U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55–587 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul Gosar, AZ 

Garret Graves, LA 

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Pete Stauber, MN 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Tom Tiffany, WI 

Jerry Carl, AL 

Matt Rosendale, MT 

Lauren Boebert, CO 

Cliff Bentz, OR 

Jen Kiggans, VA 

Jim Moylan, GU 

Wesley P. Hunt, TX 

Mike Collins, GA 

Anna Paulina Luna, FL 

John Duarte, CA 

Harriet M. Hageman, WY 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Katie Porter, CA 

Teresa Leger Ferna ́ndez, NM 

Melanie A. Stansbury, NM 

Mary Sattler Peltola, AK 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY 

Kevin Mullin, CA 

Val T. Hoyle, OR 

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA 

Seth Magaziner, RI 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Ed Case, HI 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Susie Lee, NV 

Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director 

Tom Connally, Chief Counsel 

Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(III) 

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 In ̃upiat 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 
Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Kamlager-Dove—Continued 

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 
(v) 

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 signifi-
vi 

cant 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): 

Agency FY 2023 Actual FY 2024 

Annualized CR FY 2025 Request 

Change From FY 

2024 Annualized CR 

to FY 2025 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) $1.99 billion $2.03 billion $2.06 billion +$31.5 million 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM) 

$183.4 million $163.0 million $183.4 million +20.4 million 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) 

$174.4 million $162.1 million $170.4 million +8.3 million 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE) 

$1.48 billion $1.50 billion $1.58 billion +86.3 million 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) $1.61 billion $1.57 billion $1.65 billion +81.1 million 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) $4.24 billion $3.79 billion $4.0 billion +214.0 million 

National Park Service (NPS) $6.24 billion $4.72 billion $4.81 billion +89.1 million 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) $2.81 billion $2.92 billion $3.51 billion +593.4 million 

Bureau of Trust Funds Administration 

(BTFA) 

$1.83 billion $1.91 billion $1.99 billion +74.0 million 

Office of Insular Affairs (OIA) $656.3 million $717.6 million $2.07 billion +1.35 billion 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $3.83 billion $3.86 billion $3.56 billion -$299.6 million 

Total DOI $36.7 billion $34.6 billion $37.08 billion +2.45 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 
vii 

1 Exec. Order 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 19, 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021). 

2Partlow, Joshua and Eilperin, Juliet. Louisiana judge blocks Biden administration’s oil and 

gas leasing pause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/15/louisianajudge-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-administrationonshore-lease-sales-bring-in-nearly-22-million/. 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. 5Offshore 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/boempostpones-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. 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. 

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. 

*All onshore lease sales in FY 2021 were conducted by the Trump administration 4

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

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

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 
viii 

10 BLM REQUESTS PUBLIC INPUT ON REVISED GREENHOUSE GAS LEASING 

ANALYSIS, Nov. 9, 2022, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-requests-public-input-revisedgreenhouse-gas-leasing-analysis. 11The 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/wasteprevention-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-MineralsLeasing-FinalRule.pdf. 14Draft 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-harrisadministration-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-FinalRule-1004-AE95.pdf. 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-erafreeze-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-delayedleasing-00145339. 21DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Report Outlines Reforms Needed to 

Promote Responsible Mining on Public Lands, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harrisadministration-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/. 23White 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/factsheet-securing-a-made-in-america-supply-chain-for-critical-minerals/. 24DOI, Press Release, Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary 

Waters Area Watershed, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-actioncomplete-study-boundary-waters-area-watershed. 

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. 

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

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. 
ix 

25DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Takes Critical Action to Protect Alaska 

Native Subsistence, Lands and Wildlife, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harrisadministration-takes-critical-action-protect-alaska-native-subsistence. 26Lisa 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-alaskainterior.html. 27DOI, Press Release, Trump administration Supports Alaskan Infrastructure Development 

to Mine Critical Minerals, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-supportsalaskan-infrastructure-development-mine-critical. 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. 29Soraghan, 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-pluggingrules-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. 31FY 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. 32Public Law No. 117-58, Sec. 40601. 33OSMRE, 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. 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. 

