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





 
                   EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL


      YEAR 2024 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

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Wednesday, April 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-18

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       
       
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
          
                           ______
   
             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 51-912PDF             WASHINGTON : 2023
         
          
          
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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


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

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 19, 2023........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     1
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Haaland, Hon. Deb, Secretary, Department of the Interior, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Funding for Wildfire Management: FY2023 Appropriations 
          for USFS and DOI, updated February 28, 2023............   104
        Sec. 70203 Presidio draft IRA bill, dated September 2021.   111
        Public Law 117-169, the IRA Act, dated August 2022.......   112

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Accountable.us, Statement for the Record.................   116
        Letter to Chairman Westerman requesting mark-up, dated 
          April 4, 2023..........................................     3
        Chart of Administration witnesses in the 117th Congress..    37
        H.R. 2333 (Rep. Biggs)--118th Congress...................    38
        Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service to Chairman 
          Westerman, dated March 31, 2023........................    39

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez

        Washington Post article titled, ``There could be millions 
          of abandoned wells in the U.S. Plugging them is a 
          monumental task,'' dated April 11, 2023................    61

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

        Willow Project letters, dated April 13, 2023 and March 2, 
          2023...................................................    75

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Levin

        Taxpayers for Common Sense--Issue Brief Oct 2021--Oil & 
          Gas Reform Won't Raise Prices at the Pump..............   118
                                     



OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET 
               REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 19, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Westerman 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Westerman, Lamborn, Wittman, 
Gosar, Graves, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, 
Curtis, Tiffany, Carl, Rosendale, Bentz, Moylan, Hunt, Collins, 
Luna, Duarte, Hageman; Grijalva, Napolitano, Sablan, Huffman, 
Gallego, Neguse, Levin, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, 
Peltola, Ocasio-Cortez, Mullin, Hoyle, Kamlager-Dove, 
Magaziner, Velazquez, Dingell, and Lee.

    The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come 
to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess of the Committee at any time. Good morning, everyone. I 
wanted to welcome Secretary Haaland, Members, and our guests in 
the audience to today's hearing. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any 
oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman 
and the Ranking Minority Member. Therefore, I 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.
    I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. 
Again, I want to extend my thanks to Secretary Haaland for 
being here today. Welcome back to the Committee; it has been a 
while. It is great to see a full house. The Committee has 
returned to its in-person proceedings and regular order of this 
Congress.

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

    The Chairman. We are here to discuss President Biden's 
budget for the upcoming year and how the Department of the 
Interior plans to use the funds that it is requesting from 
Congress. I have significant concerns about these proposals, 
starting with the fact that the Biden administration has yet to 
provide transparency on the staggering amount of money it has 
already allocated to Federal agencies via the Inflation 
Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment in Jobs Act.
    While this Administration seems content to just throw money 
at a problem and call it a day, we know oversight is essential 
to ensure each taxpayer dollar is spent responsibly.
    Take the Great American Outdoors Act as an example. 
Congress advanced funding to decrease the $17 billion 
maintenance backlog in our national parks and public lands. 
Yet, in 3 years since then-President Trump signed this 
legislation into law, DOI's backlog has ballooned by more than 
$14 billion to roughly $31 billion.
    Somehow, DOI has managed to spend billions of taxpayer 
dollars to make a problem significantly worse. It is high time 
we get to the bottom of these discrepancies and find some 
answers instead of pouring more and more money into a black 
hole.
    Unfortunately, lack of oversight was a status quo last 
Congress, as the Committee refused to hold oversight hearings 
on a number of important topics, including DOI's growing 
deferred maintenance issues.
    The Biden administration's performance was not much better. 
In fact, we received no response to nearly 80 percent of 
oversight requests sent in the 117th Congress. Secretary 
Haaland, I sincerely hope that you can answer our questions 
today. No Federal agency should be cloaked in mystery, 
particularly when it comes to spending American's hard-earned 
dollars.
    I would be remiss if I didn't also address the Biden 
administration's ongoing war on the American economy, which 
dramatically impacts both industries and communities across the 
country. From Day 1, DOI has shut down pipelines, delayed 
federally mandated onshore and offshore leases, repealed 
common-sense ESA and NEPA streamlining regulations, shuttered 
mining projects, and much, much more.
    Secretary Haaland, here in the United States we access our 
resources more cleanly, safely, and responsibly than anywhere 
else in the world. I hope to hear from you on what this 
Administration's plan is moving forward to provide American 
workers with certainty, reduce permitting roadblocks, and help 
us build right here at home.
    Unfortunately to date, the Biden administration's policies 
have focused on increasing our dependence on foreign 
adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran for the natural 
resources we can and should be producing domestically.
    In addition to strengthening our adversaries, failing 
Democrat policies are shutting down our economy, killing jobs, 
and hurting American families across the nation. I know that I, 
and my Republican colleagues, have many other questions on 
things like the Steel and Defined 30x30 Initiative, plans to 
address western drought and catastrophic wildfires, and how DOI 
plans to effectively manage access to the vast Federal estate 
that we have in this country.
    It has been almost 2 years since we had a chance to discuss 
these issues in person with you, Madam Secretary, so I thank 
you again for appearing before the Committee, and I look 
forward to a robust discussion with you today. I yield back on 
my time, and I now recognize Ranking Member Grijalva for a 5-
minute opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and before 
I go any further into a statement, I want to acknowledge you 
and the colleagues on this Committee on your side on the aisle. 
In particular, their concerns about the Chinese government 
potentially benefiting from the policy decisions we make here 
in the United States.
    One of the decisions I am especially concerned about is the 
impending land transfer of the sacred Oak Flat area from 
Arizona's Tonto National Forest to the Resolution Copper Mine 
owned by foreign mining conglomerates Rio Tinto and BHP. Not 
only does Rio Tinto have a nasty record of human rights 
violations, which many of my Republican colleagues in this very 
room have repeatedly decried, but we also know that Rio Tinto's 
majority shareholder is the Chinese government.
    Given the many concerns shared by both sides of the aisle 
on this issue, I want to reiterate my April 4 request for a 
markup on Save Oak Flat from Foreign Mining Act, and I ask 
unanimous consent to enter that request into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

  Letter to Chairman Westerman requesting markup, dated April 4, 2023

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                              April 4, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    I am writing to request that you schedule a Natural Resources 
Committee markup on H.R. 1351, the Save Oak Flat From Foreign Mining 
Act. My legislation would protect Oak Flat--or Chi'chil Bildagoteel, a 
sacred site for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and other tribal 
communities in Arizona, located within theNational Forest--from foreign 
mining companies Rio Tinto and BPH.

    You have clearly stated your support for domestic energy and 
mineral production and disapproval of dependence on foreign mining. 
Considering H.R. 1351 before this Committee would allow us to confirm 
that Americans alone should determine how we develop our resources, 
rather than the Chinese Communist Party, aligning with your statements 
during Committee meetings and H.R. 1 debate on the House Floor.
        ``The way we push back against China and the CCP [Chinese 
        Communist Party] is we produce our energy and minerals here. 
        And we for sure don't let China come to America and own any 
        kind of lease on federal lands--or private lands. We produce it 
        ourselves; we send it to our allies.''--Chairman Bruce 
        Westerman (R-AR), House Natural Resources Committee, on voting 
        YES to Ogles Amendment No. 31 to H.R. 1.

    In 2015, section 3003 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (NDAA) 
authorized a land exchange for 2,422 acres of Forest Service land to 
foreign mining companies, Rio Tinto and BPH, for the development of the 
Resolution Copper mine in Arizona.

    Rio Tinto's largest shareholder is Chinalco, a state-owned holding 
company for the People's Republic of China.\1\ In addition, it is more 
than likely that copper from Oak Flat will be traded on the global 
market, to the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party. Rio Tinto will 
extract copper from U.S. soil through destructive means and ship it 
overseas to be processed and sold--with no return for the American 
people. We cannot take Resolution Copper and Rio Tinto's promises to 
the citizens of Arizona and the country at their word. This proposed 
mine would not only desecrate and destroy Oak Flat's tribal cultural 
and religious heritage sites but also drain the already scarce water 
resources in the region and put water quality at risk from the failure 
of Rio Tinto's proposed tailings dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Market Screener, Rio Tinto (Apr. 2023) (online at https://
www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/RIO-TINTO-5254/company/).

    Rio Tinto and BPH have grievous track records of bad faith and 
destructive mining practices. In 2020, Rio Tinto was condemned for 
their mining practices that blew up a 46,000-year-old sacred site in 
western Australia.\2\ In addition to their lack of regard for sacred 
sites, Rio Tinto saw the failure of four tailings dams at their QMM 
mine in Madagascar between 2010 and 2022, leaving the community with 
water contamination and fishing bans due to water quality impacts.\3\ 
In 2015, a BPH mine was responsible for the collapse of a tailings dam 
in Brazil. Five million cubic meters of iron ore waste and mud rushed 
downstream, tragically leaving 19 dead and causing significant 
environmental destruction.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Guardian, Rio Tinto blasts 46,000-year-old Aboriginal site 
to expand iron ore mine (May 2020) (online at https://
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-tinto-blasts-46000-
year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine).
    \3\ Earthworks, Mining Industry Still Falls Short on Tailings 
Safety (Jan. 2023) (online at https://earthworks.org/blog/mining-
industry-still-falls-short--on-tailings-safety/
#::text=There%20have%20been%20four%20reported,but%20was%20denied%20by%2
0QMM).
    \4\ USDA, Resolution Copper Project and Land Exchange Environmental 
Impact Statement--Samarco, BHP and Vale Agree to Pay $5B in Damages/or 
Brazil Mining Disaster (Mar. 2016) (online at https://
www.resolu1ionmineeis.us/documents/boadle-eisenhammer-2016).

    Why should we let foreign mining companies with a history of 
operational failures and environmental destruction establish the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution Copper mine in Arizona?

    My legislation, H.R. 1351, would repeal the land transfer that 
would allow foreign mining companies Rio Tinto and BPH to establish the 
Resolution Copper mine within the Tonto National Forest's Chi'chil 
Bildagoteel Historic District, also known as Oak Flat. My legislation 
would protect this sacred site from foreign-owned Chinese Communist 
Party-backed mining operations and the citizens of Arizona from the 
planned bad-faith mining practices.

    You have emphasized your support for efforts that prevent the 
Chinese government from extracting American resources on both federal 
and private lands. It only makes sense for the Committee to support my 
Save Oak Flat From Foreign Mining Act, which will prohibit this Chinese 
Communist Party-backed copper mine from seeing the light of day.

    I hope to see the Committee include H.R. 1351 in the next markup, 
and I thank you for your attention and consideration of this important 
legislation.

            Sincerely,

                           Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member
                                     Committee on Natural Resources

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I would 
like to turn my attention and offer my heartfelt welcome back 
to you, Secretary Haaland. No matter the context, your presence 
in this room has always brought a sense of assurance and 
purpose, and we thank you for that.
    I can't help but think back to when you were on this side 
of the dais. Your historic election, which made you one of the 
first two Native American women to ever serve in the U.S. 
Congress, was a beacon of hope in one of our democracy's 
darkest times.
    Your calm, principled leadership as the Committee's Vice-
Chair proved invaluable as we fought back against one of the 
most corrupt, regressive, and extremist administrations in U.S. 
history.
    So, it is no surprise when the time came for President 
Biden to nominate someone who could steer the Interior 
Department back on course, he chose you, but to say the least, 
cleaning up the previous administration's mess has been an 
unenviable task.
    The Interior Department you inherited had been purposely 
and systematically gutted, demoralized, and diminished. After 
all, hollowing out Federal agencies is a critical component of 
the MAGA Republican signature playbook. To alleviate any doubt 
in that assertion, look no further than the GOP's recent budget 
proposal--assuming you can tease it out from the chaos and 
confusion Republicans are creating with their own needless debt 
ceiling hostage crisis.
    As Speaker McCarthy announced earlier this week, my 
Republican colleagues stand ready to pass a budget that would 
make devastating deep cuts to Federal agencies and programs 
that Americans rely on every single day. These cuts would 
deliver irreparable blows across the government, damaging our 
economic potential, national security, and quality of life. At 
Interior, specifically, these reckless cuts put Americans 
directly in harm's way.
    As Secretary Haaland detailed in a letter to the 
Appropriations Committee, the Republican's extreme budget 
proposal would undermine the agency's ability to fight 
wildfires, disrupt our efforts to address drought and secure 
water resources in the West, reduce support for Tribal Nations, 
create visitor safety issues at our national parks, and in an 
especially interesting turn of events, curtail American energy 
development by gutting the very Federal permitting offices that 
my colleagues consistently complain about as being too slow.
    In doing so, the MAGA agenda can achieve its ultimate goal, 
hobbling the Interior Department to the point of dysfunction, 
and then scapegoating that dysfunction as an excuse to give Big 
Oil and other polluting industries more loopholes, more 
handouts, and less accountability, putting the fox squarely in 
the henhouse.
    As we go forward with today's hearing and listen to what I 
am sure will be plentiful, and at times perhaps theatrical, 
critiques of President Biden's proposed budget, it is important 
that we keep this in mind.
    Needless to say, the budget and the policies Secretary 
Haaland is presenting today are a direct affront to the 
backward pro-polluter agenda Republicans are trying to ram 
through. Much to the GOP's chagrin, the President's budget 
request is instead a comprehensive, forward-thinking proposal. 
It is a plan that empowers Interior with the resources it needs 
to operate at full capacity, and it builds on the momentum 
Secretary Haaland has already gained in tackling climate 
change, elevating tribal consultation, and building the clean 
energy future we all need and must have.
    Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for being here today, 
but even more than that, I want to thank you for your tireless 
commitment to public service, for having the courage of taking 
the helm at Interior when you did, and for having the vision to 
rebuild the Department in a way that reckons with the troubles 
of our past, meets the needs of our present, and prepares for 
the challenges of the future. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back. Thank you.

    The Chairman. I will now introduce our witness. With us 
today is Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, no stranger to 
our Committee, and also sitting with her at the dais is Deputy 
Secretary of the Interior Tommy Beaudreau and the Director of 
the Office of Budget, Ms. Denise Flanagan. Secretary Haaland, 
even though you remember the Committee, I will remind you that 
under Committee Rules, you must limit your oral statements to 5 
minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing 
record.
    And, again, to begin your testimony, please press the 
``on'' button on the microphone. We still use the timing light 
system. When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end 
of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to 
please complete your statement. I will also allow Secretary 
Haaland to testify before Member questioning. I recognize you 
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                    INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Secretary Haaland. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, and members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify in support of Interior's Fiscal Year 
2024 budget request. I am pleased to return to this Committee 
today accompanied by our Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau, and 
the Director of the Department's Budget Office, Denise 
Flanagan.
    Our 2024 budget totals $18.9 billion in current authority, 
an increase of $2 billion from the 2023 level. First, I want to 
highlight several important proposals. These include 
significant reforms to support the wildland fire workforce, 
mandatory funding for future Indian water rights settlements, 
expanding Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting authorities 
to include the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Parks 
Service, $6.5 billion over 20 years from the Department of 
State to fund economic assistance under the compacts of free 
association.
    Let me begin with our Indian Affairs budget request. This 
Administration has made a steadfast commitment to strengthen 
government-to-government relationships with Tribal Nations, 
with a total request of $4.7 billion for Indian Affairs 
programs, investments will address missing or murdered 
Indigenous peoples, the legacy of Federal Indian boarding 
schools, and Native language revitalization.
    In response to concerns by tribal leaders for public safety 
in their communities, the budget includes an increase of nearly 
$86 million above 2023. We also request $1.6 billion for Indian 
education programs, notably the 2024 request for BIE 
construction will support seven school projects.
    Turning to wildland fire, the 2024 budget honors President 
Biden's commitment to address this issue and to assist 
firefighters supporting an additional 370 Federal and 55 tribal 
fire personnel. Complimenting the pay reforms, we also include 
a $46.4 million increase for fuels management activities above 
2023.
    These investments are crucial as wildfires were noticeably 
higher in 2022 than the 10-year average. Our budget's 
investments for reclamation in combination with the bill and 
Inflation Reduction Act will ensure reliable water and power to 
the American West. The reclamation request is nearly $1.45 
billion, which is anticipated to be augmented by over $2.4 
billion in other funds. Priorities include WaterSMART funding 
and dam safety. These funds will ensure we stay as nimble as 
possible in the face of drought in a changing climate.
    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 or threatened species. Our request covers $3.2 
billion in annual funding for conservation efforts that 
supports key initiatives such as wildlife quarters and youth 
corps partnerships. The request also includes $140 million for 
Fish and Wildlife Service partnership programs that support 
voluntary conservation on public and private lands.
    At the Department, science is our foundation. The USGS 
works with partners across the country to maintain 20,000 
groundwater monitoring wells, 11,800 stream gauges, and 3,800 
quake sensors, and directly monitors 70 volcanoes. The budget 
includes $128 million that supports nine regional climate 
adaptation science centers with university partners. We are 
also looking forward to the Landsat Next Mission that will take 
advantage of new technologies for global imaging data.
    When it comes to energy, we are excited to be on our way to 
achieve the Administration's goals to deploy 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind capacity by 2030. As of last month, BOEM has 
conducted 11 wind energy lease sales for areas in the Atlantic 
and Pacific Oceans. That is more than 2.5 million acres of 
commercial wind energy lease areas. The budget for BOEM's 
renewable energy program includes a $12 million increase for 
permitting.
    Onshore, BLM is also making progress to permit 25 gigawatts 
of renewable energy on public lands by 2025. BLM has permitted 
more than 126 renewable energy projects, processed by more, and 
is working to support much needed transmission lines.
    To meet these needs, we include $72 million for BLM's 
renewable energy program. At the end of 2020, Interior staffing 
was at a 10-year low of around 60,500. When fully enacted, the 
budget would support an increase of 4,000 personnel to over 
68,000. Regarding infrastructure, our request includes more 
than $3 billion for operation and maintenance. In addition, 
there is $1.6 billion in mandatory funding available each year 
through 2025 through the Legacy Restoration Fund. At the end of 
2023, our LRF program will have initiated 276 projects touching 
all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands. Those projects will address $3.4 billion of our 
deferred maintenance backlog, creating an average of 17,000 
jobs per year.
    Overall, the President's budget for Interior invests in 
programs to strengthen our nation for all Americans. We look 
forward to doing this work together. Thank you, and we are 
pleased to answer any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. 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 2024 Budget Request.
    It is an honor and privilege for me to be here with you today to 
speak on behalf of the President's 2024 Budget for the Department of 
the Interior. This Committee plays an important role in the success of 
the Department of the Interior (DOI). As the 118th Congress begins, 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 DOI serves 
several important roles for America. Interior's programs are important 
to the Nation's economy: generating jobs, supporting local economic 
growth, building resilience to our changing climate, and managing 
important natural resources. Interior is also charged with unique 
responsibilities and legal obligations to protect Indian trust assets 
and resources and provide direct services to federally recognized 
Tribes, Alaska Natives, and individual Indian beneficiaries to honor 
the Nation's Federal Indian trust responsibilities.
    The Department's 2024 budget totals $18.9 billion in current 
authority--an increase of $2.0 billion, or 12 percent, from the 2023 
enacted budget. The net discretionary request assumes Contract Support 
Costs and 105(l) Tribal Leases are reclassified as mandatory funding in 
2024 and are not included in the total. An additional $350.0 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. Within the 
increase for 2024, $438.5 million will be used to cover fixed-cost 
increases, such as rent and Federal salary adjustments needed to 
maintain Interior's core operations carried out by close to 70,000 
people living and working in every corner of the country.
    This budget allocates important mandatory funding available through 
the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), including $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 the Bureau of Indian Education 
(BIE). The budget also allocates $681.9 million in mandatory funding 
for Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs.
    The President's 2024 Budget complements the landmark investments in 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA). Those funds are providing the significant boost needed to 
address long-standing challenges, from reclaiming lands to tackling 
critical drought and threats of wildland fires. These targeted 
investments address specific objectives, but they do not supplant the 
need for the annual appropriations supporting our on-going base 
programs and operations.
2024 Legislative Proposals

    The 2024 President's Budget includes several important legislative 
proposals and technical budget adjustments.

    Wildland Firefighting Workforce--The budget proposes legislation 
and funding to implement significant reforms to better support the 
wildland fire management workforce. The Administration proposes 
legislation to establish a special base rate salary table for wildland 
firefighters, create a new premium pay category that provides some 
additional compensation for all hours a wildland fire responder is 
mobilized on an incident, and establish a pay cap that provides waiver 
authority to the Secretary using specific criteria. The budget supports 
this legislative proposal with funding for these Federal pay reforms 
and similar pay increases for Tribal personnel. These proposals build 
upon the historic reforms in BIL to ensure wildland fire personnel 
receive the enhanced support they need to meet evolving mission demands 
as both the frequency and intensity of catastrophic wildfires are 
expected to continue to increase due to climate change.

