Aug. 
28, 2023), available at https://bit.ly/4aw9ydG.

    To my knowledge, there are little-to-no public details from the 
Administration regarding how DOI has carried out the referenced 
``comprehensive analysis,'' including taking into consideration and 
giving weight to the Alaska Native communities most impact by DOI's 
decision. Indeed, while DOI recently announced that it plans to issue 
the final SEIS in July, cooperating agencies, including the village of 
Kaktovik, the only Alaska Native community located in ANWR have yet to 
review that draft, and the Biden Administration has still not revealed 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the legal or regulatory authority for its actions.

    For these reasons, I request written answers to the following 
questions by June 2, 2024:

  1.  How does the cancellation of the 2021 lease sale, and likely 
            cancellation of the 2024 lease sale, affect the President's 
            budget now and in the future?

  2.  How is the cancellation of the 2021 lease sale, and likely 
            cancellation of the 2024 lease sale, in compliance with the 
            mandate from Congress to hold these lease sales? What 
            federal statute does DOI believe gives it authority to not 
            go forward with the lease sales?

  3.  Did DOI estimate the revenue loss to local and state governments, 
            Alaska Native corporations, and Native Villages of 
            canceling the 2021 lease sale? What about if DOI cancels 
            the 2024 lease sale?

  4.  Does DOI, BLM, and FWS have a plan in place to quickly reinstate 
            the 2021 leases if Congress explicitly overrides the Record 
            of Decision or DOI loses in federal court?

  5.  What is the ``new, comprehensive analysis of potential 
            environmental impacts of the proposed program'' in regard 
            to the 2024 lease sale?

             What is the legal or regulatory authority for the 
        analysis?

             Who are the cooperating agencies involved?

             When will it be completed, and will it be released 
        to the public?

  6.  Do you agree that section 1002(e)(2)(C) of ANILCA requires DOI to 
            make data and information available [related to the 
            exploration of ANWR and the location of likely oil and gas 
            deposits, including 2D seismic, and other data] now that 
            more than ``two years [have passed] following any lease 
            sale . . .''? If so, what is the process for Members of 
            Congress or the public to obtain this information?
  7.  Is there any scenario where DOI, BLM, and the FWS allow the 2024 
            ANWR lease sale to complete and result in oil and gas 
            development within the Coastal Plain? What factors would 
            have to be met?

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. DOI, FWS, and BLM 
should reverse course, follow the law, honor the 2021 lease sale, and 
faithfully conduct the 2024 lease sale. I look forward to your timely 
response.

            Sincerely,

                                              Dan Sullivan,
                                              United States Senator

                                 [all]`