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

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 approxi- mately $725 million in funding is being distributed each year.33

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

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, 
x 

37OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 56. https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2025- 

office-insular-affairs-greenbook. 38 Id. 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-PoliciesAre-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. 41Statement 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

43DOI, Fiscal Year 2025 The Interior Budget in Brief, March 2024, https://www.doi.gov/media/ 

document/fy2025-508-bib-entire-document. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
xi 

44Lisa 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-targetingamericas-last-great-place-rcna130822. 45Methamphetamine 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. 46 Id. 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). 53Methamphetamine in Indian Country, supra note 45. 54 Cavazuti, supra note 44. 55 Id. 56Fentanyl 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. 

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. 

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

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

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

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 
xii 

58 BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-PSJ-2. 59OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 1. 60Public Law 118-42. 61OIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at 5. 62Public 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. 63Public Law 94-579. 64FY 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/ 

address the pressing issue of drug cartels infiltrating and exploiting tribal 

communities.58

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. 

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

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. 

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
xiii 

IF12437#:∼:text=In%20August%202022%2C%20Congress%20enacted,the%20Department%20of% 

20the%20Interior). 68FY 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. 70FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. W&RR-8. https://www.usbr.gov/budget/ 

2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-Justifications.pdf. 71FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-6. https://www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/ 

FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-Justifications.pdf. 72 Id. 73FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. GS-5. https://www.usbr.gov/budget/2025/ 

FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-Justifications.pdf. 74FY 2025 Bureau of Reclamation Budget Request. CGB-55. https://www.usbr.gov/budget/ 

2025/FY-2025-Bureau-of-Reclamation-Budget-Justifications.pdf. 75FY 2025 Greenbook. EX-1. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025- 

508-fws-greenbook.pdf#page=24. 76FY 2025 Greenbook. EX-04. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/ 

fy2025-508-fws-greenbook.pdf#page=24. 77 Id. 78FY 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. 82 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wildlife Refuge System; Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health. Proposed Rule. February 2, 2024. https:// 

Continued 

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

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

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

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

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
xiv 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/02/2024-02076/national-wildlife-refuge-systembiological-integrity-diversity-and-environmental-health. 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. 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. 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. 

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

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. 

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

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. 
xv 

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. 94DOI 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-yearwildfire-risk-mmt-plan.04.2022.owf_.final_.pdf. 95 Id. 96DOI, ‘‘Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful,’’ 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-restoring-america-the-beautiful-2021.pdf. 97Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT): Section 6902 Payments, Congressional Research Service, 

June 21, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/IF11772/IF11772.pdf. 98DOI FY25 Budget Briefing to Congressional Staff, March 19, 2024. Comments on file with 

Committee. 

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. 

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. 

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
xvi 

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-asylumseekers-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-govhochul-says. 100 Id. 101FBF Lease, supra note 99. 102Transcript: 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-mayoradams-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-fieldshelter-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/FloydBennett-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-imposingcurfew-at-migrant-shelters-as-panhandling-crime-surges/. 

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

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

Outside Contractors Pushing Social Change Initiatives—On March 14, 2023, 

Chairman Westerman led a letter questioning the use of taxpayer dollars by the 
xvii 

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. 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). 109METROPOLITAN GROUP, https://www.metgroup.com/ (last visited May 16, 2023). 110Krischanna Roberson, Bio, COLLABOVATE CONSULTING (June 16, 2020), https:// 

www.collabovateconsulting.com/post/2020/06/16/bio. 111SYAH B. CONSULTING, https://www.deepdivedei.com/ (last visited May 16, 2023). 112See O&I April 30 Hearing Memo 113 Id. 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-npsgreenbook_2.pdf 

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

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

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

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. 

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 
xviii 

115P.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. 119 BIA Budget Justifications, FY 2025, at IA-ILC-5. 120DOI. Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations. Dec. 2023, p.2 https://www.doi.gov/sites/ 

default/files/doi-lbb.pdf. 121 Id. 122FY 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. 

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 SelfDetermination 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

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. 