    Indian Water Rights Settlements--Building upon investments in the 
BIL, the budget proposes $2.5 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 
$340.0 million in mandatory funding over 10 years for ongoing costs 
including operations and maintenance costs associated with enacted 
water settlements managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (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.

    Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting Authority--The budget 
proposes to expand Good Neighbor and Stewardship Contracting 
authorities currently available to BLM and the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) to include FWS and NPS. Including these bureaus would allow them 
to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with States, Tribes, 
and counties to perform watershed restoration and forest management 
services on bureau lands. Expanding stewardship contracting authority 
would enable FWS and NPS to enter into stewardship contracts or 
agreements to achieve bureau land and resource management goals. These 
contracts enable agencies to apply the value of timber or other forest 
products removed from the lands as an offset against the cost of land 
and resource management services provided through the agreement. The 
budget also proposes appropriations language to extend current Good 
Neighbor Authority for BLM and USFS which expires at the end of FY 2023 
by 1 year.

    Contract Support Costs and Payments for Tribal Leases--The budget 
proposes to reclassify funding for payments required by law to 
reimburse Tribes for costs associated with carrying out Federal 
functions under a self-determination contract or self-governance 
compact, from discretionary to mandatory funding in 2024. 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. Section 105(l) of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act provides that 
Tribes and Tribal organizations carrying out contracted or compacted 
Federal functions 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. These legally required critical Tribal sovereignty 
payments bring Tribes closer to meeting the full cost to administer and 
operate Federal functions, including costs associated with the use of 
Tribal facilities.

    Compacts of Free Association (COFA)--The Administration supports 
funding the renewal of our COFA relationships with the Federated States 
of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and 
the Republic of Palau. The 2024 budget will seek $6.5 billion in 
economic assistance over 20 years to be provided through a mandatory 
appropriation at the Department of State, with language calling for 
continued implementation by the Department of the Interior. The total 
amount requested as part of a COFA mandatory proposal will also include 
$634 million for continued U.S. Postal Service services to the Freely 
Associated States (FAS). Funding for postal services will be requested 
as a direct payment to the Postal Service Fund. The United States 
remains committed to its long-standing partnerships with the 
governments and the people of the FAS as we work together to promote a 
free and open Indo-Pacific.

    Injurious Species--The budget supports congressional efforts to 
amend Title 18 of the Lacey Act to return the long-standing authority 
of FWS to prohibit interstate transports of injurious species. Recent 
incidences of injurious species, such as invasive mussels contaminating 
commercial products, demonstrate the need to restore this authority.

                      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 
$4.7 billion for Indian Affairs programs, an increase of $690 million 
from 2023. The 2024 budget makes significant investments to strengthen 
Tribal Nations, their sovereignty and revitalization, providing new and 
expanded funding opportunities and resources for Tribes to manage and 
support their lands, waters, and communities. These investments include 
continuing support addressing matters deeply important to Native 
Americans to address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples, the 
legacy of the Federal Indian Boarding Schools, and Native Language 
Revitalization.
Investing in Tribal Communities

    The request includes $3.0 billion for Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) programs, an increase of $482.8 million above 2023 enacted. The 
BIA budget contains several significant investments in Tribal 
communities, including $78.1 million for the Tiwahe Initiative, an 
increase of $33.5 million from 2023. Under Tiwahe, a portion of the 
funding assists Tribes at selected sites to implement a tribally driven 
approach to deliver essential services more effectively and 
efficiently. Since 2015, the Tiwahe Initiative has focused primarily on 
promoting family stability though several Human Services programs. The 
Department's 2024 budget further expands Tiwahe in Social Services, 
Indian Child Welfare Act, Housing, Tribal Justice Support, and Economic 
Development programs.
    Tribal leaders across the country have expressed increased concern 
for public safety in their communities. Their 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 have been eligible 
for but have not received BIA public safety and justice funding. 
Interior's 2024 budget submission includes $717.1 million for Public 
Safety and Justice Programs and related construction, an increase of 
$85.8 million above the 2023 enacted level. That amount includes $316.3 
million for Criminal Investigations and Police Services programs, an 
increase of $42.2 million above 2023. At the increased 2024 level, all 
Tribes currently receiving funds would receive an equal share of the 
increase--including those newly participating Tribes that elect to 
receive BIA law enforcement services available in 2023. The budget 
includes $154.6 million, an increase of $18.3 million above the 2023 
level, to support the operational needs of detention and corrections 
programs encountering growing personnel, equipment, and technology 
costs. Complementing those operational increases, the budget includes 
$75.3 million for construction supporting public safety and justice 
programs, an increase of $23.8 million.
    The budget includes $385.9 million, an increase of $52.7 million 
above 2023 enacted, for Trust Natural Resource Management programs 
which includes Tribal forestry, irrigation, energy and minerals, water 
resources, climate resilience, co-stewardship, and other activities. In 
a separate account, the 2024 budget includes $12.0 million for a new 
Tribal LWCF Land Acquisition program. During LWCF listening sessions 
last year, one of the top priorities sovereign Tribes identified was 
having direct access to LWCF funding for conservation and recreation 
projects without partnering with or applying through States. Through 
this BIA program, Tribes would have the opportunity to acquire lands or 
easements to protect and conserve natural resource areas, which may 
also be of cultural importance to the Tribe or have significant 
recreational benefits for Tribal communities, consistent with the 
purposes of LWCF funding.
    During Tribal consultations and listening sessions on Federal 
Subsistence Management programs, Tribal participants consistently 
pointed to the adverse impacts the changing climate is having on Alaska 
Native subsistence practices and Alaska Native communities and the need 
to expand Tribal co-management partnerships and incorporate Indigenous 
knowledge into subsistence management. In response to these 
recommendations, the 2024 budget proposes to transfer the functions of 
the Office of Subsistence Management from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, along 
with an increase of $2.5 million for the program. The budget includes 
additional increases in the land management bureaus--FWS, NPS, and 
BLM--to support resource management associated with Alaska Native 
subsistence.
Advancing Indian Education

    The 2024 budget includes $1.6 billion for Indian Education 
programs, an increase of $209.2 million above 2023 enacted. Native 
students face stark inequities in access to education, many of which 
were highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic. To help address that 
gap, the budget invests in the day-to-day operations of BIE-funded 
elementary and secondary schools. The budget includes $508.7 million 
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 $98.7 million requirement 
for Tribal Grant Support costs to cover the administration costs for 
Tribes that choose to operate BIE-funded schools.
    The budget includes $189.6 million for postsecondary schools and 
programs, including $133.5 million for Haskell Indian Nations 
University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and for Tribal 
colleges, universities, and technical colleges; and $56.1 million for 
expanded Tribal scholarships and adult education programs.
    Addressing BIE-funded school facilities in poor condition and 
deferred maintenance backlogs at more than 180 schools in the BIE 
school system continues to be a top priority for the Department--45 
percent of BIE schools are currently identified as in ``poor'' 
condition. The 2024 budget includes $416.2 million in annual funding 
for Education Construction, an increase of $148.3 million over the 2023 
enacted level. The 2024 request for School and Facility Replacement 
Construction will support seven school projects. The budget also 
includes $160.1 million for facilities operation and maintenance, to 
help maintain the condition of schools. An additional $95.0 million in 
mandatory funding for BIE school construction through the GAOA will be 
available in 2024 to support the replacement of two additional school 
campuses. The continued emphasis on BIE school infrastructure 
conditions has produced tangible results, with two new campuses opened 
to students in 2022.
Meeting Financial Tribal Trust Responsibilities

    The budget includes $109.1 million to support the Tribal financial 
functions managed by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA). 
BTFA currently serves as the financial manager for more than $8 billion 
of Indian Trust Funds and provides services for 4,100 Tribal accounts 
and roughly 408,000 Individual Indian Money accounts. The 2024 budget 
continues to propose BTFA as a stand-alone bureau with critical 
independent functions for effective management of Indian assets and 
service to Indian Country. The Department held listening sessions on 
the future of BTFA, and the input received showed Tribes did not want 
to eliminate BTFA or its functions, and some Tribes would like to have 
expanded services from BTFA. The Department looks forward to working 
with Congress to ensure BTFA is fully recognized as a bureau to allow 
the organization to focus on its mission of serving Indian Country.

         Addressing Climate Challenges and Building Resilience

    The United States faces a profound climate crisis that is rapidly 
changing how we consider the future, evaluate risk, and protect 
resources. Together with agencies across the Federal Government, 
States, Tribes, and other partners, the Department of the Interior is 
working in real time to address the immediate and long-term needs 
driven by the changing climate. Catastrophic fire, flood, and drought 
events brought about by the climate crisis are increasingly top-of-mind 
considerations. These events demand immediate attention and resources, 
but long-term success requires more work to build resilience to better 
meet these challenges.
Wildland Fire Reforms

    The National Interagency Fire Center reports 68,988 wildfires 
occurred across the United States in 2022, burning 7.5 million acres. 
The number of wildfires was noticeably higher than the 10-year average, 
which has been consistently increasing. The 2024 President's Budget 
expands the Nation's response to the impacts of wildland fire beyond 
the near term to include aggressive longer-term actions. The 2024 
budget honors President Biden's commitment to wildland firefighters by 
taking significant steps forward in ongoing bipartisan efforts to build 
a more professional, year-round workforce, better aligned with the 
challenges of today's wildfire activity.
    Enacting these reforms is essential to meet the challenges posed by 
longer and more intense fire seasons while providing wildland 
firefighters a more livable wage, addressing long-term competitiveness 
and equity issues, helping prevent burnout and fatigue, and ensuring 
stable recruitment and retention. The cornerstone of these long-term 
reforms is a permanent increase in pay. The Administration proposes 
legislation to establish a special base rate salary table, create a new 
premium pay category to provide additional compensation for all hours a 
wildland fire responder is mobilized on an incident, and institute pay 
cap authority that provides waiver authority to the Secretary of the 
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture using specific criteria. The 
budget funds these Federal pay reforms and similar pay increases for 
Tribal fire personnel.
    The 2024 budget request for the Department's Wildland Fire 
Management programs is nearly $1.7 billion, including $1.3 billion for 
the Wildland Fire Management account and $350.0 million for the 
Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund. This request is an 
increase of $243.1 million, or 17 percent above the comparable 2023 
enacted amount for base fire programs. Of this, $72.0 million supports 
the pay increases for Federal and Tribal wildland firefighters. In 
addition, the 2024 budget provides an increase of $45.0 million more 
than the comparable 2023 enacted amount to increase firefighting 
capacity by an estimated 325 Federal and 55 Tribal full-time 
equivalents (FTEs). In total, DOI's request for wildland fire 
management will support an additional 370 Federal and 55 Tribal FTEs.
    The 2024 budget also addresses challenges concerning recruiting and 
retaining wildland firefighters with an increase of $10.0 million for 
Interior (and another $10.0 million for the Department of Agriculture) 
to establish a comprehensive joint Interior-Agriculture program to 
enhance firefighters' mental and physical health and well-being. The 
budget also includes a $22.0 million increase to repair, renovate, and 
construct housing for wildland firefighting personnel, which can be 
inadequate or unaffordable in certain geographic locations. To further 
build fire program capacity, the budget increases funding for aviation 
contracts and uncrewed aerial systems support by $20.0 million, program 
management for incident support by $18.3 million, and increases funding 
for Tribal contract and administrative support and Reserved Treaty 
Rights Lands projects by $9.0 million.
    The President's 2024 Budget, featuring this suite of workforce 
reforms, will transform interagency Wildland Fire Management by 
improving recruitment and retention and laying the foundation for 
further advancements. The Administration looks forward to working with 
Congress to enact this important legislation and the requested funds 
needed to implement these reforms in FY 2024.
    Complementing this wildland fire package of reforms, the budget 
includes $293.3 million for Fuels Management activities, an increase of 
$46.3 million above 2023 enacted. This request maintains Interior's 
strong support for a pro-active Fuels Management program to reduce 
wildland fire risk from burnable plant materials which can pile up and 
make fires burn hotter, larger, longer, and faster.
Supporting Community Resilience

    Persistent drought conditions across the West are exacerbating fire 
risk and increasing concerns for water availability. Prolonged drought 
in much of the West and low runoff conditions accelerated by climate 
change have led to historically low water levels in Lakes Powell and 
Mead, and many other reservoirs are also being affected by drought. In 
the Colorado River Basin, the period from 2000 through 2022 was the 
driest 23-year period in more than 100 years of record-keeping. Extreme 
drought conditions across the West are forcing very difficult 
challenges and choices to manage available water supplies.
    The Bureau of Reclamation's FY 2024 budget provides the foundation 
to meet its mission, and to manage, develop, and protect water 
resources, consistent with applicable State and Federal law, and in a 
cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner in the interest 
of the American public. Reclamation remains committed to working with a 
wide range of stakeholders, including water and power customers, 
Tribes, State and local officials, and non-governmental organizations, 
to meet its mission. Reclamation is requesting a gross total of $1.45 
billion in Federal discretionary appropriations, which is anticipated 
to be augmented by over $2.4 billion in other Federal and non-Federal 
funds for FY 2024.
    Within the FY 2024 budget request, there is $33.0 million for the 
California Bay Delta account and a total of $48.5 million is budgeted 
for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. Reclamation's Dam 
Safety Program helps ensure the safety and reliability of Reclamation 
dams to protect the downstream public, and the proposed budget requests 
$105.3 million for specific Extraordinary Maintenance (XM) activities 
across Reclamation in FY 2024. This request is central to mission 
objectives of operating 4 and maintaining projects to ensure delivery 
of water and power benefits.
    The FY 2024 request also includes $62.9 million for the WaterSMART 
Program, through which Reclamation works cooperatively with States, 
Tribes, and local entities as they plan for and implement actions to 
address current and future water shortages, including drought. The 
investments described in our FY 2024 budget for Reclamation, in 
combination with BIL and the Inflation Reduction Act implementation and 
prior year efforts will ensure that Reclamation can continue to provide 
reliable water and power to the American West, including staying as 
nimble as possible in response to the requirements of drought and a 
changing climate.
    As a land and resource manager for more than 480 million acres of 
lands across the United States, climate related challenges from 
drought, wildfire, floods, invasive species are real day-to-day 
considerations. Interior's significant stewardship mission requires us 
to be an active partner in ongoing efforts to understand, mitigate, and 
build resilience to these climate impacts on our natural resources and 
resident species. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) programs are key 
contributors to this effort.
    The 2024 budget includes $120.3 million for the USGS Groundwater 
and Streamflow Information Program, which maintains a nationwide 
network of streamflow and water level information collected from more 
than 31,000 sites. The information from the network is available online 
to help States, Tribes, natural resource managers, scientists, and 
emergency managers across the country with monitoring for floods and 
drought and with forecasting water availability for crops and natural 
resource management. The USGS request also includes $74.7 million for 
Water Availability and Use Science programs, which includes funding to 
apply fire and drought science to support natural resource management.
    The budget includes $63.0 million for the USGS Coastal and Marine 
Hazards program, which leverages field research, high-resolution data, 
and modeling to help communities plan for and respond to changes in 
coastal landscapes. Agencies and communities use this science to plan 
evacuation notices, inform city planning, and construct storm-resistant 
infrastructure. Others use program information to restore coastal 
ecosystems, developing infrastructure that can buffer future storm 
damage and coastal erosion.
    Interior is also working to address climate resilience in Tribal 
communities. The BIA's 2024 budget includes $48.0 million for the 
Tribal Climate Resilience program to support climate resilience 
planning, assessment, and adaptation activities. The program also 
provides funding for planning and design work for Tribal communities 
evaluating the need for or pursuing climate-related relocation. 
Building on the success of this program, Interior has leveraged BIL and 
IRA funding to join with the Federal Energy Management Agency and the 
Denali Commission to launch a new Voluntary Community-Driven Relocation 
Program.
    The budget includes $120.8 million for Assistance to Territories, 
which supports the Insular Areas through the provision of basic 
services and targeted investments related to climate change, including 
$3.5 million for work related to coral reef ecosystems and other 
natural resource needs and $15.5 million to promote renewable energy 
and grid infrastructure in the Insular Areas.
Conservation and Healthy Lands

    Interior manages more than 480 million acres of lands across the 
United States and is responsible for the protection and recovery of 
more than 2,375 endangered and threatened species, of which 1,678 are 
in the United States. This significant stewardship mission requires 
Interior to be among the leaders 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. Interior's 
conservation and adaptive management work relies heavily on 
partnerships and interagency collaboration to leverage information and 
resources.
    Interior's work to strengthen the resilience of natural resources 
through conservation, restoration, recovery, and adaptive management is 
a fundamental part of our mission. The Department estimates the budget 
includes $3.2 billion in annual funding for conservation efforts. This 
includes dedicated funding increase to expand natural resource program 
in the NPS, BLM, and FWS totaling $2.5 billion for critical restoration 
and improvements supporting healthier lands, waters, and ecosystems and 
their resident species. Within that amount, the budget supports key 
conservation and ecosystem management initiatives such as the National 
Seed Strategy, Migration Corridors, and youth corps partnerships.
    The 2024 budget also invests in conservation programs which greatly 
leverage Federal efforts by engaging a wide variety of partners. The 
request includes $140.3 million, an increase of $34.2 million from 2023 
enacted, for FWS partnership programs including Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife, Candidate Conservation, Coastal Programs, and Migratory Bird 
Joint Ventures programs. These programs support voluntary conservation 
on public and privately-owned lands--a key focus of the America the 
Beautiful initiative.
    The Great American Outdoors Act established permanent, mandatory 
funding totaling $900.0 million a year for Land and Water Conservation 
Fund programs to advance conservation and outdoor recreation. These 
funds are allocated to the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture 
for a combination of Federal land acquisition and grant programs. The 
LWCF programs support a wide variety of Federal, State, and local 
conservation and outdoor recreation opportunities in communities large 
and small across our country.
    The 2024 budget proposes $681.9 million for Interior's mandatory 
funded LWCF programs. This includes $306.2 million for Interior land 
acquisition and $375.7 million for grant programs. Interior's land 
acquisition programs prioritize projects as authorized for the National 
Parks, National Wildlife Refuge areas, and BLM public lands, which 
feature strong local partner engagement, protect at-risk natural or 
cultural resources, and advance the mission of the bureaus. In addition 
to the mandatory LWCF funding to be allocated in 2024, another $117.9 
million in GOMESA oil and gas revenue is estimated to be available for 
LWCF State formula grants.
    The 2024 budget also proposes $12.0 million in discretionary 
funding to establish a new Tribal LWCF Land Acquisition program in BIA. 
The program will enable Tribes to directly participate in the LWCF for 
the first time to acquire lands for the purposes of natural and 
cultural resources conservation and recreation access. It is envisioned 
this program would provide funds for eligible land acquisition projects 
submitted by Tribes, although BIA plans to hold formal Tribal 
consultation on the establishment of the program. This new program, 
together with the proposed mandatory funding allocation, and 
anticipated GOMESA revenue, increases Interior's total LWCF funding to 
$811.7 million in 2024.
Leveraging Science

    Interior actively incorporates science to inform and enhance 
delivery of core mission activities. The 2024 budget includes roughly 
$1.5 billion across Interior for scientific work and research. This 
commitment to science is evident in Interior's collection of natural 
resource data from years of day-to-day field measurements and recorded 
land, water, and species conditions, which help inform resource 
management decisions at Interior and a wide range of partners, States, 
Tribes, and the public. Interior is leveraging this information and 
applying new technologies and understanding to develop forecasting and 
modeling tools to inform and improve how we manage challenging 
conditions, such as water supply and demand or increasingly severe 
wildland fires. Interior also conducts basic and applied research to 
better understand and identify solutions to emerging challenges, such 
as harmful algal blooms, invasive carp, white nose syndrome in bats, 
and avian influenza.
    The 2024 budget includes $1.8 billion for USGS programs and 
operations, an increase of $288.3 million from the 2023 enacted amount. 
To provide timely, relevant, and useful information about the Earth and 
its processes, USGS works with a variety of partners across the country 
to maintain roughly 20,000 groundwater monitoring wells, more than 
11,800 stream gages and 3,800 earthquake sensors, and USGS directly 
monitors 70 volcanoes.
    The 2024 budget includes $128.0 million for the USGS Climate 
Adaptation Science Centers and Land Change Science Program, which 
provide information, tools, and science applications to meet current 
and emerging challenges that threaten the sustainability of natural 
resources and our cities, infrastructure, and rural communities. USGS 
has nine Regional and one National Climate Adaptation Science Centers 
across the country, which are affiliated with university partners. The 
centers work with a wide range of resource managers and other partners 
to address specific climate-related challenges to natural and cultural 
resources.
    Through the Landsat program, the country has maintained a 50-year 
observational record of the Earth's surface, providing invaluable 
scientific information. The Department of the Interior continues to 
work closely with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) to develop the upcoming Landsat Next mission, which will involve 
launching a constellation of three satellites into orbit at the same 
time. The Landsat Next mission concept will take advantage of new 
technologies, such as smaller satellites and improved sensors, to 
sustain consistent imaging data and deliver far more capabilities than 
Landsat 8 and 9, meeting more user needs with improved spatial 
resolution and faster revisit times. The USGS will also establish a 
commercial data pilot program to augment data from the Landsat 
satellites. The FY 2024 budget includes an increase of $17.0 million to 
support these efforts.