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. 
(1) 

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 Ferna ́ndez, 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 
2 

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. 
3 

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 
4 

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. 
5 

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 
6 

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 goodpaying 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 
7 

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 fixedcost 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 avail- able 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. 
8 

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. 
9 

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. 
10 

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 wellbeing, 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 
11 

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; 
12 

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 shortterm 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 onthe-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 
13 

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 
14 

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 publicprivate 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 goodpaying 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 
15 

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 
16 

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 passivetreatment systems installed to address water pollution discharges from abandoned 

mine lands. 
17 

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 costewardship 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 Comanagement 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. 
18 

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 
19 

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. 
20 

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? 
21 

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? 
22 

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 
23 

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? 
24 

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. 
25 

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)? 
26 

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? 
27 

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 EnvironmentalEconomic 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 
28 

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? 
29 

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 
30 

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? 
31 

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. 
32 

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 
33 

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 lowconflict 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 
34 

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 Marı ́a Sa ́nchez Dı ́ez 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 
35 

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 Vela ́squez, 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.’’ 
36 

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 Lo ́pez, 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 Marı ́a 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. 
37 

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—— 
38 

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—— 
39 

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. 
40 

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. 
41 

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. 
42 

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 
43 

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 In ̃upiat 

Corporation (UIC); Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC); and In ̃upiat 

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 
44 

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 NPRA 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 In ̃upiat, 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 In ̃upiat, 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 In ̃upiat 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-tonation 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 FitzGibbon 

https://nypost.com/2024/01/14/metro/city-will-probe-any-lawlessness-by-migrants-atbennett-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. 
45 

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. 
46 

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 insinu-
47 

ation 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. 
48 

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. 
49 

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 In ̃upiat and signed by the 

In ̃upiat 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 IN ̃ UPIAT 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 In ̃upiat (VOICE) is a nonprofit established in 

2015 by the North Slope region’s collective In ̃upiat leadership to speak with a 

unified voice on issues impacting the North Slope In ̃upiat, their communities, their 

economy, and their culture. Working together to provide for and enhance the lives 

of the In ̃upiat; 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 In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat lie 

within one of the largest hydrocarbon provinces of the world; and 
50 

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 selfdetermination; 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 In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat 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 (NPRA) 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 
51 

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 In ̃upiat, 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 

In ̃upiat elected leadership prior to publishing the proposed rule; and 

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2023, the In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat (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: 
52 

• 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 In ̃upiat 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 
53 

• 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 
54 

Rule, emphasizing DOI Secretary Haaland’s refusal to hear the unified voice of the 

North Slope In ̃upiat; 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 

In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat 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 
55 

• 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 In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat 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 
56 

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 In ̃upiat 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): 

In ̃upiat 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, largescale 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. 
57 

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? 
58 

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- 
59 

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-theboard 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 
60 

encourage everyone to visit the border. It has a relation to this 

Committee. 

[The information follows:] 
61 

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 
62 

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 
63 

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. 
64 

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? 
65 

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:] 
66 

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. 
67 

[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 wellbeing 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 
68 

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 
69 

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 alltime 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. 
70 

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, 
71 

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 
72 

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 
73 

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. 
74 

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 coChair 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? 
75 

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 
76 

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 
77 

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 
78 

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. 
79 

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. 
80 

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 In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat 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 In ̃upiat, 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 
81 

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. 
82 

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. 
83 

1 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c) (defining ‘‘multiple use’’). 

2 Id. 

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: 

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

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 eco-
84 

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. 5 Id. at 34. 6 Id. at 33. 7 Compare 43 U.S.C. § 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’’). 8 43 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(8). 

9 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 9. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 7. 

systems 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 preexisting policies as BLM manages public lands in a new era of challenges. 

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

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

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

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 
85 

12 Id. at 3. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 4, 38, 134-35 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6101.4(b)). 16 Id. at 4 n.2. 17 Id. at 10. 18 Id. at 10-11. 19 Id. at 47. 20 Id. at 139 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6101.4(t)). 21 Id. 22 Id. at 168 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6103.1); id. at 5-6 (providing explanation). 23 Rangeland Health, BLM, https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-andgrazing/rangeland-health (last visited Apr. 18, 2024). 24 Id. at 53-54 (providing discussion of revised rule in response to comments). 

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

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

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. 

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

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. 

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 
86 

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. § 6101.4(j)). 26 Id. at 137 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6101.4(j)). 27 Id. at 144 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6102.2(a)). 28 Id. at 149-55 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6102.4); id. at 14-15 (discussing the leases). 29 Id. at 15. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 57. 32 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. 33 Id. at 44-45; id. at 164 (to be codified at 43 C.F.R. § 6102.5.1). 34 Id. at 45. 35 Id. at 66-67. 36 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). 

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

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. 

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. 

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 
87 

37See, 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’’). 38 43 U.S.C. § 1732. 39 Id. § 1702(c) (emphasis added). 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’’). 

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. 

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

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

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

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 
88 

43 Id. § 1732(b). 44 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 17-18, 169 (to be codified 

at 43 C.F.R. § 6103.1(b)); 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c). 45 43 U.S.C. § 1702(h) (emphasis added). 46 Id. 47 Id. § 1701(8). 48For 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). 49See 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)). 

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

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

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

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

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 
89 

50PLLRC, supra note 50, at 3. 51 JOHN D. LESHY, OUR COMMON GROUND: A HISTORY OF AMERICA’S PUBLIC 

LANDS 492-93 (2022). 52PLLRC, supra note 50, at 3. 53 43 U.S.C. § 1701. 54 Id. § 1702(c). 55Theodore 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. 58 Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, PDF supra note 3, at 4, 24, 52. 59 Id. at 4. 

final 1970 Report emphasized that conservation must be a central tenet of BLM’s 

land management duties. 

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

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

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. 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 ‘‘longterm 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

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. 

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

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 
90 

60 Id. at 44-45, 86-88. 61See Pleune, supra note 49 at 10830. 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. 63There 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 hardrock 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). 65See BLM, National Conservation Lands, https://www.blm.gov/programs/nationalconservation-lands (stating over 37 million acres of BLM’s over 245 million are protected under 

National Conservation Land designation). 

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. 

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

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

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 
91 

66See 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. 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. 69Pleune, 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)). 70Keiter & McKinney, supra note 63, at 7. 71Pleune, supra note 49 at 10830. 72See 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). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 selfdetermination and self-governance. 
92 

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? 
93 

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:] 
94 

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-asylumseekers 

***** 

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-toconceal 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. 
95 

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. 
96 

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. 
97 

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). 

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. 
98 

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 
99 

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? 
100 

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 
101 

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. 
102 

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. 
103 

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.] 
104 

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:] 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

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. 
112 

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-amillion acre-feet left to fill it as we get towards the end of our runoff season. 
113 

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 Ferna ́ndez. 

Ms. LEGER FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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. 
114 

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 FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 
115 

communities receive the water resources they have long been 

promised. 

Ms. LEGER FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 
116 

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. 
117 

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. 
118 

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. 
119 

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 upto-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 
120 

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. 
121 

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, nonproducing 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 
122 

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:] 
123 

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. 
124 

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. 
125 

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 antifishing,’’ 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. 
126 

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:] 

The full document is available for viewing at: 

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41330.pdf 
127 

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. 
128 

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. 
129 

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 In ̃upiat, 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-togovernment 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:] 
130 

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 
131 

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 
132 

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. 
133 

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. 
134 

—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 
135 

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 longunresolved 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 
136 

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.] 
137 

1See Press Release, Americans for Prosperity, AFP Foundation Files Suit for ANWR Lease 

Cancellation Documents (Oct. 31, 2023), https://americansforprosperity.org/press-release/afpfoundation-files-suit-for-anwr-lease-sale-cancellation-documents/. 2Pub. L. No. 115-97, tit. II, § 20001, 131 Stat. 2054 (Dec. 20. 2017). 

3 Id. at § 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. 5See Bureau of Land Management, et al., Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record 

of Decision (Aug. 2020). 6See Bureau of Land Management, 2021 Coastal Plain Lease Sale Bid Recap (Jan. 6, 2021). 

[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

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

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

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. 
138 

7Supra note 2. 8 Id. 9Draft Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement at § 1.3. 10Tax Act at § 20001(b)(3). 11 42 U.S.C. § 6506a(k)(2). 12 Id. at § 6506a(i). 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. 14 Id. 

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

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. 

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

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. 

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 
139 

15Letter from Bureau of Land Management to Chairman Pete Stauber of the House Natural 

Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (Feb. 23, 2024). 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. 

the deadline to conduct the 2024 ANWR lease sale as required under the Tax Act. 

BLM responded: ‘‘Yes, we will follow the law.’’ 15

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

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? 
140 

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 

Æ