     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, grants 
and payments, and infrastructure investment. The 2024 budget maintains 
a consistent strategy to emphasize investment in areas that better 
position the country to be more competitive in the changing economy and 
environment.
    Congress has enacted historic investments launching Federal and 
private-sector infrastructure projects that will build climate 
resilience and create more American jobs. The focus now is on project 
implementation to put those funds to work as soon as possible. The 
Administration is coordinating efforts across Federal agencies to 
streamline processes as appropriate to responsibly get these projects 
underway. Interior is actively engaged in those efforts, primarily as 
they concern statutorily required Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit 
reviews.
    The FWS budget includes $171.4 million, an increase of $50.5 
million from 2023, to increase the bureau's environmental permitting 
capacity to accelerate and improve environmental reviews supporting 
responsible development of priority infrastructure projects funded 
through the BIL and IRA. In addition, the budget includes a new 
government-wide General Provision to expand authority beyond existing 
reimbursable and Economy Act authorities by enabling Federal agencies 
to more effectively transfer funds provided under the BIL to FWS and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service to complete permitting 
activities. This authority in concert with existing authorities will 
improve efficiencies and increase capacity for environmental planning 
and consultation to better support the implementation of infrastructure 
investments now underway.
    FWS will continue to advance electronic permitting efforts in 2024, 
and the budget proposes to consolidate all ePermitting efforts into a 
single activity to better manage the program's resources and provide 
additional visibility to this important effort. The program helps 
applicants properly identify and submit complete application packages 
and supports more efficient and effective processing. Although FWS has 
achieved a secure and modern system that enables permit applicants to 
apply and pay processing fees for permits online, work remains to be 
done to build and optimize features to better achieve efficiency and 
streamlining.
Moving Forward With Clean Energy

    The 2024 budget includes increases in offshore and onshore 
renewable energy programs building upon the tremendous growth 
accomplished by these programs the past year. We are on our way to 
achieve the Administration's goals to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of 
offshore wind capacity by 2030, 15 GW of floating wind by 2035, and 
continued growth thereafter. In FY 2022, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management (BOEM) approved the South Fork project, initiated 
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for two projects, published 
draft EISs for two projects, and began the environmental review process 
for the construction and operation of offshore wind projects in the New 
York Bight.
    As of February 2023, the BOEM has conducted 11 competitive wind 
energy lease sales for areas in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, 
representing more than 2.5 million acres of commercial wind energy 
lease areas offshore California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and 
Virginia. Together, leases from these sales have the potential to 
support 43.5 GW of offshore wind. BOEM conducted the first renewable 
energy lease sale ever off the California coast on December 6, 2022, 
and the agency plans to hold the first renewable energy lease sale in 
the Gulf of Mexico in FY 2023. The bureau is in the planning stages of 
identifying additional areas in the Gulf of Maine, and offshore the 
Central Atlantic, Hawaii, and Oregon. BOEM has also received 
unsolicited lease requests for areas offshore Washington and will 
continue to assess interest in those areas.
    As of February 2023, BOEM has approved two construction and 
operations plans, and those projects are under construction. BOEM is 
actively processing 16 additional plans and expects to receive one more 
plan in 2023. If fully approved, these 19 projects have the potential 
to support more than 30 GW of generation capacity and power 10.6 
million homes. The IRA authorized BOEM to conduct offshore wind leasing 
in the U.S. Territories. In FY 2023, BOEM will move forward with its 
lease planning process in Puerto Rico, and the 2024 budget includes an 
increase of $6.0 million to continue this planning in the U.S. 
Territories.
    The 2024 budget includes $64.5 million for BOEM's Renewable Energy 
program, an increase of $21.6 million above the 2023 enacted level. 
This request includes a $12.0 million increase to support permitting. 
The budget includes $92.8 million for BOEM's Environmental Programs, an 
increase of $10.4 million, which includes funding for environmental 
review associated with renewable energy projects.
    The budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 
(BSEE) includes $8.4 million to continue to support offshore Renewable 
Energy deployment and oversight. BSEE anticipates receiving more than 
40,000 wind engineering, construction, and other technical reports for 
review through the end of FY 2024. BSEE is working closely with BOEM to 
develop the necessary framework to ensure offshore renewable energy 
projects are implemented safely and responsibly.
    BLM's onshore renewable program is also making tremendous progress 
to achieve the Energy Act of 2020 goal to permit 25 GW of renewable 
energy on public lands by 2025. The BLM has permitted more than 126 
renewable energy projects in solar, wind, and operating geothermal 
power plants. They are processing 68 priority utility-scale onshore 
clean energy projects proposed on public lands in the western United 
States, including solar, wind, geothermal, and associated interconnect 
transmission line projects that are vital to grid connection. If 
approved, these projects would provide more than 35 GW of renewable 
energy to the western electric grid. In addition to the 68 priority 
projects currently underway, BLM has over 120 pending ending 
applications for processing when transmission capacity is available, 
with the potential to support 50 GW of solar and wind energy.
    The BLM is taking additional steps to prepare for this increase in 
demand, including working to revise seven interstate transmission 
corridors designated under Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. This effort involves amending 19 land use plans to remove 
barriers or conflicts in the currently designated corridor network to 
improve the siting, permitting, and review of electricity transmission 
projects.
    The bureau is also initiating a programmatic environmental impact 
statement in support of utility-scale solar energy planning. In light 
of improved technology, new transmission, and ambitious clean energy 
goals, the BLM is updating the 2012 Solar PEIS and considering adding 
more States, adjusting exclusion criteria, and potentially identifying 
new or expanded areas to prioritize solar deployment.
    The 2024 budget includes $72.5 million for BLM's Renewable Energy 
program, an increase of $31.6 million from the 2023 enacted level. This 
funding supports the bureau's Renewable Energy Coordination Offices and 
includes increases to build staffing capacity and support planning and 
permitting efforts to accommodate the surge in demand and workload. The 
request supports proactive programmatic assessments and consultations 
with FWS under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. This work will review 
ecological regions for appropriate renewable energy deployment 
scenarios in key areas where substantial renewable energy development 
interest exists. This approach is an efficient alternative to project-
by-project consultation. BLM estimates using the ecological region 
assessment approach will result in ESA project-consultation reviews 
completed up to 90 percent faster and deliver substantially improved 
species conservation outcomes.
Conventional Energy

    The budget for BOEM provides $72.3 million for conventional energy 
programs to support Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning, leasing, 
and oversight, including inventorying oil and gas reserves, overseeing 
ongoing activities, ensuring adequate financial assurances for 
decommissioning liability and risk management, developing and 
implementing the National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National 
Five-Year OCS Program), reviewing and administering oil and gas 
exploration and development plans and geological and geophysical 
permits, and conducting economic analyses and resource evaluation. The 
budget also includes $92.8 million for Environmental Studies, 
supporting conventional and renewable energy activities.
    As directed by the IRA, in 2022, Interior reinstated bids from 
Lease Sale 257 and on December 30, 2022, held Lease Sale 258 in Cook 
Inlet offshore Alaska. BOEM is proceeding with congressional direction 
to prepare two lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, Lease Sales 259 and 
261. The bureau is on track to meet the statutory requirements that 
Lease Sale 259 be held by March 31, 2023, and Lease Sale 261 by 
September 30, 2023. BOEM is continuing development of the next National 
OCS Leasing Program.
    The 2024 budget for BSEE includes $217.1 million for conventional 
energy programs to support 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, a robust 
inspection program employing an annual inspection strategy that 
includes risk-based inspections, and incident investigations. BSEE's 
budget also includes $30.0 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 risks to environmental health and safety.
    The 2024 budget includes $123.5 million for BLM's Oil and Gas 
Management program, an increase of $10.6 million from the 2023 enacted 
amount. The BLM budget also includes $51.0 million for Oil and Gas 
Inspection Activities and proposes to offset the cost of this program 
through the establishment of onshore inspection fees. Increases in the 
2024 budget support increased program capacity and support to implement 
requirements in the IRA, which modernized the Mineral Leasing Act and 
mandates collecting royalties on all extracted methane. In addition to 
administering oil and gas leasing and ensuring environmentally 
responsible development, the budget request includes funding to 
remediate legacy well sites in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska.
    The 2024 budget includes $13.8 million for onshore and offshore 
carbon sequestration programs in BLM, BOEM, and BSEE. Incentives 
included in the IRA are expected to rapidly increase interest in carbon 
sequestration, and Interior's bureaus are laying the groundwork to help 
ensure that these efforts are implemented responsibly and safely. BOEM 
and BSEE are working together to develop and publish a carbon 
sequestration notice of proposed rulemaking for review and public 
comment. 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.
Reclamation Jobs

    To complement significant BIL investments in abandoned coal mine 
reclamation projects, the 2024 budget provides annual ongoing support 
for other related reclamation activities addressing State and Tribal 
reclamation needs associated with abandoned hardrock mines, legacy 
pollution on Interior's lands, and economic development projects with a 
nexus to abandoned coal mine lands. These projects address legacy 
pollution--which harms the environment and often risks the public 
health of communities--while creating good-paying jobs, advancing long 
overdue environmental justice, and restoring lands for other uses.
    The budget includes $30.0 million for the Abandoned Hardrock Mine 
Reclamation Program authorized in the BIL to support State, Tribal, and 
Federal efforts to inventory and address legacy sites on their lands. 
Many States, Tribes, and Federal land programs do not have good 
inventories or strong programs to manage Abandoned Hardrock Mine sites. 
This program targets the need to build capacity and begin to address 
these long-standing risks to health and safety.
    The 2024 budget includes $62.8 million for BLM's Abandoned Mine 
Lands and Hazardous Materials Management program, an increase of $5.6 
million more than the 2023 enacted amount, which will operate in tandem 
with the national Abandoned Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program to 
increase efforts to inventory and remediate those sites on BLM lands.
    Interior has also spearheaded an Interagency Working Group on 
Mining Regulations, Laws, and Permitting (IWG) to examine the existing 
statutory and regulatory framework for hardrock mining. The group will 
identify and recommend potential improvements to Federal mining laws 
and mine permitting processes, while better ensuring new mining 
activity engages local and Tribal communities and meets strong 
environmental standards. These efforts will help promote sustainable 
and responsible domestic production of critical minerals that are vital 
to achieving a clean energy economy. The IWG has hosted extensive 
listening sessions to solicit input from a multitude of stakeholders 
and will be releasing its report with recommendations in FY 2023. The 
Administration looks forward to working with Congress in FY 2023 and FY 
2024 to implement much needed mining reforms that will ensure strong 
social, environmental, and labor standards while making improvements in 
the efficiency, transparency, and inclusiveness of the Federal mine 
permitting system.
    Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 
(OSMRE) works with States and Tribes to regulate active coal mines to 
ensure mining is done in an environmentally-responsible manner occur 
and to remediate abandoned coal mines to address health and safety 
hazards. High priority abandoned mine land problems pose an immediate 
threat to health, safety, and the general welfare of communities and 
can include clogged streams/stream lands, dangerous piles or 
embankments, dangerous highwalls, and underground mine fires, and 
polluted water. OSMRE manages the State and Tribal abandoned mine 
reclamation grant programs authorized by the Surface Mining Control and 
Reclamation Act and the BIL. In 2022, OSMRE invested nearly $1 billion 
in coal communities, including making nearly $725 million available to 
22 States and the Navajo Nation for reclamation as part of the BIL and 
$144.0 million available through the traditional, fee-funded, mandatory 
AML grant program.
    The 2024 budget includes $135.0 million for the Abandoned Mine Land 
Economic Revitalization (AMLER) grant program, which administers grants 
to 6 States and 3 Tribal Nations to return legacy coal mining sites to 
productive uses and foster economic and community development. The 
AMLER program has made more than $750 million available to the Nation's 
current and former coal communities to provide economic and community 
development and achieve reclamation of historic abandoned mine sites.

 Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion of Underserved Communities

    Interior continues to work across the Department to expand equity, 
diversity, and inclusion beyond day-to-day management policies to 
incorporate this concept in the delivery of our missions. This effort 
is consistent with the Administration's whole-of-government approach to 
advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity. 
Interior's 2024 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. The 
Department seeks to ensure that everyone, no matter their background or 
ZIP Code, can enjoy the benefits of green spaces and the outdoors.
Increasing Representation and Inclusion

    Reflecting the Administration's commitment to accessibility and 
inclusion, the budget includes an additional $10.0 million as part of 
the Increasing Representation in Our Public Lands initiative. Funding 
is included in the budgets of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at 
$4.0 million; the BLM at $3.0 million; and the NPS at $3.0 million. The 
initiative will provide support for recent or potential new 
designations that preserve important places and tell the stories of 
those that have been historically underrepresented, such as the recent 
designations of the New Philadelphia and the Blackwell School National 
Historic Sites.
    The Administration remains committed to efforts to strengthen 
Tribal Sovereignty including Tribal and Federal co-stewardship of 
Federal lands, waters, and wildlife, through collaborative and 
cooperative agreements with Tribal Nations. At the end of 2022, 
Interior and the USDA Forest Service had signed more than 20 new co-
stewardship agreements with Tribes, Alaska Native corporations, and 
consortiums. Interior's 2024 budget includes targeted increases to 
expand Tribal co-stewardship across the Department. The NPS budget 
includes $7.1 million 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 the FWS includes increases of $3.5 million to 
advance improved co-stewardship and engagement with Tribes on 
Indigenous Knowledge research and conservation planning. 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 Alaska Nannut Co-management Council, 
which is the FWS co-management partner for polar bears.
    Many of Interior's bureaus have dedicated Tribal liaison services 
to support Tribal engagement. The NPS 2024 budget proposes separate 
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 USGS budget includes an increase of $7.2 million 
for Tribal climate adaptation science as well as geospatial and 
geologic research focused on Tribal lands.
Ongoing Commitment to Diversity and Equity

    The Department is responsible for protecting and preserving the 
treasures of this Nation and aims to build a workforce that represents 
the treasures of this Nation--its people.

    In 2022, the Department published its first Equity Action Plan, 
which outlined efforts to advance equity through all DOI operations, 
remove barriers to equal opportunity, and deliver resources and 
benefits equitably to the general public. The Equity Action Plan is a 
key part of Interior's efforts to implement Executive Order 13985, 
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through 
the Federal Government, and Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing 
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The 
Federal Government, which calls on Federal agencies to advance equity 
by identifying and addressing barriers to equal opportunity that 
underserved communities may face as a result of some government 
policies and programs.

    In support of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility 
(DEIA) Action Plan, the 2024 budget includes program increases of $11.1 
million for the Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights; 
Office of Human Capital; and Office of Collaborative Alternative 
Dispute Resolution to do the following:

     Provide resources to the Department's first-ever DEIA 
            Council to coordinate, develop, and implement policies and 
            initiatives promoting the integration of DEIA across the 
            agency.

     Conduct barrier and workforce analyses and increase equal 
            employment opportunity (EEO) and DEIA training to employees 
            across the agency.

     Address EEO adjudication resourcing and compliance gaps 
            identified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
            resulting from two technical assessments of DOI's EEO 
            program.

     Improve the Department's Public Civil Rights reporting and 
            tracking capabilities.

     Strengthen the Department's Affirmative Employment 
            Programs, including the development of diversity and 
            recruitment flexibilities and assessment of hiring programs 
            to improve recruitment results.

     Expand capacity for alternative dispute resolution and EEO 
            complaint mediation.

    The budget also includes $2.0 million to coordinate and manage 
Departmentwide Justice40 efforts to help deliver at least 40 percent of 
the overall benefits from certain Federal investments to disadvantaged 
communities.

                        Building Agency Capacity

    Interior is strengthening the Department's delivery of core 
programs and services for the American people. Efforts related to 
improving Interior's workforce and operations and better leveraging 
technology and information are underway across the Department.
Interior's Workforce and Infrastructure

    Interior's mission activities rely on a talented and dedicated 
workforce, and many bureau operations are labor intensive and complex. 
At the end of 2020, however, Interior's staffing was at a 10-year low, 
with 60,558 FTE. Despite the pandemic, by the end of 2022, staffing had 
increased to 61,857 FTE. When fully enacted, the Department's 2024 
budget would support an estimated 68,329 FTE, an increase of 4,009 FTE 
from the estimated 2023 level. As the Department rebuilds its 
workforce, Interior is working to recruit, hire, and train the next 
generation of talented people who will reflect the diversity and 
strength of the United States.
    The NPS depends on a talented staff to carry out its mission at 
national park areas across the country. Over time, full-time staffing 
across the National Park system has eroded due to absorption of fixed 
costs and other challenges. As part of a multiyear effort, NPS is 
working to build up its full-time Federal staff across the park system. 
The 2024 budget includes an increase of $25.4 million to continue this 
support to build operational capacity across all park areas, the U.S. 
Park Police, and NPS Special Agents.
    Interior manages an infrastructure portfolio valued at more than 
$400 billion, which includes a variety of structures, including dams, 
storage buildings, and national icons. The Department is responsible 
for roughly 43,000 buildings, 115,000 miles of road, and 83,000 
structures. Operations, maintenance, renewal, and modernization of 
infrastructure are a significant focus of Interior's funding that 
directly help to create jobs and benefit local economies.
    The 2024 budget includes more than $3.0 billion, $40.5 million 
above the 2023 level, to address the Department's infrastructure 
operations, maintenance, renewal, and modernization needs. Interior's 
annual request for infrastructure funding is in addition to $1.6 
billion in mandatory funding available to Interior each year through 
2025 through the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund 
(LRF) included in the GAOA. Those funds are available to address the 
Department's deferred maintenance backlog in the NPS, FWS, BLM, and BIE 
schools. The USFS also receives up to $285 million in LRF funding each 
year.
    At the end of 2023, Interior's LRF program will have initiated 276 
projects touching all 50 States; Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands. When completed, those projects are estimated to 
address $3.4 billion of Interior's deferred maintenance backlog, create 
an average of 17,000 jobs each year, and contribute an average of $1.8 
billion each year to the overall gross domestic product. The 2024 
budget proposes another $1.6 billion in identified LRF projects across 
the country.
    In addition, the budget includes $53.6 million across multiple 
bureaus to support a multi-year plan to fully transition the 
Department's light duty fleet acquisitions to zero-emission vehicles 
(ZEVs). This funding will be used to conduct fleet planning (including 
ZEV integration), electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) site 
evaluations, EVSE installation, and ZEV acquisition. This planning 
helps to ensure ZEVs are integrated into Interior fleet plans; 
prioritize facilities for deployment; determine infrastructure needs, 
such as increased electrical supply and access for EVSE; and coordinate 
installation to ensure Interior can maximize the use of the charging 
stations across the bureaus and other Federal agencies.

Investing in Technology and Information Management

    The 2024 budget includes $4.5 million in the Appropriated Working 
Capital Fund, complemented with $200,000 in BTFA, to help improve 
Interior's customer service by better understanding our customers, 
reducing administrative hurdles and paperwork burdens, and redesigning 
compliance-oriented processes to improve the customer experience. 
Interior is targeting these efforts in four specific programs: Bureau 
of Indian Affairs probate activities; Bureau of Trust Funds 
Administration management of Individual Indian Money accounts and 
beneficiary services; FWS trip planning through fws.gov; and NPS 
digital experience and volunteer services.

    The 2024 budget includes $10.1 million to enhance data management 
practices and conduct program evaluations to inform evidence-based 
decisions. That amount includes $2.1 million to establish a robust data 
management program to organize data through an enterprise data 
inventory to better support analysis and evaluation across the agency. 
Another $6.1 million will support evidence and program evaluations of 
programs, initiatives, and processes across Interior to assess how well 
they are working to achieve the intended goals.

    To better support that data-driven work, the 2024 budget includes 
$59.7 million for the operation and maintenance of the Financial and 
Business Management System (FBMS), an increase of $5.3 million from the 
2023 enacted amount. The request includes funding required for ongoing 
operations and maintenance of the Department's integrated FBMS system 
of record. Modernizing Interior's core business system to ensure a 
strong administrative backbone is critical to the continued execution 
of Interior's mission activities.

    The 2024 budget includes $67.8 million to fund cybersecurity 
efforts, an increase of $23.4 million. The budget continues to fund 
extremely high-priority, recurring operations and maintenance costs for 
incident remediation activities and provides resources to be directed 
against emerging threats. The request includes an increase of $23.4 
million to support a Zero Trust (ZT) architecture, which will advance 
Interior's adaptation of a modern security model founded on a principle 
requiring 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 $23.4 
million increase is $5.0 million for a secure access service edge 
(SASE) solution, which focuses on securing access points to meet the 
required ZT security and performance standards.

    The 2024 budget proposes appropriations language to establish a 
nonrecurring expenses fund (NEF), which will allow the Department to 
transfer unobligated balances of expired discretionary funds from 2024 
and subsequent years, no later than the fifth fiscal year after the 
last fiscal year of availability, to the NEF as no-year funds to 
support specific purposes. The NEF will provide funding for critical 
infrastructure projects that may require significant one-time 
investments, such as information technology modernization projects. 
Those requirements often do not coincide with the timing of the budget 
formulation process and are difficult to forecast. In many cases, those 
costs either cannot be accommodated within existing funds or are 
emergency requirements that would otherwise require the Department to 
reprogram existing funds from other priority projects.

    The 2024 budget includes $185.4 million for the Office of Natural 
Resources Revenue (ONRR) to ensure revenue from Federal and Indian 
mineral leases is effectively, efficiently, and accurately collected, 
accounted for, analyzed, audited, and disbursed in a timely fashion. 
The request will fund additional staff and counsel support and 
strengthen ONRR's audit and compliance activities as well as expand 
ONRR's Tribal audit program to include agreements with two additional 
Tribes. The budget includes an increase of $5.0 million to address new 
royalty rates and other changes enacted in the IRA, which are expected 
to increase the complexity of royalty reporting and audit requirements.

    Interior's operations rely heavily on field communications which in 
some places, the Department's legacy land mobile radio system, a 
technology largely unchanged since the 1950s, is the first and often 
only source of communication. The 2024 budget includes $32.2 million 
for DOI's Field Communications Modernization (DIFCOM) as part of a 
multiyear investment which includes the BIA, BLM, FWS, NPS, and USGS, 
and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

                               Conclusion

    The 2024 President's Budget for Interior invests in programs to 
strengthen our Nation for all Americans, protect our environment, and 
ensure our future generations continue to not only enjoy, but improve 
our 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, 
                       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

BLM's Proposed Rule on Conservation and Landscape Health

    Question 1. In the recently published Conservation and Landscape 
Health proposed rule, BLM has two statements that appear to contradict 
each other. The proposal says conservation leases are ``not intended to 
provide a mechanism for precluding other uses, such as grazing, mining 
and recreation. Conservation leases should not disturb existing 
authorizations, valid existing rjghts, or state or Tribal land use 
management.'' The proposal also says that once a lease has been issued, 
the ``BLM shall not authorize any other uses of the leased lands that 
are inconsistent with the authorized conservation use.''

    1a) Will conservation leases be in addition to other leases or 
issued in a way excluding other uses of the land?

    1b) How will BLM determine lands eligible for a conservation lease?

    1c) What will take priority if conservation leases overlap with 
other possible land use, such as the potential for oil and gas 
development leases or areas for timber or grazing?

    Question 2. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $500 million for 
NPS and BLM for conservation, resiliency, and restoration projects. 
Recently, your staff briefed my staff on the implementation of this 
funding. The NPS and BLM are carrying out landscape sized projects to 
restore and conserve land, including post fire work. DOI confirmed 
their ability to carry out this conservation work without the need for 
any new rules, regulations, or authority. Why is the BLM pushing 
forward a proposed rule focusing on conservation and creating 
conservation leases when conservation work has been ongoing without 
such a rule?

    Question 3. How does the BLM statutorily justify the addition of a 
``conservation lease'' and giving this designation an equal standing as 
other uses defined within FLPMA while maintaining the requirements of 
FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework?

    Question 4. Is the overall intent of this proposed rule to reduce 
the acreage available for FLPMA mandated uses just as grazing, energy 
development and transmission?

    Question 5. How much staff time was used to write the recent 
proposed rule on conservation and landscape health?

    Question 6. How many taxpayer funds were used to write the recent 
proposed rule on conservation and landscape health?

    Question 7. Everything this rule allows BLM to do, they can already 
do.

    7a) Why spend staff time, resources, and taxpayer funds to create a 
rule that provides no new authority to do things already being done?

    7b) If you can implement conservation practices through other 
means, why is this necessary unless you are trying to retire multiple 
use through the back door?

    Question 8. How will the BLM evaluate and manage the conservation 
efforts that are laid out in the proposed rule? Will this process be 
done through RMPs and various land management plans, as prescribed by 
FLPMA, currently governing public land use?

    Question 9. It is clear BLM is already engaging in meaningful 
conservation work through stewardship agreements and other activities.

    9a) How many BLM acres have been conserved, restored, or treated 
with mitigation measures each year in the past 10 years?

    9b) How many acres does BLM expect this new proposed rule would 
include?

    Question 10. The recent proposed rule on conservation and landscape 
health defines conservation as ``meaning maintaining resilient, 
functioning ecosystems by protecting or restoring natural habitats and 
ecological function.''

    10a) Will you provide any other definitions of ``conservation'' 
used by BLM?

    10b) How much BLM land is currently considered ``conserved'' by 
BLM's proposed definition in this rule?

    Question 11. How many ACECs have been designated each year for the 
past 10 years?

    Question 12. How many acres have been designated as ACECs each year 
for the past 10 years?

    Question 13. Currently, ACECs can be nominated by anyone who 
believes an area is special enough to be protected. The agency's 
website says that these nominations are then ``evaluated through . . . 
extensive public involvement'' yet the proposed rule removes the 
requirement to publish the opportunity for comment in the Federal 
Register. How will the agency take into account the public and local 
communities' input if the public comment period is removed?

    Question 14. In the recent proposed rule, the agency states, ``. . 
. public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse 
impacts from climate change and a significant increase in authorized 
use.''

    14a) How has climate change led to fragmented lands?

    14b) What is the agency referencing as ``authorized use''?

    Question 15. In the briefing BLM staff provided Congress last week, 
they made it clear that grazing is compatible with conservation. How 
will the BLM proposed rule ensure grazing is not disturbed, displaced, 
canceled, or otherwise impacted by any conservation leasing system?

    Question 16. During the hearing, Representative Lee wanted 
certainty that the BLM's proposed rule would not hinder renewable 
energy projects on BLM land. You responded, ``Conservation and clean 
energy go hand in hand on BLM lands'' and assured the proposed rule 
would not slow down these projects.

    16a) How will you measure the conservation factor of different 
types of energy and mineral production?

    16b) If conservation is purported to go hand in hand with clean 
energy--such as large-scale solar projects that can cover large swaths 
of land and prevent grass and trees from growing, would conservation 
then go hand in hand with conventional energy projects that have 
minimal surface area disruption?

    16c) While you said that the rule would not slow down renewable 
energy projects, would renewable energy projects be able to move 
forward on lands included in a conservation lease?

    Question 17 In developing the BLM's proposed rule, what 
stakeholders did you consult--such as existing leaseholders, 
stakeholders, state and local BLM staff, and state and local 
governments?

    Question 18. Will you commit to hosting multiple in person 
stakeholder sessions where BLM can hear from those impacted by this 
proposed rule?

    Question 19. Sadly, we see BLM has often failed to maintain healthy 
landscapes across much of the west. Areas are overrun and destroyed by 
wild horses and burros. Lack of active management on our timber and 
grasslands has led to catastrophic wildfires. The inability to actively 
manage lands has only furthered invasive species. These examples are 
the responsibility of the BLM and cannot be attributed to other 
multiple uses. How would this proposal help BLM be a better steward of 
places like overstocked Herd Management Areas and overgrown, wildfire 
prone areas?

    Question 20. Will those that secure a conservation lease insist 
that after they have paid money to acquire these leases that they 
remain in conservation status in perpetuity, even after the initial 10-
year lease?

    Question 21. If an oil and gas lessee is paying to produce energy 
with a royalty to the taxpayer and a solar right of way holder is 
paying rent to produce energy, is a prospective conservation lease 
holder paying to retire the land from multiple use?

    Question 22. Could BLM issue a conservation lease on surface estate 
when an oil and gas developer has leased the minerals below that 
surface?

    Question 23. Would an oil and gas company have to obtain a 
conservation lease or compensatory mitigation to develop minerals 
already leased below the surface?

    Question 24. If conservation use is to be on equal footing as other 
uses, why does the proposed rule state that the authorized officers 
will seek to prioritize actions that conserve (6102.l(b))?

    Question 25. Can you commit that the compensatory mitigation 
procedures outlined in the proposed rule would not be utilized with any 
existing lease holder, such as a company that holds an oil and gas 
lease? Can you commit to the Committee that your proposal would only be 
for future leaseholders, not those currently holding a lease?

    Question 26. Is active forest management consistent with the BLM's 
definition of ``conservation'', as proposed in this rule?

    Question 27. Can the Department commit that this rule will not 
affect the ability of the agency to manage its lands to reduce 
hazardous fuels to respond to wildfire, insects, disease, drought, and/
or overstocked and unhealthy forests or rangelands?

    Question 28. Is the Department considering placing any restrictions 
on the management of ``old growth and mature forests'' as part of this 
rulemaking?

Southern Border

    Question 29. How much of the southern border is DOI land?

    Question 30. How are you prioritizing Southern Borqer Fuels 
Management Initiative projects? How much land has been treated so far 
and how much land is anticipated to be treated?

    Question 31. Federal lands along the border are specifically 
targeted by criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers because 
they are remote, uninhabited, and less frequently patrolled. There are 
devastating environmental consequences of illegal immigration. Illegal 
immigrants leave behind trash, including human waste, medical products, 
abandoned vehicles, and plastic. What is the Department's commitment to 
ensuring the safety and conservation of federal land at the southern 
border?

    Question 32. Has DOI conducted an estimate of how much money 
Mexican drug cartels are making annually as a result of illegal 
cannabis growth on DOI lands?

    Question 33. What is the effect of illegal methamphetamine 
production and marijuana cultivation on threatened and endangered 
species and critical habitat?

    Question 34. Does DOI have an estimate of how many new illegal 
methamphetamine production and marijuana cultivation sites are 
established each year on DOI lands? Approximately how many sites are 
going undetected annually?

    Question 35. Please provide the following information for illegal 
methamphetamine production and marijuana cultivation sites addressed by 
DOI staff and partners each year over the 2000-2022 period:

    35a) The number of illegal sites identified.

    35b) The DOI units where illegal cultivation sites were identified 
(delineated by bureau and individual unit).

    35c) The states where illegal cultivation sites were identified on 
DOI lands.

    35d) The pounds of trash removed.

    35e) The miles of plastic irrigation line removed.

    35f) The number of containers of banned and illegal pesticides 
removed.

    35g) The gallons of water diverted as a result of illegal sites.

    35h) The value of illegal marijuana seized from illegal cultivation 
sites.

    35i) The value of illegal methamphetamines seized from illegal 
sites.

    35j) The number of illegal cannabis plants removed.

    35k) The total amount of money spent addressing illegal sites.

    35l) The number of arrests made in connection with illegal 
methamphetamine production or marijuana cultivation on DOI lands.

30x30/``America the Beautiful''

    Question 36. The FY 2024 budget for the Department of the Interior 
continues to support the 30 by 30 Initiative, which seeks to 
``conserve'' 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030.

    36a) Since we are now 3 years into the implementation of this 
Initiative, can you please tell the Committee the baseline metrics for 
how many acres of land and water are considered ``conserved'' right 
now?

    36b) Since DOI began implementing the 30 by 30 Initiative, how many 
new acres of land and water are considered ``conserved''? Please 
provide locations for any such acres and information on what actions 
transitioned those acres from not conserved to conserved.

    36c) Is DOI currently counting private lands toward the 30 by 30 
goal?

    36d) Does the administration plan to in the future count private 
lands toward the 30 by 30 goal?

    36e) How does DOI define ``conservation'' for the purposes of 30 by 
30?

    36f) How does DOI define ``restoration'' for the purposes of 30 by 
30?

    36g) How does DOI define ``30 percent of lands and waters'' for the 
purposes of 30 by 30?

    36h) How does DOI define ``equitable access'' for the purposes of 
30 by 30?

    36i) How does DOI define ``underserved communities'' for the 
purposes of 30 by 30?

    36j) Can DOI please provide examples of what is and is not 
considered ``conservation'' for the purposes of 30 by 30?

    36k) Over 1 year ago, the administration announced the $1 billion 
``America the Beautiful Challenge'' Fund with only $440 million in 
identified funding. Yes or no, will DOI use any taxpayer resources to 
back fill the remaining $560 million that have not been identified yet 
for this Fund?

    36l) Please explain the methodology and criteria for how projects 
are selected for funding under the America the Beautiful Challenge 
Fund.

    36m) Is DOI requesting any funds in its FY 2024 budget that it 
plans to use or transfer to support the America the Beautiful Challenge 
Fund? If yes, please provide the amounts and accounts DOI is proposing 
this money come from.

    36n) Can funds from the America the Beautiful Challenge Fund 
provided by DOI be used by a recipient to fund projects that acquire 
new federal land?

    36o) Can funds from the America the Beautiful Challenge Fund 
provided by DOI be used by a recipient to cover the costs of litigation 
in which the recipient is suing the federal government?

    36p) Can funds from the America the Beautiful Challenge Fund 
provided by DOI be sent to a recipient who is under active 
investigation by Congress?

    36q) Can funds from the America the Beautiful Challenge Fund 
provided by DOI be sent to a recipient with a history of human rights 
abuses?

    36r) Can funds from the America the Beautiful Challenge Fund 
provided by DOI be sent to a recipient who also accepts funds from a 
hostile foreign nation?

    36s) What procedures has DOI put into place to monitor waste, 
fraud, and abuse of funding it provides to the America the Beautiful 
Challenge Fund?

    36t) Are national monument designations under the Antiquities Act 
of 1906 consistent with the principals of 30 by 30?

    36u) Are wilderness areas consistent with the principals of 30 by 
30?

    36v) Are mineral withdrawals consistent with the principals of 30 
by 30?
Wildlife Corridors

    Question 37. On March 21, the Council on Environmental Quality 
released new ``Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 
Ecological Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors.'' The guidance document 
shows your office--the Office of the Secretary of the Interior--as well 
as the Fish and Wildlife Service, were part of the interagency working 
group developing the guidance. You have been aware of this forthcoming 
direction from the White House.

    37a) How is the implementation of this guidance reflected in the 
DOI's budget submission for FY24?

    37b) If it is not reflected in your budget, how will it impact the 
budget request you submitted?

Energy and Mineral Development

    Question 38. For the last year, President Biden and Secretary 
Granholm have called on the oil and gas industry to increase U.S. 
production to help meet U.S. and global demand and both have 
acknowledged that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come.

    38a) Do you agree with President Biden and Secretary Granholm that 
oil and gas will be needed for decades to come?

    38b) What are you doing to resume regular lease sales and expedite 
permitting timelines to increase U.S. production?

    38c) Have you met with Secretary Granholm and/or the White House to 
develop an energy plan to increase oil and gas production to and reduce 
gasoline and utility prices for American families?

    Question 39. Congress gave the BLM the ability to save the agency 
time and resources by Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act by allowing 
for full compliance with NEPA by categorically excluding from redundant 
analysis those areas that met certain agreed upon requirements. Can you 
provide the amount of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) (broken 
out by Field Office) over the last 5 years that have benefited from the 
use of the statutorily authorized categorical exclusions under Section 
390?

    Question 40. Can you speak to the Bureau's process and analysis for 
evaluating the current number of active or pending APDs to permitting 
staff ratios, and the process for ensuring that staffing numbers remain 
in parody with application volumes?

    Question 41. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and more specifically, 
the BLM's Onshore Order No. 1, require DOI to approve or deny an APD 
within 30 days upon receipt of a complete APD package or defer the 
decision and list the actions needed for approval; however, the current 
review process frequently requires many months if not multiple years.

    41a) What percentage of APDs has BLM approved within 30 days of 
receipt under this administration?

    41b) What is currently the reported BLM backlog of unprocessed 
APDs? Please provide a record of this by State Office, along with 
trends of such permit backlog over the past two Administrations.

    41c) What is the current APD issuance average timeline by Field 
Office?

    Question 42. The BLM recently released its oil and gas statistics 
and within that data it states that in 2022 BLM waited on operators for 
an average of 162 days. Can you define what is categorized as ``waiting 
on an operator'' and whether court delays or other matters outside of 
an operators control are included within this number?

    Question 43. The BLM and the EPA both recently issued regulations 
related to methane. These complex and lengthy rules have potential 
regulatory overlap, and the same industries were asked to assess these 
rules simultaneously with some public meetings even occurring at the 
same times. Why did the Department choose not to extend the comment 
period for the BLM's ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 
Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' Rule?

    Question 44. In BLM's ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject to 
Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' Rule and EPA's NSPS OOOOb/c 
Rule, both agencies are both proposing similar requirements in some 
cases. Not only does it create duplicative requirements on the same 
facilities AND for the same purposes, but also in the cost-benefit 
analysis each agency is claiming the same emission reduction and 
benefits of the same action occurring (i.e. double counting). Can you 
explain how BLM is expecting emission reduction if the EPA rule already 
requires the same action occur?

    Question 45. In regards to certain permits to drill:

    45a) Why is the BLM not issuing permits to drill on the 3,300 valid 
leases sold between February 2015 and December 2020 after the 
settlement agreement issued by Judge Contreras' court, as allowed by 
such agreement?

    45b) The court has never vacated these leases and there are no 
legal restrictions on issuing permits. Can you please provide this 
Committee with a State-by-State breakdown of how many permits are 
currently deferred due to this litigation?

    Question 46. When will the Supplemental Environmental Assessment 
Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Related to Oil and Gas Leasing in 
Seven States from February 2015 to December 2020; DOI-BLM-WO-3100-2023-
0001-EA be complete?

    Question 47. With regard to the Expression of Interest provisions 
in the IRA:

    47a) How does the DOI plan to spend money associated with the 
Expression of Interest provisions contained in the Inflation Reduction 
Act?

    47b) Is there a plan to refund the EOI fees if multiple companies 
submitted EOI fees, and one of those companies lost in a multi-bidder 
scenario? If not, what is the plan for those funds?

    Question 48. BLM's APD reports are missing for October and November 
2022, due to a database reconciliation error.

    48a) Why are these reports not available on the Bureau of Land 
Management's website?

    48b) Please provide these reports to the Committee.

    Question 49. In response to questioning at the hearing, you stated 
that BLM has approved 20 new mines or mine modifications or expansions 
since 2021.

    49a) What were those new mines, mine modifications, or mine 
expansions?

    49b) How many were related to projects for critical minerals?

    Question 50. Have there been any new coal leases or lease 
modifications approved, either for thermal or met coal, under your 
leadership at the Department of the Interior?

    Question 51. How many coal lease or lease modification applications 
are currently pending before the Department of the Interior, and how 
long have those applications been pending?

Wildfires and Forest and Rangeland Management

    Question 52. Please provide the amount of acreage treated by the 
Department (delineated by bureau) to reduce hazardous fuels on DOI 
lands for each of the past 10 years.

    Question 53. How many acres of land does DOI plan to treat in FY 
2024 on its lands?

    Question 54. Why does the Department not publish hazardous fuels 
reduction treatments completed in prior years on a publicly available 
website?

    Question 55. Will the Department commit to publishing hazardous 
fuels reduction treatments it completes on an annual basis on its 
website?

    Question 56. How many acres of DOI land does the Department plan to 
treat to reduce hazardous fuels on its lands over the next 5 years?

    Question 57. When the Department is reporting hazardous fuels 
reduction treatments it completes, does the Department ever record the 
same acre more than once? If yes, what is the acreage the Department 
treated last year, only accounting for each acre treated once?

    Question 58. The FY 2024 budget proposes extending Good Neighbor 
Authority (GNA) and Stewardship Contracting to NPS and USFWS.

    58a) How will GNA help these agencies reduce wildfire risk and 
restore forest and rangeland health?

    58b) How will Stewardship Contracting help these agencies reduce 
wildfire risk and restore forest health?

DOI Telework and Personnel Policies

    Question 59. With regards to BLM onboarding procedures:

    59a) Can you provide an overview of the current onboarding process 
for new hires within the BLM?

    59b) Will you provide an assessment of the current onboarding 
timeline associated with candidate recruitment for listed BLM 
positions? Please break out the results by State office and further by 
field office.

    Question 60. On July 23, 2021, the Department of the Interior 
released Personnel Bulletin No: 21-07, which outlined a Telework 
Program, not to be confused with a remote or mobile work programs, in 
response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The policy applies to all DOI 
employees, including supervisors. In the 4th District of Arkansas, many 
of my constituents, from farmers to front line health care workers to 
grocery clerks stayed on the job, not missing a beat, in person, day in 
and day out over the last three years. Unfortunately, the same cannot 
be said for the 70,000 plus employees of the Department of the 
Interior. Even in my hometown of Hot Springs, the local NPS 
Administration buildings remain frustratingly closed to visitors.

    60a) Despite record investment in infrastructure, deferred 
maintenance, and staffing, reports of understaffing and closures 
continue. How many employees, or percentage of employees, are expected 
to report to their primary duty stations, not at home, in person, on a 
daily basis?

    60b) What percentage of public lands that are authorized to collect 
fees, such as parks and campgrounds, are currently staffed full-time, 
with hours that mirror the pandemic baseline?

    60c) For areas that are no longer open or have shorter hours, what 
factors do you attribute the ongoing closures to?

    Question 61. Two weeks ago, President Biden signed Dr. Gosar's bill 
into law ending the COVID-19 public health emergency and the Office of 
Management and Budget released guidance to Departments to bring 
employees back into the office. You testified during the hearing that 
you have not yet issued guidance directing DOI employees to return to 
the office.

    61a) Will you commit to issuing guidance to DOI employees to return 
full-time to in-person work? If yes, when will you issue this guidance?

    61b) Please tell the Committee how many DOI employees worked in 
person at the Department of the Interior on April 19, 2023 and what 
percentage worked virtually from home.

National Parks


    Question 62. As the National Park Service continues to implement 
the Great American Outdoors Act and address its outstanding maintenance 
backlog, what steps is the Service taking to ensure that its 
construction and maintenance cost estimating data is accurate and up to 
date?

    Question 63. The Department's deferred maintenance backlog has 
grown to a staggering $31 billion, a $14 billion increase since the 
passage of the Great American Outdoors Act.

    63a) Have you issued any guidance to your senior department 
leadership or the heads of individual bureaus to start more 
aggressively implementing deferred maintenance projects to reduce the 
backlog?

    63b) What is the Department doing to ensure that deferred 
maintenance backlogs at DOI agencies start decreasing?

    Question 64. During the hearing, you testified that you transferred 
$200 million to the Presidio in accordance with the ``Congressional 
intent'' of the Inflation Reduction Act.

    64a) Please explain why you believed this to be ``Congressional 
intent''.

    64b) How did the Department come to the understanding this was the 
intent of Congress?

    64c) Did the Department evaluate the fact that Congress 
specifically amended the language in the final, passed version of the 
Inflation Reduction Act to remove all references to the Presidio in 
determining ``Congressional intent''?

    64d) Did the Department evaluate any statements or amendments made 
during the September 2021 Committee markup of a draft version of budget 
reconciliation instructions (which later became the Inflation Reduction 
Act) when determining ``Congressional intent''?

    64e) Does the Department have any written policy on how it 
typically assesses and implements laws based on ``Congressional 
intent''?

        i) If yes, please provide that policy and explain how this 
        transfer was consistent with the written policy.

        ii) If no, please provide a justification of why the Department 
        spent $200 million of taxpayer funding based on a concept for 
        which it has no written policy.

    64f) Did anybody in the White House direct this transfer of funding 
or was this a decision made by the Department?

    64g) Why did DOI not use the proper process typically used by NPS 
to select priority deferred maintenance projects under the Great 
American Outdoors Act?

    64h) If DOI had used the process NPS typically uses to select 
deferred maintenance funding, would the $200 million have still been 
transferred to the Presidio?

    64i) Prior to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, was the 
Department planning to transfer any taxpayer funding to the Presidio 
Trust?

    Question 65. I have heard concerns from Members of the Montana 
delegation and would like to ask the following question on behalf of 
Congressman Zinke:

        The rights of private property owners in Glacier National Park 
        have been in the news recently. As you may be aware the Park 
        has been locking private landowners out of their property and 
        homes and going so far as to instruct the local public utility 
        Co-op to turn off their electricity for months at a time. These 
        are the very same homes these citizens pay property taxes on. 
        These are citizens who under the Glacier Park enabling act are 
        entitled to ``the full use and enjoyment' of their land. And 
        yet the Park has locked them out and denied them basic rights 
        of access and enjoyment which should be available to all 
        citizens. Do you condone the Park's actions of taking away the 
        rights of these citizens and property owners?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. In the hearing, Republicans claimed the administration 
is proposing major cuts to wildland fire funding. Would you please 
explain?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Section 7.5.2 of the 2016 Klamath Hydroelectric 
Settlement Agreement \1\ commits the Bureau of Reclamation to accept 
title to Keno Dam when the Klamath River Renewal Corporation gives 
notice that removal of the J.C. Boyle facility is ready to commence. 
Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.2 provide several items of due diligence, ``with 
specific focus on addressing water quality, fish passage, transfer of 
title to the Keno facility from PacifiCorp to Interior, future 
operations and maintenance, and landowner agreements.'' Section 7.5.2 
also conditions transfer of Keno Dam on the completion of necessary 
improvements to meet Department of the Interior Directives and 
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://klamathrenewal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/
2016.12.31-Executed-and-Amended-Final-KHSA.pdf

    Reclamation's FY 2024 budget justification states that title to the 
dam will be transferred in FY 2024. The budget justification also 
requests $2.5 million for several Keno Dam studies that are required 
prior to Reclamation taking ownership. Specifically, the budget 
justifications state that ``funding will support required studies and 
assessments associated with Keno Dam operations and maintenance needs, 
to include a condition assessment report (including seismic studies), 
appraisal study report (including physical design modeling for 
volitional fish passage options on alternative structures), and 
completion of a feasibility study.'' \2\ Estimates shared with the 
Committee suggest that the costs range from $80 to $100 million. With 
that in mind:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ USBR, FY 2024 Budget Justification at page 433.

    1a) Given that Section 7.5 has been part of the KHSA for over 
thirteen years, what studies, if any, has Reclamation already 
completed? Please provide a copy of those studies to the Committee. If 
not, will Reclamation complete these studies, which ``are required 
prior to Reclamation taking ownership,'' \3\ prior to taking ownership 
of Keno Dam in FY 2024 as stated in the Budget Justifications?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ USBR, FY 2024 Budget Justification at page 382.

    1b) If Congress provides no specific funding for identified 
studies, how will that affect Reclamation's plans to take title of Keno 
Dam? For example, will the agency request reprogramming of all or some 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the funding necessary from other accounts?

    1c) Without additional funds from Congress, or a determination/
denial of reprogrammed funds, what actions will Reclamation complete in 
order to take title Keno Dam?

    1d) What improvements to Keno Pam has Reclamation identified as 
being necessary or potentially necessary for operations and maintenance 
needs?

    1e) Has Reclamation completed any estimate of the costs associated 
with the improvements referenced in question (d)? If so, provide a copy 
of the estimates.

    1f) Does Keno Dam currently have adequate anadromous fish passage 
necessary taking into consideration the pending Klamath dam removals?

    1g) Does Reclamation anticipate taking title prior to any 
improvements to Keno Dam?

    Question 2. For these questions, the term ``Keno Costs'' includes 
studies, improvements, rehabilitation, upgrades, operation and 
maintenance, and fish passage modifications including both investment 
and operation and maintenance.

    2a) Does the Department of the Interior guarantee that the 
``covered contractors'' under the Klamath Power and Facilities 
Agreement will not be responsible for paying any Keno Costs incurred?

    2b) Has the Department of the Interior identified who will pay for 
the Keno Costs? If so, who?

    2c) What level of certainty, regarding the incurred Keno Costs, 
does Reclamation expect to have when it takes title to the facility?

    Question 3. As it pertains to the entire Klamath River, has 
Congress been asked, or will Congress be asked, to provide funding for 
mitigation of the impacts to recreation connected to the Klamath dam 
removals, or the addition of any kind of new recreation facility that 
would not have been needed or proposed but for dam removal, and if so, 
what is the cost and when was or will the request for additional 
funding be made?

    Question 4. A 2008 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service final rule applied 
the agency's Wildlife Import/Export Licensing requirements to U.S. 
commercially-harvested ocean squid, calamari if you will, which are 
marine species managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service, not 
Interior. Since that time Congress, NOAA, and two Regional Fishery 
Management Councils with jurisdiction over this resource have taken 
issue with Interior's questionable definition of shellfish; the ongoing 
treatment of a sustainably-managed, edible seafood product as if it 
were a Lacey Act, CITES or ESA-listed species; and the associated 
inspection program which we are told is both cumbersome and costly to 
the U.S. fishing industry on the East and West Coasts. Clearly, this is 
a persistent issue and the intransigence of Interior to address 
industry concerns is well-documented. Please provide the Committee:

    4a) The specific nature and amounts of fees Interior has collected 
annually over the past 5 years from the U.S. domestic squid industry 
under this program.

    4b) Documentation sufficient to show how those funds are used.

    4c) Documentation sufficient to show any formally documented 
instance of edible U.S.-harvested squid being a danger to the marine 
environment or conservation under the Lacey Act, CITES or ESA.

    Question 5. In its July 2022 Feasibility Report on the 
Reintroduction of Sea Otters to the Pacific Coast, the U.S. Fish & 
Wildlife Service concludes this effort is feasible. In this report, the 
agency estimates the cost to U.S. taxpayers to be upwards of $43 
million.

    5a) Does this amount include the costs of research and annual 
population monitoring beyond 10 years?

    5b) Does this amount include the costs associated with NEPA 
analyses or for any future rulemakings and public engagement?

    5c) The same report states that ``additional work is needed to 
reduce uncertainty in the area of risk with regard to the potential 
socioeconomic impacts of sea otter reintroduction.'' How did Interior 
reach the conclusion that this action is feasible absent such critical 
budgetary and social and economic impact information resulting from a 
population expansion of such highly protected marine species in Oregon 
and California?

    Question 6. Within FLPMA there are certain Grant lands with 
specific management requirements that are unlike the Public lands. Will 
the management objectives for these federally designated Grant Lands be 
maintained?

               Questions Submitted by Representative Case

    Question 1. How does the Department of the Interior's budget 
further efforts to improve meaningful consultation between the federal 
government and the Native Hawaiian community as required by Executive 
Order 13175 dated November 6, 2000?

    Question 2. The Department of Interior's budget does not include a 
request for either mandatory or discretionary Compact Impact funding. 
What are the current estimated financial impacts on states and 
localities from hosting citizens of the Freely Associated States and 
what proposed policies does the Biden administration support to 
mitigate these impacts?

    Question 3. Hawai'i continues to be home to a large number of 
endangered species yet overall receives a low proportion of total 
endangered species funding. How does the Department of Interior's 
budget seek to ensure that endangered species funding is equitably 
distributed among all listed species?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Question 1. During the Committee on Natural Resources hearing 
concerning the FY24 Interior Department budget, I touched briefly on 
geothermal energy, however, I did want to clarify with you on one item 
concerning geothermal energy.

    Question 2. Geothermal energy is a carbon-free and baseload 
electricity resource, yet the permitting process for geothermal is more 
prone to delays than wind, solar, and other renewable resources. It is 
critical that the Department pursue common sense reforms to the 
permitting process for geothermal, such as expanding the use of 
categorical exclusions for resource confirmations. Is the Department 
working on updating its regulations to streamline the permitting 
process for geothermal resource confirmations? If so, what is the time 
frame to finalize such regulations?

          Questions Submitted by Representative Gonzalez-Colon

    Question 1. I commend the Department of the Interior (the 
Department) for including a proposed allocation of $41,662,000 to 
repair historic walls of the San Juan National Historic Site's 
fortifications as one of its Fiscal Year 2024 Great American Outdoors 
Act (GAOA) Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) projects. However, I note that 
according to information published by the National Park Service, the 
deferred maintenance and repair backlog at park was approximately $587 
million as of September 30, 2022.

    In Fiscal Year 2021, the Department proposed and secured 
congressional approval for an allocation of $8.2 million under the GAOA 
LRF to stabilize the cliff at the San Fernando Bastion in the San Juan 
National Historic Site. What is the status of that project and 
projected timeline for completion?

    Question 2. In addition to the GAOA LRF funding, what other 
initiatives is the Department pursuing to address and reduce the $587 
million deferred maintenance backlog at the San Juan National Historic 
Site?

    Question 3. In Fiscal Year 2023, the Department proposed and 
received congressional approval for an allocation of $3,763,000 under 
the GAOA LRF to replace the headquarters and visitor center of the 
FWS's Caba Rojo National Wildlife Refuge. The Department had previously 
secured $5,237,000 in Fiscal Year 2022 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for this project.

    What is the status of the project and projected timeline for 
completion? What efforts is the Department pursuing to ensure it is 
carried out in a timely manner?

    Question 4. According to information shared by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) with my office last year, the deferred 
maintenance backlog for the National Wildlife Refuges in Puerto Rico 
totaled more than $15 million. Per the FWS, this figure represented 
``an increase from the February 2021 total of $4.8 million due to the 
most recent Comprehensive Condition Assessment conducted at Vieques NWR 
in Fall 2021, which captured new deficiencies from real property assets 
that the Service has inherited from the Navy.''

    What is the current deferred maintenance backlog for each of the 
five National Wildlife Refuges in Puerto Rico? What efforts is the 
Department currently pursuing to address and reduce it, particularly 
for the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge?

    Question 5. The FWS is including $8 million for Maintenance Action 
Teams at multiple National Wildlife Refuges as one of its Fiscal Year 
2024 GAOA LRF projects. Does the Department anticipate some of that 
funding will impact projects at the National Wildlife Refuges in Puerto 
Rico? If so, how much funding would be allocated for such projects and 
what is the estimated deferred maintenance that would be addressed?

    Question 6. In Puerto Rico, the FWS administers five National 
Wildlife Refuges: the Caba Rojo, Culebra, Desecheo, Laguna Cartagena, 
and Vieques National Wildlife Refuges. In total they span over 22,000 
acres, including approximately one-quarter of the Culebra archipelago's 
total land mass and approximately two-thirds of Vieques. In addition to 
preserving important ecosystems, they support outdoor recreation 
activities vital for our tourism economy. However, I am extremely 
concerned about a staffing shortage. I understand the FWS currently 
only has 10 employees to oversee the five National Wildlife Refuges in 
Puerto Rico, whereas ten to twelve years ago it had 28 employees. This 
shortage creates a series of challenges that prevent the FWS from 
effectively managing the sites, protecting their wildlife and natural 
resources, and providing services to visitors who support the local 
tourism and outdoor recreation economy.

    What efforts, if any, is the FWS currently pursuing to address 
staffing needs at the National Wildlife Refuges in Puerto Rico?

    Question 7. Last December, Congress appropriated $275 million in 
disaster relief funding to the FWS to address damages from recent 
hurricanes and natural disasters. In September 2022, Hurricane Fiona 
significantly impacted the Caba Rojo and the Laguna Cartagena National 
Wildlife Refuges in southwestern Puerto Rico, as well as some of the 
FWS-supported Puerto Rican Parrot aviaries.

    Can you provide an update on the status of the $275 million in 
supplemental funding provided to the FWS, including where those funds 
will be invested? Have any of those resources been made available to 
address hurricane-related damages at the FWS's sites and facilities in 
Puerto Rico?

    Question 8. Last year Congress amended the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act to provide the Secretary of the Interior authority to conduct 
offshore wind leasing in federal waters off the U.S. territories. 
According to the Fiscal Year 2024 budget request, the Department will 
begin moving forward with its lease planning process in Puerto Rico in 
the current fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2023.)

    During the hearing you mentioned the Department and the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) plan to initiate the area identification 
process by forming an Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force. 
Could you provide additional information about the work this Task Force 
will carry out, including a timeline of planned efforts, and any 
ongoing or planned engagement with other federal agencies, state 
authorities, and local energy stakeholders such as the Puerto Rico 
Electric Power Authority and LUMA Energy?
    Question 9. The Caba Rojo National Wildlife Refuge is home to the 
Caba Rojo Salt Flats, a system of shallow and hypersaline lagoons that 
are considered the most important stopover for migratory birds in the 
Eastern Caribbean. The salt flats are also an important economic asset 
for southwestern Puerto Rico, attracting thousands of visitors and 
supporting a local salt mining operation. Due to recent storms and 
seismic activity in the region, the coastal features (mangroves, dunes, 
berms) that protected the system have been compromised by erosion, 
resulting in extensive flooding to the salt flats, in turn negatively 
impacting habitat quality and the viability of the local salt 
extraction activities. Hurricane Fiona's impact in September 2022 
resulted in further damage and flooding to the Caba Rojo Salt Flats. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service secured an initial $1.2 million to 
implement the necessary restoration efforts. An additional $5 million 
was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the 
America the Beautiful Challenge, which includes funding allocated to 
the Department of the Interior by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

    Could you provide an update on the status of the restoration 
project at the Caba Rojo Salt Flats? What is the expected timeline and 
what efforts is the Department pursuing--with its local partners--to 
carry out the project in a timely manner now that the necessary funding 
has been secured?

    Question 10. In both Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023--at my request--
Congress provided the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) a $500,000 increase 
to update the combined national seismic hazard model for Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which was last published in 2003. As you 
know, the national seismic hazard model for the contiguous 48 States is 
regularly updated every 6 years, and USGS has been working on updating 
the models for Alaska and Hawaii. These models describe the likelihood 
and potential impacts of earthquakes and serve as the basis for seismic 
provisions in building codes. According to information previously 
shared by USGS with my office, maintaining the funding level through 
Fiscal Year 2024 would allow them to deliver a draft Puerto Rico-U.S. 
Virgin Islands seismic hazard map in 2024 and a final, updated model in 
2025. However, I am concerned the Department's Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
request for USGS now proposes a $500,000 reduction and would delay the 
release of the updated seismic hazard model for the two territories 
until the end of 2026.

    Could you please explain why the Department is proposing this 
$500,000 reduction and delaying the release of the updated Puerto Rico-
U.S. Virgin Islands seismic hazard model until the end of 2026?

    Question 11. Is the Department pursuing any efforts to align future 
updates of the seismic hazard models for the territories with the maps 
for all 50 States? What additional resources would USGS require to 
achieve this? I note that House Report 117-400, accompanying the 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Bill, 2023 directed USGS to explore and submit a report 
on this issue.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Huffman

    Secretary Haaland, I want to share a few observations about recent 
Department actions regarding tribal consultation and gaming and get 
your thoughts on how we can ensure Tribal governments are properly 
consulted moving forward. Tribal economic development is of course 
important to me, but doing it the right way and ensuring the rights and 
sovereignty of other tribes are respected is equally important.

    Question 1. The Department is currently considering several 
controversial off-reservation gaming projects--in or near my district--
where frankly, there has been a lack of transparency about what rules 
are being used using to process these applications, or even considering 
novel legal theories for the benefit of an individual project.

    Question 2. In some of these instances, the Department has not 
consulted with Tribes that will either have their land or government 
resources impacted by these projects. And;

    Question 3. The Department is actively considering new regulations 
that would make it easier to obtain land far off existing reservations 
for tribal gaming by removing a requirement for ``greater scrutiny'' 
the farther a project is from a Tribe's existing land base.
    Taken together, I see a concerning pattern. Will you commit to 
working with me, and more importantly the Tribes I represent, to ensure 
that off-reservation gaming projects are considered in a transparent 
manner, through legal means available to all Tribes, and with respect 
to the views of the Indigenous inhabitants of the region?

             Questions Submitted by Representative LaMalfa

    Question 1. What steps is DOI taking to address the ever-increasing 
presence of illegal marijuana grow sites on federal lands, and can the 
Secretary agree that this is a high public and environmental safety 
concern?

    Question 2. In communication with the National Parks and monuments 
in my district, their big ask from us, is of course, more funding for 
staff. I have read that the National Parks have seen a 20% increase in 
visitation, but because of insufficient federal funding, NPS has lost 
3,500 employees, or 16% of its staff capacity. From a safety 
perspective and effectiveness perspective such statistics are 
unacceptable. Recent regulatory changes to parks seasonal hiring has 
made retaining and rehiring seasonal employees more difficult. Is your 
office working at resolving these regulatory challenges? What steps are 
you taking to make rehiring seasonal employees easier?

    Question 3. Are seasonal regulatory hiring constraints harming 
Wildland firefighter seasonal staffing?

    Question 4. Is there concern that purchasing lands for tribes with 
Land & Water Conservation Funds will curtail their use in the future in 
a way that will prevent tribes from using these lands in a different 
way in the future?

    Question 5. It's my understanding that a lot of the funding for 
this program has only been put toward planning costs. Shouldn't the 
bulk of any money Congress chooses to appropriate for this purpose go 
toward implementing plan and providing tribal communities tools to use 
to address changes in their community?

    Question 6. What experience, if any, does Director Sams have 
working for the National Park Service?

    Question 7. When a national park is established by Congress, 
Congress drafts enabling legislation that explains the purpose of the 
park and the justification for why taxpayer dollars are being allotted 
to its administration. Historically, projects that would not 
specifically meet the requirements of enabling legislation would rarely 
if ever receive funding. But now, under this administration, DEI and 
racial justice funding has worked its way into mandatory annual 
spending of parks, despite the fact that parks explicitly asked for 
permanent adjustment requests to fund staffing levels or infrastructure 
update needs, not DEI projects and fulfilling political agendas. These 
parks are in great need to complete deferred maintenance, improve 
visitor safety and carry out the basic functions the Park was entrusted 
to do. Do you read and consider enabling legislation when making 
decisions to fund DEI and racial justice programs over fundamental 
operational needs of the National Park Service?

    Question 8. I have learned that $13,594,000 in additional funding 
for racial justice programs was approved last year on top of the 
funding already set aside for DEI Question: is DEI a new statutory 
authority that justified base increase request? And how does this 
massive funding diversion contribute to visitor experience or address 
the critical infrastructure backlogs?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Wittman

    Question 1. The Chesapeake Bay is critical to the environmental and 
economic health of our region and the Commonwealth. Authorized in the 
bipartisan America's Conservation Enhancement (ACE) Act, the Chesapeake 
Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense WILD grants assist in 
administering habitat restoration, conservation, clean water, flood 
protection and other ecosystem services in our nation's largest 
estuary. Unfortunately, this program was not included in the Presidents 
FY 24 budget.

    1a) What was the reasoning for this program's exclusion?

    1b) What is the Department of Interior doing to ensure the health 
and sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed?

    Question 2. The Fish and Wildlife Service designates ports for the 
importation and exportation of wildlife and wildlife products. A 2019 
study recommended increasing the total number of designated ports from 
17 to 46. Despite this study, the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed 
to issue designations to the recommended number and currently only has 
18 designated wildlife ports. From Fall 2019 to Spring 2021, the 0MB 
Unified Agenda proposed an additional list of designated ports, which 
included Norfolk, Virginia. In Fall 2021, the FWS removed the proposed 
designated ports from the Unified Agenda citing issues due to the daily 
challenges Wildlife Inspectors faced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    2a) With President Biden Announcing the termination of the COVID-19 
national emergency on May 11, how does the Presidents FY24 budget 
request address the need for additional designated ports?

    2b) What challenges remain in preventing the list of additional FWS 
designated ports?

    2c) When should we expect a Notice of Proposed Rule Making listing 
additional FWS designated ports?

    Question 3. Since coming into office, the Biden Administration has 
taken steps to depress domestic energy production, causing prices to 
skyrocket and making America reliant on our adversaries for energy.

    3a) How does the U.S. Department of the Interior plan to engage 
with industry stakeholders and local communities to increase 
sustainable and responsible access to domestic minerals and natural 
resources for renewable energy projects?

    3b) What specific plans does the U.S. Department of the Interior 
have in place to facilitate and expedite the exploration, extraction, 
and development of natural resources and minerals on public lands, 
which are essential for the construction of critical infrastructure 
projects?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We will now move 
to Member questions. I remind Members that you will have 5 
minutes for questions. We will start with the Majority, and 
alternate from one side of the dais to the other. I now 
recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 
this hearing. Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. I 
remember when you used to sit right over there, and we had some 
good discussions.
    Let me ask you about a 9th Circuit case, and then I want to 
ask you about forestry. In the 9th Circuit case, Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, the litigants argued, ``if 
oil is produced from a project, the total supply of oil in the 
world will rise, increasing global supply will reduce prices.''
    Now, they go on to say once prices drop, foreign consumers 
will buy and consume more oil, so that part of the situation 
they don't like, but they do recognize that more supply leads 
to lower prices. This citation was used against your Department 
in the 2022 District Court case opposing Lease Sale 257.
    Both the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as 
Friends of the Earth, have said in their briefs that increasing 
oil supply will lower energy costs. Do you agree or disagree 
with groups like that, or anyone when they say that more 
energy, oil, and gas supply will lower costs.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, and it is nice to 
see you too, Mr. Lamborn, thank you. What I can say is that on 
Federal lands, oil production is up. It is at an all-time high 
currently. So, we feel we are doing our job to move those 
permits forward, and there are almost 7,000 permits available 
for drilling that haven't been used. Oil production is at an 
all-time high on Federal lands.
    Mr. Lamborn. Now, let me take issue with that, Madam 
Secretary. Despite rhetoric from this Administration and its 
Democratic Members here in Congress, anti-energy and anti-human 
policies have increased the cost of energy. When President 
Biden promised to end fossil fuels, production immediately 
decreased, as well as research, development, and exploratory 
spending.
    There is uncertainty that affects people's decision making 
out there in the business world. So, the result is this has 
reduced supply and raised prices. Even worse, this 
Administration has doubled down on its unreliable, renewable 
commitments which rely on cycling natural gas to make up for 
periods when the renewables are not producing. This increases 
the cost of energy.
    A lot of things here, let's get into it. Do you think that 
wind and solar are reliable enough or not reliable enough to 
provide baseload energy?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question, 
Mr. Lamborn, and, of course, we are working very hard on a 
transition to clean energy, because we feel--well, of course, 
we want to reach the President's goals for clean energy and 
that will take some work, so all of us are working on that.
    I want to reiterate the fact that oil production on Federal 
lands is at an all-time high. There are many factors that go 
into what the cost of gasoline is, and I certainly understand 
raising my child as a single mom that things are difficult 
sometimes, and we are doing our part to help reduce those 
energy costs by opening transmission lines, by moving clean 
energy forward. I know that that can be very cost effective, 
and we are going to work hard to get there.
    Mr. Lamborn. I understand that you have long-term goals, I 
recognize that. But to reach those goals when certain measures 
of the Administration reduce supply and increase prices, that 
has a human cost. Would you agree with me that raising the cost 
of energy for the consumer out there, working families, single 
moms, everybody else, has a human cost to it?
    Secretary Haaland. I recognize, Mr. Lamborn, that there are 
many factors that go into what the price of gas is, and for our 
part, the work that we are required to do in the Department of 
the Interior, leasing land, issuing permits for the oil 
industry, oil production is at an all-time high on Federal 
lands. There is more to it than that.
    State and private lands also produce oil, and we don't have 
control over every single aspect of our energy, but for our 
part, we are doing our part, we are working hard, we are 
processing those permits. There are thousands of permits that 
haven't been used, and a lot goes into what the price of 
gasoline is. It is not just what the Department of the Interior 
is doing.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize 
the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Hello. Good to see you, Madam Secretary. I 
have a couple of questions. One deals with the Colorado River 
Basin. It is crucial we invest in infrastructure in tracing 
water because of the drought conditions in Southern California, 
and all the six Western states. Can you tell the Committee how 
the budget cuts proposed by the House Republicans related to 
the debt ceiling would impact funding for water infrastructure 
projects that the community needs to get through the challenge?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question, and yes, any budget cuts with respect to how we are 
managing this terrible drought in the West will have a negative 
affect on the communities that we serve. I am proud to have 
Deputy Secretary Beaudreau with me today, who has been the lead 
on many of these issues with respect to the Colorado River. If 
you would like for him to sort of answer more of the question 
in detail, I would be happy to turn the mic over to Tommy.
    Mr. Beaudreau. Thanks very much. The Secretary is 
absolutely right, especially in these times of unprecedented 
drought and the strain that is on the system. What is needed is 
further investment in the Colorado River System in order to 
provide greater water delivery capacity and efficiency.
    That is exactly what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the Inflation Reduction Act are helping accomplish. To move 
backward by cutting our budget with respect to bureau 
reclamation and water delivery has the potential to severely 
impact the 40 million people who rely on that basin for 
fundamental needs such as drinking water and agriculture.
    Mrs. Napolitano. The other question I have is on the 
advanced large scale water recycling projects that I authored 
last year. Can you share an update on what progress has been 
made so far, and when will the money start to go out, will it 
be next year after the draft criteria is finalized?
    Secretary Haaland. I beg your pardon, Congresswoman, would 
you repeat the question please?
    Mrs. Napolitano. It is the new program that was started in 
the last Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, a new program to 
advance large scale water recycling projects, provide drought 
proof supply to the communities. The project was the Large 
Water Recycling Project Investment Act.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes. Thank you so much for that, and I 
know that water recycling--we are using every tool in the 
toolbox, of course, and know that we all have to pitch in to 
make sure that these things work.
    But with respect to the large scale water recycling 
program, the notice of funding opportunity for the program was 
released on December 23, 2022, with applications being due on 
February 28, 2023. A funding opportunity to allocate bill 
funding for this program is expected in early June, so just in 
a couple of months from now, and the Fiscal Year 2023 bill 
spend plan for reclamation includes $50 million for projects to 
be allocated under this particular program.
    Mrs. Napolitano. When will the money start going out?
    Secretary Haaland. It looks like the funding of the 
allocation will start in early June, so in a few months.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. I yield back to Mr. 
Grijalva, the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. I just want to 
ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record on the 
impression that was given that the previous Congress did not do 
any oversight hearings or the Administration didn't 
participate.
    My consent request is to enter into the record a chart 
showing that when we were in the Majority, Democrats in the 
last Congress, we called at least one administrative witness in 
one out of every three hearings that we had. That is 17 
different hearings.
    And I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
resolution from the Republicans that aims to cut funding to the 
Office of the Inspector General by 20 percent, which is not 
what one does when they are really concerned about oversight, 
and unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 
the Fish and Wildlife Service in response to a document request 
from the Republicans. It is about a program meant to help 
employees with mental health and stress, which costs less than 
$12,000 for six workshops. This was the focal point of their 
oversight, so if the Majority is serious about oversight, the 
evidence up to this point doesn't indicate that at all, and I 
yield back to the gentlelady.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

        Chart of Administration Witnesses in the 117th Congress

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 .
                                 

                 H.R. 2333 (Rep. Biggs)--118th Congress

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 
                                 

  Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service to Chairman Westerman, dated 
                             March 31, 2023

                United States Department of the Interior

                       FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                         Washington, D.C. 20240

                                                 March 31, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    I write in response to your March 14, 2023, letter regarding the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) support for employee 
training and career development programs that support the work of 
dedicated natural resource professionals in accomplishing the Service's 
important mission. We appreciate your interest in this important topic.

    The Service has a workforce of over 8,000 employees stationed 
across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and many U.S. 
territories, as well as nearly a dozen countries globally. Our 
employees are dedicated professionals and committed public servants who 
serve as leaders and trusted partners in fish and wildlife conservation 
throughout the world. To meet our responsibility of supporting the 
conservation and management of fish, wildlife, plants and their 
habitats for the American people, ensuring the health, safety, and 
wellbeing of those employees is a top priority of the Service. The 
Service has found that investing in our employees helps them be more 
productive in carrying out their day-to-day duties in support of the 
Service's mission on behalf of the American people. Providing resources 
to support employee health, safety, and wellness also enables the 
Service to recruit and retain an effective and dedicated workforce.

    Certain of the Service's regional offices have on occasion offered 
access to a limited number of voluntary, virtual workshops titled 
``Acknowledging Ecological Grief and Building Resiliency.'' These 
voluntary workshops met a request from a number of Service employees 
seeking assistance in managing work-related stress. The workshops were 
conducted by outside consultants, approved on a case-by-case basis by 
leadership in the Service's regional offices and supported through base 
funds set aside for general employee training and development. Since 
2021, the Service's regional offices offered their employees access to 
six such workshops, with a total cost of $11,600. Copies of invoices 
received by the Service in connection with these workshops accompany 
this response. No additional workshops are currently planned.

    If you of your staff would like to follow up on this or any other 
matter, please contact me or Perrin Cooke, Oversight Counsel with the 
U.S. Department of the Interior at [email protected].

            Sincerely,

                                           Martha Williams,
                                                           Director

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now 
recognize the gentleman from California for 5 minutes, Mr. 
Lamborn--excuse me, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I'm the other Doug.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Madam 
Secretary. Good to see you again. Good to always have a chance 
to work and speak with you. A lot of conversation beginning 
about so-called clean energy and such, and I just wanted to ask 
right out of the chute, what is the basis for CO2 
levels that the Department is working off of? What percent of 
our atmosphere is CO2 at this point that so many 
decisions are being based upon?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you so much for the 
question, and, of course, so much of the work we do is based on 
science. I am more than happy to have the U.S. Geological 
Survey or another such bureau get with you on those specific 
levels.
    Mr. LaMalfa. On the current CO2 level of our 
atmosphere?
    Secretary Haaland. I don't have that current CO2 
level with me, but we are happy to follow up on that specific 
question with your staff.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you, Madam Secretary. Let me shift 
gears to the Klamath Basin, of course, something we have had 
quite a bit of conversation about and the water usage up there. 
The Klamath Project was created over 100 years ago for 
agriculture in that basin and such, and there has been a lot of 
dispute, especially in recent years, over what the allocation 
is going to be between that and flushing down the stream for 
fish, or what is kept in the lake for sucker fish.
    Now, a lot of the data for what the lake levels should be 
was based in a period between 1904 and 1912, when it was the 
wettest period in recorded history on the level of the basin. 
So, it would seem that current flow rates that are being 
demanded are way above what the pre-dam lake was delivering to 
the river.
    Would it be fair to think that that outlier data should be 
reconsidered since that was a window of, again, the wettest 
period on record recorded for the lake in many, many years of 
showing other trends. Wouldn't it be fair to reconsider that 
outlier data?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you so much for the 
question, and I know you have had many, many conversations with 
our Commissioner, Camille Touton, who does a really wonderful 
job at the Bureau of Reclamation, and that staff who has worked 
on the Klamath Basin, living, eating, and breathing this issue, 
I know that they have a system that they work off of, and, of 
course, we are always happy to make sure that we can meet with 
you and convey that information to you.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And I do appreciate that, and now----
    Secretary Haaland. But the Department is committed to 
supporting the Klamath Basin communities amid a fourth 
consecutive year of drought. I know there has been a lot of 
moisture in California. That doesn't mean that the drought is 
over. The extreme hydrological conditions over the last several 
years have made operations of the Klamath Project extremely 
challenging. We are working through those every time. I am 
working----
    Mr. LaMalfa. I'm sorry, but as time narrows down here, what 
we are talking about statistically is a short period of time 
over 100 years ago on really high lake levels, high inflow 
levels that don't seem to run on the average here. Let me take 
that to another portion of my question, then, is that the 
Bureau insisted that the historic lake level was 4,140, or 2.6 
feet higher than what the USGS has accepted as the number is 
4,137.8.
    So, the higher elevations are critical in determining what 
the water rights are, and what is going to be sent downstream. 
So, again, we have a dispute as to what the lake level was, and 
the data that it is being based upon. So, would you commit to 
commissioning a new study by a non-political body to address 
these current discrepancies with BOR and USGS?
    Secretary Haaland. I am more than happy to take your 
concerns, and we know how concerned you are about this issue, 
back to the Bureau of Reclamation, and we, of course, will be 
happy to do whatever the Committee asks of us, we will work to 
respond in a timely manner.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. I appreciate that, there was 
improved water allocation in a really great water year on the 
lake, but it is still about 50 percent of what growers should 
get. And then, over on the Trinity Lake side, I want to touch 
on that as well, is that it was deemed a wet year, yet the lake 
is only 37 percent while surrounding lakes are about to come to 
100 percent, and they have more than doubled the amount of 
water flowing out of that lake down the river, and it is even 
starting to flood some people's homes.
    So, I would like to forward that information, or at least 
threaten to do so. If it goes much higher, it is right at the 
base of people's homes there in that Trinity River so-called 
restoration project. There is so much water flowing out of that 
lake it is going to ruin their needs for the summer, et cetera. 
So, I want to bring more attention to that. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman for the indulgence. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sablan.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, Madam Secretary. Your Deputy and Budget Director, 
welcome. Good morning. Let me start first by commending and 
recognizing the Biden administration's recognition of insular 
affairs programs.
    Some of the programs in your Administration of the budget 
for four insular areas, the Energizing Insular Communities 
Program, which I still think requires a plan, but nonetheless, 
I recognize that the additional help in the technical 
assistance program as well, and Madam Secretary, the Capital 
Improvement Project, which started with covenant funding for 
the Northern Marinas particularly, was started at $27.7 million 
some 40 years ago, and has remained at that number until this 
year, we are trying, we see a budget increase of $4 million. 
Thank you very much. Thank you to the Department for listening. 
Of course, more listening is needed, but thank you.
    Madam Secretary, could you please tell us if other 
departments or agencies will follow your Department seriously, 
then start to waive match requirements for the insular areas? 
At the IGIA meeting in February, you announced that OMB has 
directed all Federal departments and agencies to conduct a 
review of the law to see if there were any authorizing statutes 
that could bar waiving local match requirements for Federal 
grants to the Marianas and other insular areas.
    Congress has already waived the local match requirement for 
amounts below $200,000, but OMB directed Federal granters to 
work to implement the law's waiver for amounts greater than 
$200,000 absent an agency specific statute that conflicts. Will 
other Federal granters follow Interior's lead of additional 
waiver?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Sablan, and, of course, I 
am happy to take that message back to the White House, and we 
recognize the importance of reducing the financial burden on 
these communities, and increasing flexibility for the grant 
funding for underserved communities.
    I know it is a relatively small portion of our budget, but 
it really goes a long way in the communities that these grants 
serve. So, we are happy to----
    Mr. Sablan. No, thank you for your effort, you decision 
also, but we look forward to seeing the response from the other 
several agencies and departments. So, Madam Secretary, can you 
give us an update on when Congress can expect to receive the 
final compact's bilateral agreements?
    The second round of financial assistance under the compacts 
of free associations which govern the relationships between the 
United States and the Federated States of Micronesia, then the 
Republics of the Marshall Islands and Palau are coming to an 
end in 2023, and next year in 2024. I commend your Department 
and Office of Insular Affairs for your efforts in supporting 
Special Envoy Joseph Yun in achieving signed memoranda for 
understandings for three compact countries on the basic levels 
of compact funding for the next 20 years.
    However, there isn't much time left before the end of this 
Fiscal Year when authorizations for funding to the Marshal 
Islands and FSM will expire. When the compact agreements are 
transmitted to Congress, will they include the Administration's 
proposed funding sources?
    We need to prevent a repeat of the Palau compact renewal, 
which took 7 years to approve again, because of differences 
between the Administration and Congress funding sources, one 
time we were talking about even passport fees.
    At this time, we need this agreement signed and approved by 
Congress. It is in our interest at this time. Without going 
into too much, can you tell us when we can expect this, please?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. I know how important 
this is to you, and it is also very important to us. Assistant 
Secretary Cantor, who I know you are in touch with, is working 
closely with Ambassador Yun, and compact negotiations are 
moving forward with the Ambassador and the State Department. 
They are ongoing. We are making progress with the FSM and 
Palau, and my team has been meeting with FSM in Washington, DC 
to finish these negotiations on some of the subsidiary 
agreements under the compacts.
    So, what I can tell you is that they are moving forward. We 
are pleased with the progress, and we are happy to have 
Assistant Secretary Cantor stay in touch with your office as to 
timing.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from Idaho. Mr. Fulcher, 
you are recognized.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good 
to see you again. Thank you for being here, and from my home 
state of Idaho, it is good to interact with you today. We have 
a lot of challenges on Federal lands in my state, and you are 
certainly invited at your convenience to come pay us a visit 
sometime. I think that would be very fruitful. It would be good 
to show you some things that are true and happening or not 
happening on the ground, as the case may be.
    But you made a statement to Congressman Lamborn a few 
minutes ago that oil production on Federal lands is at an all-
time high, and, admittedly, I don't know what metric that might 
be measuring, but that is not the perception. I can tell you 
that the confidence of the oil companies, at least for any kind 
of new permits, is probably at an all-time low.
    So, let's just assume that what you said is accurate, it is 
at an all-time high, and we certainly need it, because we are 
growing and our energy sources are definitely in question. Are 
you committed to keeping it that way?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congressman. We 
are--of course, we are following the law, and we are committed 
to moving the applications for permits to drill forward as 
expeditiously as possible, and we have done that since I have 
been in this position. We have career staff who take their jobs 
very seriously and they are moving those forward.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, that might be surprising to some, but that 
should be comforting to some if that is in fact the case. So, I 
thank you for committing to that on the record, and I can tell 
you what some alternatives sources are in Idaho--and again, 
would love to see you there at some point. We have geothermal, 
we have hydro, we have nuclear. A number of those permits are 
in process. It does appear that--I won't say being flat out 
ignored, but there is just not a lot of focus there. Can I ask 
you to touch on geothermal, on hydro, nuclear, what is the 
attitude toward those sources, especially as it comes to on 
Federal land?
    Secretary Haaland. The attitude in our Department is that 
we want to use every tool in the tool box, and we are happy if 
a geothermal company comes to us and wants to lease and permit 
something, we take that seriously.
    We know that this is an all-hands-on-deck moment for energy 
transition, and certainly using our natural resources will help 
move us away from this terrible climate crisis that we are 
experiencing. It also creates jobs in rural communities, which 
I know is the case in your state. So, I am more than happy to 
visit. Please just get in touch with us, and we are happy to 
plan a visit.
    Mr. Fulcher. Well, again, with that said, that general 
message has not been the case, that we have not received that 
from other members of the agencies. So, just know that I 
appreciate you putting that on the record. We did pass, I might 
add, what is called the Clean Act as part of H.R. 1. That was a 
bipartisan, highly supported piece of legislation that 
streamlines geothermal exploration. So, we encourage that to be 
followed through as we move forward with geothermal in 
particular. That is a great one.
    I want to shift gears, because I don't have much time left. 
The Lava Ridge Project. I don't know if you are familiar with 
the Lava Ridge Energy Project. That is a very large wind 
project in Idaho.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. And we are told by power experts in the region 
that in order to match the output, because it is not based on 
power, we will need to have three to four times the peaking 
power production to match an equal amount of baseload. Are you 
familiar with the Lava Ridge Project and is that something you 
are supportive of?
    Secretary Haaland. I would love to learn more about that 
project. We know that we are in a transition, and we are all 
going to work hard to get there.
    Mr. Fulcher. That is a real concern in my district, and I 
wanted to just close with a statement before I ran out of 
time--it is a different subject. The BLM has a proposal on a 
conservation and health landscape rule, and I can't help but 
think that the BLM's proposal will result in some further 
backlogs if that is adopted in the management of species, and 
create new bureaucracies in the multiple use system.
    I believe that the Administration should truly be focused 
on elevating all the forms of energy, and not cutting off 
productive land uses, and I just want to put that on the record 
and share that with you, Madam Secretary. I look forward to 
seeing you in Idaho. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Secretary Haaland. I understand. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada. Ms. Lee, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Grijalva. It is a pleasure to welcome Secretary Haaland, 
especially as a Member representing the district that thanks to 
your very strong support is now home to America's newest 
national monument.
    The Avi Kwa Ame National Monument and its 500,000-plus 
acres is now part of nearly 50 million acres of land in my 
state that is stewarded by BLM. That is about 70 percent of 
Nevada all told, and a very full plate for an agency that is 
lacking a full staff.
    In December 2021, the BLM Director, Tracey Stone-Manning, 
said that her top priority for the Bureau in 2022 was fixing 
staff shortages, and you told me that very same thing in the 
appropriations hearing last year, adding that you were working 
on ways to expedite hiring for positions that support 
operations.
    Obviously, this was welcome news as local officials in 
Nevada have emphasized that it can take years for BLM to 
process some straightforward requests that should instead be 
taking weeks or months. Can you please detail the progress that 
the Interior Department is making in fixing these staff 
shortages, including the successive efforts to expedite hiring 
where essential in day-to-day operations?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, and 
yes, we are very pleased about Avi Kwa Ame, and I was really 
happy to see you there. And, interestingly, when I was in the 
car with Director Stone-Manning, we had that very conversation 
when we were in Nevada about staffing, and, of course, you know 
that staffing went down considerably during the last 
administration, and it has taken a very long time to move that 
back up.
    So, it has had real impacts on Western communities and on 
the communities that you serve. All I can say is that we are 
working hard at it. That is a still a priority of Director 
Stone-Manning. It is incredibly important that we have the 
folks on the ground to steward these lands.
    Thankfully for Avi Kwa Ame, as you know, it will be co-
stewarded by the tribes in Nevada. So, we will have that help 
there, but certainly that is why our budget request is so 
important. That will allow this important work to continue, and 
we will continue to make this a priority.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I appreciate that commitment. I want to 
turn now to some BLM regulations. The Bureau has proposed a new 
public lands rule for allowing for 10-year conservation leases 
to designate conservation as a formal use of public lands on 
par with energy development, grazing, and recreation. This has 
been characterized as a seismic shift in lands management.
    As you know, I am a committed supporter of conservation, 
but I am also committed to reaching another critical goal, 
which is transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035, 
and I want to be certain that BLM's rulemaking will not end up 
slowing down the right kind of energy development right at 
precisely the wrong time when we need to be speeding it up. So, 
could you explain how this proposed rule counts for the 
increasingly urgent need to expedite renewable energy 
development on Federal lands?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman, and we believe 
very strongly that conservation and clean energy go hand-in-
hand on BLM lands. The rule does not intend to slow down any of 
these projects, and in fact we are like-minded that we do need 
to ramp up our clean energy projects. We have had many 
successful efforts on helping clean energy projects identify 
the right areas.
    It is placing them in the right areas, making sure that the 
stakeholders are at the table early on so that we have 
consensus going forward. Sometimes that will slow down the 
process when not everyone is on the same page. So, everything 
we do is in furtherance of a healthy environment, and those 
clean energy projects are top of mind for us, and I will tell 
you that this particular rule has no intention of slowing down 
any clean energy projects on BLM lands.
    Ms. Lee. Just one other thing. Obviously, we are looking at 
some proposed budget cuts. Could you explain how these would 
affect BLM's progress in managing Federal lands, especially in 
the West?
    Secretary Haaland. I think BLM was one of the hardest hit 
bureaus in the Department of the Interior during the last 
administration. Hundreds of people resigned, and it is 
difficult to staff up that, those hundreds of years of 
collective experience and knowledge. We are working on that.
    The budget will help us tremendously at making sure that we 
can prioritize that with the BLM. I mean, in every way, shape, 
and form, our public lands belong to every single American, and 
we want to make careers in this public service available to as 
many people as possible.
    So, I can just tell you that we are committed to that idea. 
The drought isn't going away, the climate crisis isn't going 
away any time soon. It is an all-hands-on-deck moment, and we 
take that very seriously.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Utah. Mr. Curtis, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Secretary. Like 
my colleagues, I enjoyed serving with you here and co-chairing 
the Public Lands Subcommittee. Let me bring up a difficult 
issue. Shortly after your appointment, you and I found 
ourselves on a different side of a very contentious issue in 
the state. For those of you who are not familiar, it was the 
Bears Ears land designation.
    Just quickly, round one of the designation was President 
Obama designated 1.3 million acres as a monument. Round two was 
President Trump repealing that designation. Round three, which 
is where you came in, is President Biden re-establishing those 
boundaries.
    Now, this may be an oversimplification, but the argument, 
in essence, was we must do this to protect and preserve this 
area. We don't trust the state, we don't trust the county, we 
don't trust the elected officials to do this as they have done 
it for many, many decades. We have to do it here from 
Washington, DC.
    Today, there is far more looting, far more grave robbing, 
vandalism in this area. And by the way, I want to preface all 
of this with, your agency BLM folks on the ground are amazing. 
We love and appreciate them. I don't want to diminish them in 
any way, but not a single penny of resource has been sent their 
way after this 1.3 million acre designation that the Federal 
Government took on as a responsibility to preserve and protect.
    At the time of the designation, there were two BLM agents, 
law enforcement agents, that patrolled that area. Today, I 
could be wrong, but I think there are two agents managing--
imagine, 1.3 million acres. Today, not a single sign has gone 
up, not a single fence has gone up, nothing is any different, 
except for the fact that the monument designation brought the 
attention to the world of this area, and now they are coming, 
and we don't have the resources to protect this.
    Your budget, if I read it correctly, has $3 million for 
every single brand new designation across the country. How in 
the world does the Federal Government propose to do what it 
said it was going to do when it made this a monument 
designation and took the stewardship away from the local 
people?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question, and you are absolutely right. As we have been 
discussing, there is a shortage of staff particularly in the 
West.
    Mr. Curtis. But it is not staff, it is budget. Like, you 
don't even have the budget if you had the staff. And this is 
pre-budget. This is not counting any budget cuts or anything. 
This is the Federal Government made a decision several years 
ago to designate this as a 1.3 million acre monument to 
preserve it, and has not even tried to put resources in to do 
that, and the argument on the ground is, by the way, we are 
doing that quite well as local and state government.
    We feel like we preserve and protect that area in a 
magnificent way, and now the Federal Government has taken it 
over without adding any resources. How do we justify that? How 
do I go back to these people and say the people who thought 
they knew better than you, who thought they were better 
stewards than you, have ignored you, and have not done anything 
in this area?
    Secretary Haaland. I absolutely appreciate your comments, 
Mr. Curtis. I will absolutely take those to heart and have 
discussions with my staff at the Department. I understand your 
concerns and they are my concerns as well.
    Mr. Curtis. Well, I know you well enough to take that quite 
sincerely, and I want you to know that means a lot to me that 
you would make that commitment. And I think we as lawmakers and 
policy makers need to understand it is not as easy as waving a 
wand and protecting all of this area because we have designated 
it. That comes with a tremendous responsibility. We are taking 
that responsibility away from the state, and we are going to 
take that, and I think when we make these decisions, we have to 
step up for that, right? If we really want to preserve and 
protect this area in a way that it was different than before. 
So, thank you for your commitment. We will take you up on that.
    Let me switch gears just quickly. Almost 20 years after the 
passage of the Energy Policy Act in 2005, it is Title V on 
Indian Energy, we still do not have enough petroleum engineers, 
geologists, and staff within the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
support development of Indian energy resources. As you know, I 
have five tribes in my area, particularly the Utes and the 
Navajos. These are not gaming tribes. They rely on natural 
resources. What steps can we take in Interior to bring more 
energy experts into the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
    Secretary Haaland. I appreciate that comment as well, and I 
take it to heart, Mr. Curtis. I will take that back, we will 
have a discussion on it.
    Mr. Curtis. OK, we would love to work with your team on my 
tribes, and be an asset and help them, because as you well 
know, it is a difficult lot moving forward in many of these 
cases, and I would love to team with you on that, and thank you 
for coming today and being here.
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely, and thank you as well for 
caring about the tribes in your state, and we will absolutely 
be in touch, thank you.
    Mr. Curtis. Thanks, Madam Secretary, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan. Mrs. Dingell, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and like everyone 
else, it is great to see you, Madam Secretary. Secretary, one 
of my top priorities is ensuring that as a country, we have the 
capacity to reach our full potential when it comes to building 
out electric vehicles and the charging infrastructure.
    Which means we have to strengthen our domestic supply 
chains for critical minerals from mining and processing to 
recycling. We also know that our current mining law, which has 
not been meaningfully updated in 150 years, tips the scales 
toward mining companies and away from communities who need to 
have a fair say in the decision making if we are going to build 
a strong enduring mining industry in the United States.
    So, Madam Secretary, what initiatives is the Department of 
the Interior taking to ensure we have a strong, safe, 
environmentally sound mining industry to buttress our domestic 
supply chains for EV development and employment to meet our 
clean energy goals?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and 
I am very pleased to have sitting next to me our Deputy 
Secretary, Tommy Beaudreau, who is the Chair of the inter-
agency work group on mining reform, and if it is OK, I would 
love for him to answer this question in detail.
    Mr. Beaudreau. Thank you very much, Secretary Haaland. For 
all the reasons you have said, this is one of the highest 
priorities in the Administration. I met with the White House 
about it just last week. We do have a substantial challenge in 
front of us under the General Mining Law of 1872.
    Suffice to say, the policy priorities of the Grant 
administration are not necessarily the same as the challenges 
we face today. So, there is room to partner with Congress on 
addressing that. One of the reasons why we have been as 
successful as we have been with renewable energy is the ability 
to do leasing and deconfliction. So, having that type of 
authority in the Department, I think, would accelerate our 
ability to develop domestically reliably-sourced materials to 
help the clean energy economy, and I look forward to working 
with you on all of that.
    Mrs. Dingell. I was going to ask you if there were any 
updates from the inter-agency working group on mining law 
reform, but I think all of us here want to work together on 
this issue, and on the permitting, but we made an announcement 
last week that I have concerns on, quite frankly, and we are 
not going to get there without really addressing this issue. 
So, I want to say that.
    But I am also concerned about how the Republican's proposed 
budget could hurt the progress that the Department has made in 
terms of advancing our goals to develop these mineral supply 
chains. Could one of you comment on that?
    Mr. Beaudreau. Again, the resources issues across all of 
our responsibilities, I think, are critical to being able to 
meet the moment, as the Secretary said, on all of the 
challenges facing the United States relative to public lands, 
and that includes permitting. We are doing the best that we can 
with the resources we have, shifting people around, providing 
guidance and priority, but to be in this setting and talk about 
the need to do better and do more, while at the same time, 
talking about resource cuts, is an incongruity that I think is 
obvious.
    Mrs. Dingell. Well, let's stay on permitting, which is 
another subject I feel very strongly on, and really do want to 
work with the Chair and others on. In the Inflation Reduction 
Act, we provided the Department of the Interior with $150 
million to increase staffing capacity and resources for 
permitting activities. Either one of you, how will these 
resources help advance effective and efficient permitting on an 
accelerated timeline?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, and 
in concert with existing authorities, these resources will 
increase capacity and improve efficiencies for environmental 
planning and consultation. The goal is to better support the 
implementation of the infrastructure investments now underway.
    Our budget proposal would apply to all applicable Federal 
agencies government-wide, and would expand the authority for 
Federal agencies to transfer bill funding to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to accelerate and improve environmental 
reviews for infrastructure projects and energy solutions.
    Mrs. Dingell. And I want to get one more question in on 
that. Due to reconciliation rules, we couldn't adequately fund 
the ESA consultation and related permitting activities in the 
IRA. The Administration's budget request includes a legislative 
proposal to provide additional resources for the ESA 
consultation. Can you tell this Committee why these resources 
are needed for the ESA related permitting, which the goal we 
all have is to make it faster?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman, and we are 
happy to talk more about this with your office.
    Mrs. Dingell. We all need to hear it.
    Secretary Haaland.  In addition to increasing the funding 
for the ESA planning and consultation work, the budget also 
proposes to expand authority for Federal agencies to transfer 
funds provided under the bill to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and NOAA Fisheries.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Tiffany, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Welcome, Secretary Haaland. Yesterday, the 
National Park Services Director Chuck Sams testified that $200 
million from the Inflation Reduction Act for deferred 
maintenance had been transferred to the Presidio Trust at the 
direction of the Department of the Interior's Assistant 
Secretary. Did you direct anybody in your senior leadership to 
tell the National Parks Service Director to transfer $200 
million in IRA funds to the Presidio Trust?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, and 
it was our understanding, Congressman, that that was the intent 
of Congress at the time, so that is why we did that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Actually, Director Sams testified in regard to 
that point that you just made, that it did not follow the 
established process, that he understood it to be congressional 
intent that despite the fact that the IRA does not explicitly 
state this funding will be used for the Presidio, he understood 
it to be congressional intent.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, we understood it to be 
congressional intent. That is correct for the Presidio funding.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, did you or anybody in senior leadership 
have conversations with Speaker Pelosi's office about this?
    Secretary Haaland. No, I did not have any conversations 
with Speaker Pelosi's office, but we understood it to be 
congressional intent. I mean, these are public lands that 
belong to all Americans. We want to do the best job possible.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, is Director Sams lying to us? He said this 
was done at the direction of the Department of the Interior's 
Assistant Secretary. That is what he said yesterday.
    Secretary Haaland. No, he's--thank you for the question, 
and the Assistant Secretary, of course, understood that it 
was--I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but 
we understood that it was congressional intent for this funding 
to go to the Presidio, which is public lands, and belonging to 
every single American, and I believe that is how the Assistant 
Secretary understood it.
    Mr. Tiffany. But the language did not say it is 
explicitly--in the IRA, it does not explicitly state this 
funding shall be used for Presidio. How did you know it was 
congressional intent, then, if it didn't explicitly say that?
    Secretary Haaland. We are happy to get back with you on any 
absolute specifics to do with this issue.
    Mr. Tiffany. I have to move on to some other questions 
here. But, I would really appreciate that. We want to do some 
follow up on this, because there are clearly two answers that 
are in conflict here. I will say this though in conclusion in 
regard to this issue, is NPS, to us, stands for the National 
Park Service. We are very concerned that this has become 
Nancy's Park Service, with a quarter of the funding for 
deferred maintenance going to one Representative's district, 1 
out of 435 got a quarter of the funding for deferred 
maintenance. What does that do to the rest of our national 
parks? Would you agree that in any good faith negotiation, it 
is important for all parties to know the fair value of what is 
at stake? So, when parties are negotiating that everything 
beyond the table, right? Would you agree with that?
    Secretary Haaland. In what respect, Mr. Tiffany?
    Mr. Tiffany. You want to make sure that all the information 
is on the table, and then you can have a good faith 
negotiation. That is generally true, would you agree?
    Secretary Haaland. Sure.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Are you aware of the ongoing situation in 
my district between the Lac du Flambeau Tribe and town 
residents?
    Secretary Haaland. I am familiar with it, yes. Somewhat 
familiar. I have read several articles, and I know that our 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs went to Wisconsin to 
speak with the Tribe, and I know that they have been working 
hard to get a resolution to the issue.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does the Department plan to release the 
appraisal for the four roads in question? I sent a letter on 
January 31, and they won't release the appraisals. Are you 
going to plan to release the appraisals?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. According to our solicitor, 
we are not at liberty to release those appraisals, and, of 
course, we follow the advice of our attorneys.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, how do you have a negotiation that works 
in good faith if you can't have the appraisals out in front of 
you? I ask that as a rhetorical question. Do you support the 
Tribe, and I would emphasize this is a Tribal Council.
    There are many tribal members in Lac du Flambeau that do 
not agree with what happened here. Do you support the Tribe 
putting barricades on the roads like they did at the end of 
January when it was 25 below? We had a record setting winter 
for snow stranding 65 people. Do you support the Tribal Council 
putting barricades on those roads when they went up?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I know I don't need to tell 
you this, but we understand that, and I know you know this too, 
that the Lac du Flambeau is a sovereign Indian Nation, and we 
can't mandate that they do anything or not do anything, but 
what we have done is we have worked to try to resolve the 
issue, and as I mentioned, Assistant Secretary Newland went to 
the Tribe to see how we could assist in moving a resolution to 
the issue, and I know that we all want it to be resolved.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would just close with this, Mr. Chairman. 
The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Chairman was here just a month ago 
before the Appropriations Committee, and he said the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs has failed both the Tribe and the local 
community. His words, not mine. I am hoping the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs will get their act together on this issue. I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. Levin, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin. I thank my friend, Chairman Westerman, and I 
thank my friend, Secretary Haaland. It is wonderful to welcome 
you back here to the House Natural Resources Committee. Thank 
you for all your leadership. It is so important to provide that 
sustained funding for the Department of the Interior for all 
the critical initiatives that you have helping to protect our 
public lands, promoting domestic clean energy production, 
providing outdoor recreation, and responsibly managing our 
Western water resources, which are more important than ever.
    I want to start off by discussing the importance of 
reforming our Federal oil and gas leasing program in order to 
promote the responsible stewardship of our nation's natural 
resources. Last year, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, 
and it made historic and much needed changes to the Federal 
onshore oil and gas leasing program.
    Based on provisions of a bill that I had introduced, the 
Restoring Community Input and Public Protections in Oil and Gas 
Leasing Act, specifically, the IRA ended non-competitive 
leasing for oil and gas sales, raising annual rental rates, and 
increasing the minimum bid for public lands. All those changes 
were very overdue, very common sense, and create more balance 
for bringing Federal lands in line with what states and private 
landowners are already charging. And even after the IRA, states 
like Texas and Oklahoma still charge higher royalty rates on 
the state lands than are charged on the Federal lands.
    And according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, this is not 
some left wing group, it is not a right wing group, it is 
Taxpayers for Common Sense. What we did in the IRA will not 
raise prices at the pump or consumer energy prices. I will say 
that again, will not raise prices at the pump or consumer 
energy prices. We have that independent analysis if anyone 
wants to see it.
    But it will raise hundreds of millions of dollars in 
additional revenue that could go toward all sorts of things, 
like infrastructure improvements that will benefit everybody, 
not just a handful of oil and gas companies. So, Secretary 
Haaland, with that as a background, from your perspective, how 
will the reforms from the IRA improve the return for taxpayers 
on our public lands?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, and 
thank you for your work in this area. Of course, I don't have 
to say this, the climate crisis is upon us, and whatever we can 
do, every tool in the toolbox that we can use to move our clean 
energy forward, that is good for our land, it is good for our 
people, and we are happy to always work with you, Congressman, 
to move to restore the balance that we need to our public 
lands.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, and as a follow up, I understand that 
BLM has drafted proposed rules to implement the changes in the 
IRA, specifically around oil and gas leasing. Those are 
currently at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 
Just wanted to get the current status of those regulations and 
when we might be able to expect to see proposed rules 
published.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much. The draft regulation 
is under review, and we hope to have the proposed rule 
published this summer. We are happy to stay in touch about 
that.
    Mr. Levin. Excellent. I look forward to that. In addition 
to making clear about how the reforms will be implemented, the 
rulemaking represents an important opportunity for BLM to look 
to the future and further improve the onshore oil and gas 
leasing program.
    Will the regulations that are currently pending describe 
how the Department of the Interior intends to evaluate and 
adjust the royalty rate, rental rate, and minimum bid in the 
years after the 10-year period that is specified in the IRA?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, what I can say about this 
issue is that it is really important to ensure that Americans 
who these public lands belong to get a fair return for the 
resources that are on those lands. Every American owns every 
piece of public land, so it is important for us to make sure 
that we are doing the best we can for the American people.
    Mr. Levin. Well, we certainly appreciate that, Secretary. 
Very grateful to your commitment and the commitment of the 
professionals at Interior and BLM for responsibly implementing 
these common-sense reforms that we made in the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Mr. Levin. And I urge the Administration to expedite this 
regulatory process so that the IRA's reforms are durable, 
clear, and fully protective of the American taxpayer, and that 
they promote the conservation of our public lands. I thank the 
Secretary, and I will yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Carl, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank 
you for being here today. In your testimony earlier, you said 
Interior programs are important to the national economy, 
generating jobs, supporting local economy growth, building 
residual changes to our climate, and managing important 
resources.
    I must say, everything I have seen from your Department 
says just the opposite, and I stand to differ with you on that 
one. How can you claim in your testimony you believe that the 
Interior programs are important to this nation, economy, and 
jobs to our local economy, when the actions that have been 
taken are just the opposite?
    Secretary Haaland. I feel that we have done an excellent 
job of ensuring that we include local communities in the value 
of our public lands.
    Mr. Carl. Let me ask you another quick question. Can you 
give me a simple yes or no answer? Does met coal, is it exempt 
from coal leasing moratoriums?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I know how important this 
issue----
    Mr. Carl. Yes or no, ma'am. That is all I'm looking for.
    Secretary Haaland. I want you----
    Mr. Carl. That is all I'm looking for, yes or no.
    Secretary Haaland. I want you to know that the BLM has made 
me aware of how important this issue is to you.
    Mr. Carl. I'm glad you have someone to talk to you, because 
I have called your Department numerous times. I can't get phone 
calls returned.
    Secretary Haaland. I will make----
    Mr. Carl. Mr. Beaudreau sitting right beside you, I have 
called him twice, I have left him four messages through other 
people. I finally got one of your staff to call me back, and 
when you can't get your own staff in these departments to call 
back a Congressman, ma'am, that is wrong. What does that tell 
me? That tells me that they are not interested in hearing my 
voice, or anything I have to say.
    So, pardon me if I seem a little edgy this morning, but I 
think this was well out of your control. I don't think you have 
control on what is going on here. I have a permit from this 
company laying on someone's desk, 98 percent completed. It is a 
met coal project. It should be already released. It should have 
been processed, we should have the thousand people on the 
ground working it this day, but I can't get your staff to 
return a phone call, and I can't get you to tell me if met coal 
is not part of that coal moratorium.
    So, how do you think we feel in this country when we are 
dealing with bureaucrats just like this? And it goes on for 
months and years. This is 2\1/2\ years this process has been 
going on.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I am going to make sure 
that somebody calls you back, and I apologize that your calls 
haven't been returned, but we will make sure that we do that 
very soon.
    Mr. Carl. Last time we met here, you and I had a 
conversation and you were going to call me back on a meeting 
down in the Gulf Coast. I have yet to hear from a soul. Not one 
person.
    So, ma'am, your words don't carry a lot of faith in me, so 
I would appreciate if you would give me the courtesy of having 
someone to give me a call. Your Department has become this huge 
forest fire, and you are consuming everything you touch. You 
are burning it up. This is coming from constituents and 
businesses that are trying to run their businesses. This 
company is not even in my district, and I am fighting for them, 
you know why? Because these are Alabama jobs. These are people 
that are related to the people that live in my district, but it 
is important that our people and our districts believe in the 
Federal Government. When they get to a point that they are 
scared to death of us, that is when we have quit. We have 
failed them. We need to go home. We need to start over. We need 
to fire people and get some people that actually know how to 
return a phone call. I am a salesman. I may call you and give 
you bad news, but I will return your phone call, that is for 
sure.
    So, I am asking you, please do something. Just don't pay 
lip service to crawl through this meeting, then I don't hear 
anything until next year. I think your budget is bloated. I 
think it is being misused in the wrong places, and I think you 
know that. I think you are sitting here trying to avoid that 
from some of your answers. I am watching your body language. I 
am a salesman, I read bodies. I am real good at that, and you 
are a nervous wreck, and I appreciate that. I'm sorry, and I 
would be too, but you have to get control of your people around 
you, ma'am. I'm telling you, because you have people that have 
an agenda that does not fit what this country needs. With that, 
Mr. Chairman, I turn back to you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. Huffman, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back, 
Madam Secretary. It is always great to see you. You have 
already received several questions from the other side of the 
aisle about the great uncertainty in the fossil fuel industry 
due to this Administration's policies, despite the climate 
crisis, they appear to be worried about the poor oil companies 
who are rolling in record profits that they have squeezed out 
of U.S. consumers at the expense of the planet.
    Madam Secretary, I am worried about a different kind of 
uncertainty, that uncertainty that is being experienced by 
young people all over America about whether they will have a 
livable planet, about whether they should even think about 
bringing children into the world, given what the science tells 
them is coming if we don't much more rapidly decarbonize.
    And as grateful as I am for the major steps forward on 
climate action we have taken under this Administration, I think 
you know how I feel about the business as usual for the fossil 
fuel industry that continues to take place under this 
Administration, particularly the Willow carbon bomb, which I 
believe was a terrible decision.
    But as strongly as I disagree with those things, I do want 
to acknowledge how refreshing it is to have you as the 
Secretary of the Interior. For too long, for decades really, we 
have allowed a very corrupt revolving door to exist at Interior 
where people make lots of money in special interests that 
profit from our public lands and public resources, then spend a 
little time at Interior, and then monetize that going through 
the other side of the revolving door.
    Your predecessor was the poster child for that, but you are 
there for the right reasons, and I'm glad, like the Ranking 
Member said, I'm glad you are there. I'm proud of your public 
service. I was going to ask you about permitting, but 
Representative Dingell beat me to it. We know that the main 
reason for delay in upgrading transmission lines and bringing 
clean power on-line is the lack of agency resources that are 
preventing us from speeding up environment reviews and 
permitting processes, and we have put significant funds on the 
table through the Inflation Reduction Act.
    The only thing I will add to the discussion you had with 
Representative Dingell on that is that it is critically 
important for offshore wind, and you visited my district, and 
we got to talk about a very exciting offshore wind project in 
Humboldt County.
    Thank you for that, and the auction was very successful, we 
are excited to bring that and all the jobs that are going to 
come with it on-line. The transmission is going to be the big 
bottleneck, and so maybe even more important than the offshore 
wind project itself, getting the transmission upgraded is the 
key, and I thank you for what I know will be your very focused 
attention on that.
    I want to move to the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act. Last December, you rescinded a terrible Trump 
administration decision that concluded that environmental 
restoration in areas harmed by the Central Valley Project was 
deemed complete, so that your predecessor's former clients no 
longer had to pay a CVPIA restoration surcharge. That is an 
indefensible conclusion. You can certainly look at the 
struggling fish and wildlife in the Central Valley Project 
Watershed. You can look at the struggling wildlife refuges, and 
you did the right thing by reversing that, and I want to thank 
you for that. You found there was no basis for it, and you 
instructed the Bureau of Reclamation to collect the full 
mitigation and restoration charges owed.
    Representative Porter and I have previously written to you 
expressing our concern about how Reclamation is doing cost 
accounting for that. The way they are doing it would appear to 
shift hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental 
compliance costs from Central Valley Project contractors to 
Federal taxpayers.
    So, I just want to ask you, what progress are we making in 
properly allocating and collecting the hundreds of millions of 
dollars owed by Central Valley Project contractors to get this 
situation right?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. Reclamation will 
continue to collect the required mitigation and restoration 
charges from water and power contracts as directed by law, and 
they will also continue to take actions to support restoration 
and enhancement of the Central Valley Project's natural 
environment.
    Mr. Huffman. Can we get an update though on the specific 
cost accounting?
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely. I will ask Camille's team to 
give your office a call shortly.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Haaland. And Congressman, if I could say 
something very quickly about the transmission lines. Earlier 
this year, we broke ground on the Ten West transmission line in 
Arizona--it was for solar power in the middle of the desert, 
lots of solar panels there.
    And the reason that went through so quickly and so well is 
because the BLM director in Arizona really made sure that all 
the stakeholders had a say from the very start of the project 
moving forward.
    So, we feel like that is a great model for moving things 
expeditiously through. We agree with you. So, this transition, 
it is happening now. And we are learning best ways to cut time 
on these things, and I suspect that future projects will be as 
expeditious as this one, and we will work to make them even 
faster, but thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Mr. Huffman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. Duarte, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Hello, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being 
here today. I am from California, from the Central Valley. It 
is no secret that we have our share of water problems, too 
little and too much here recently.
    We have historic levels of rain, and the other years we 
have hardships of drought. A lot of the precious water 
resources we have in both wet and dry years are being flushed 
out to the ocean to restore salmon and the delta smelt. We have 
been doing this for several decades now, 40 years, and 20 years 
of maximum flows that have depleted our groundwater, destroyed 
irrigated landscapes. We have agricultural removal, we have 
food costs coming. In the South Valley, we have respiratory 
illness and pediatric respiratory illness in very disadvantaged 
communities at levels we have never seen before. We are 
literally creating a dustbowl with some of these practices. How 
were you committed to measuring success, and do you have a 
program to take a look at some of these fish flows through the 
delta and compare them to their negative impacts, and give us 
kind of a cost benefit analysis and maybe adjust them.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, and 
any specific details, of course, we are happy to follow up with 
your office on that. But what I can say is that Camille Touton, 
our Reclamation Commissioner, who I hope you have had an 
opportunity to speak with at some point, takes all of these 
things very seriously. We know that a lot of folks have the 
misconception that the drought is over, but we know that----
    Mr. Duarte. Well, no, I mean--sorry, ma'am, Madam 
Secretary, but the facts are pretty clear. We have been 
flushing very, very large, gargantuan amounts of our precious 
water out to the ocean since the early 1990s to attempt to 
restore salmon and restore delta smelt. I mean, I hope this is 
on your radar, on your personal radar. I mean, California is a 
huge food resource for America and for the world. My district 
is in a very economically disadvantaged--it is a Voting Rights 
Act district. It is 80 percent Hispanic, lots of farm workers 
out of work.
    I really hope that as Secretary that you would take 
personal interest in the really abject failure of the fish 
flows program for both the salmon and the smelt, and at this 
point in your service, have at least some large bullet points 
of how you would criticize this, and how you hope to improve 
it.
    And we will talk about forests next, because that is 
another abject failure in single species management for 
restoration, and our forests are overgrown and burning all the 
same. So, please tell me you have California on your radar 
personally, and explain to me even in a pixelated way what you 
intend to do to criticize what you are doing, and either defend 
it or change it.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. I appreciate the question. 
What I was going to get to was the fact that with all of this 
water, we do store as much as possible. Reclamation has a 
program where they are recharging ground water, so a lot of 
irrigators have taken advantage of that program, and there have 
been millions of acre-feet that have been used to recharge the 
groundwater, so we are working. We have conversations with 
folks on the ground in all of those areas.
    Mr. Duarte. Sure. Well, let me add to that, please. 
California water infrastructure hasn't been added to 
significantly in 40 years. We haven't. If you take kind of a 
top list, build Auburn, raise Shasta, put in Temperance Flat, 
put in Sites, all the big water projects that could really move 
the needle in terms of California flood control, habitat 
restoration, agriculture, housing affordability, water 
sustainability is housing affordability. It would be about $12 
billion. California has a $3.6 trillion annual GDP.
    So, for .3, for one-third of 1 percent of California's 
annual GDP, we could catch ourselves up with two or three 
generations worth of water infrastructure, and solve the 
environmental pressures, solve the flood control pressures, 
solve the economic pressures, as well as the human health and 
welfare pressures in the Central Valley, and I really wish I 
could hear some details from you, if not now, in the future, of 
how you intend to make it happen.
    We have put H.R. 1 through to get NEPA reform that will 
allow these projects to go forward in a reasonable manner, 
meaning not 40 years with no progress, and I am hoping that you 
will be a full partner. It is not very much money when we look 
at the overall economy of California, and we are hoping you 
will partner in making this happen. Thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. We are absolutely happy to work with 
you. Thank you, Congressman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. Mullin, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam 
Secretary. Extreme weather events like the atmospheric rivers 
that my district in California has been seeing for the last 
several months are expected to increase in frequency and 
severity as a result of climate change. Subsequently, the 
flooding, sea level rise, and other damage to private and 
public property as a result of these events will also increase.
    As severe weather events become more frequent and 
dangerous, low-income home owners will continue to rely on 
Federal assistance in recovering after disasters, but often 
lack resources to properly weatherize their homes to get in 
front of these kinds of events.
    So, the process of establishing defensible space to protect 
from wildfires and natural land management solutions to protect 
from sea level rise and flooding is increasingly expensive. So, 
my question Madam Secretary, is how can Congress and DOI best 
support these kinds of resilience and weatherization efforts, 
particularly for lower income homeowners who may not have the 
means to be hardening those homes and getting ready for what is 
to come with these extreme weather events?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question, 
and we recognize that it is the communities who can least 
afford the change that are forced to change, and that is true 
with so many Native communities on the coasts in Alaska and 
across the West Coast.
    But at DOI, our focus with regard to these communities has 
been assistance with climate driven relocations for tribes, 
forest management for wildfire, and ecosystem restoration to 
build more resilience from drought and disasters. In 2022, 
Interior committed $115 million for 11 communities to support 
community driven relocation. Three tribes with shovel ready 
plans. We are focused on these communities.
    In addition, the budget includes $63 million for the USGS 
Coastal and Marine Hazards Program, and that will leverage 
field research, high resolution data and modeling to help these 
communities and we are happy to give you a full accounting of 
how we are doing our best to help those communities.
    Mr. Mullin. All right, and thank you, Madam Secretary. I 
yield back my remaining time to Ranking Member Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I just want to put in 
the record a response to the Presidio question. Among the many 
investments that are prioritized in the Inflation Reduction 
Act, including $200 million for deferred maintenance at the 
Presidio of San Francisco, and a unit of the National Parks 
Service owned and operated by Presidio Trust, and it is 
accurate that the Presidio Trust is intended to be financially 
self-sufficient.
    However, it is not eligible for funding under the Great 
American Outdoors Act, and it required some assistance to deal 
with the lingering affects of the pandemic. It is a clear need 
to support a national park unit that belongs to all Americans.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle shouldn't be 
surprised by this allocation. We debated and voted nearly two 
dozen of their amendments right here in this Committee during 
the discussion of the IRA. So, attacks on this investment are 
misguided, they are misplaced, and we should treat this public 
unit as we do with any shared heritage of history in the Parks 
Service, and with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. And without objection, the document is 
accepted into the record. Did the gentleman from California 
yield back? The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Montana. Mr. Rosendale, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, 
Secretary Haaland. Trust in government is paramount if our 
system is to work. Transparency is a main component 
establishing that trust. I was really appreciative of the 
representative from California raising the issue of corruption 
and self-enrichment on the back of taxpayers.
    So, my first question to you is, could you tell me when you 
plan to fulfill the January 2 FOIA request from Protect the 
Public's Trust about communication between DOI, BLM, and your 
daughter in reference to lobbying efforts and activities 
involving your daughter and members of your staff, and the 
protests which turned into a riot at Interior Headquarters, 
which seems your daughter has participated in?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. We have career 
staff who handle all of our FOIA requests. We get thousands and 
thousands of FOIA requests, so I recognize that they all can't 
be attended to immediately, but they will get to those FOIA 
requests in a timely manner.
    Mr. Rosendale. No offense, Madam Secretary, but it has been 
nearly 6 months' time since that request has gone out, and what 
is being requested is electronic documents that certainly can 
be transferred and shared very easily.
    And we are not talking about anything of a national 
security issue, where people have to go back through and 
evaluate it. So, why is it taking us so long to generate these 
documents on such a sensitive subject where I would think that 
you would want it to be public to show that you are a good, 
transparent public servant?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. Of course, 
ethics is incredibly important to me, as it is to my entire 
team at DOI.
    Mr. Rosendale. It is, and it is not only the fact and the 
actions that take place, Secretary, but it is also the 
perception of. The perception of, and this is what helps us 
build our pillars for the trust in our government. So, again, 
what is taking so long, and when can we anticipate those 
documents being provided?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. As I mentioned, there are 
career staff who handle all the FOIA requests. They have a 
process. I will make sure that they are working on the process.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you. I would appreciate if you would 
go back and see if we could not make that a priority.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Mr. Rosendale. Recently, you had a proposed plan to guide 
the balanced management of public lands, a new rule that has 
come out. And within that, this tool has the potential--and I 
am taking it directly from the BLM document--The tool has the 
potential to expand opportunities to accelerate restoration of 
big game migration corridors, or establish carbon markets, for 
example, and directly in response to comments from state and 
industry partners on a need for a reliable path on public lands 
on which to pursue compensatory mitigation to facilitate 
development projects.
    Those lands are governed by the Taylor Grazing Act, which 
is a law, not a rule. The Taylor Grazing Act specifies an act 
to stop injury to the public grazing lands by preventing 
overgrazing and soil deterioration to provide for their orderly 
use, improvement, and development to stabilize the livestock 
industry dependent upon the public range. By what authority do 
you propose a rule which is in such conflict with the law?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I want to assure that it is 
our job to follow the law in everything that we do, and----
    Mr. Rosendale. So, why would you propose a rule change that 
is in such clear contrast with the law, especially after we 
have just seen the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided in West 
Virginia v. the EPA that Congress, not agencies, had the final 
authority based upon the major questions doctrine.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, the public lands rule is 
currently under public comment. It is not final yet. So, we 
will get all those public comments in and be able to 
incorporate those in.
    Mr. Rosendale. I understand that it is under consideration 
right now, and I assure you I will be providing extensive 
comments against this, but what I am asking is why would you 
propose a rule change that is in such clear contrast with the 
law that is already in place when we have just had a recent 
decision from the Supreme Court that says Congress, not the 
agency, has the final authority.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, the proposed rule is under 
public comment now and is not final, it really does work to put 
conservation and other public lands are multiuse. It is putting 
all of those uses on equal footing.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. Well, they are not 
supposed to be equal footing, and we need to abide by the law, 
not the rule, and I will be submitting those comments and 
hopefully they are incorporated. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico. Ms. Leger Fernandez, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair Westerman, 
Ranking Member Grijalva, and Secretary Haaland. I can't be more 
grateful to have you here with us today to share your 
expertise.
    What we are really seeing across the country is that you 
have elevated trust in our Federal agency, especially after 
there had been such decimation of the personnel in the 
Department of the Interior, and if we don't have the people to 
do the job, they can simply not do what is needed to protect 
our public lands and our public resources. I am very grateful 
that you constantly remind us that these resources that are 
being--whether they are being taken out of the ground or pumped 
up, or solar, or wind, right? Those resources are public 
resources. They belong to every single citizen, and we have an 
obligation to make sure that the full American public benefits 
from the exploitation of those resources. You are a champion 
for our rural and tribal communities, for natural and cultural 
resources, and for our beautiful country and planet. Thank you 
for that.
    I want to talk about some of the really great progress that 
we are seeing from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
especially let's touch a little bit about something that really 
impacts states around not just New Mexico, but also states in 
Louisiana and Pennsylvania, and many other places, and that is 
the Orphan Wells Cleanup.
    It included $4.7 billion to clean up orphan wells, 
consistent with my Orphan Wells Cleanup and Jobs Act. We just 
avoided an additional $560 million spread across 24 states to 
ramp up that plugging and cleanup efforts. But we keep finding 
more and more abandoned wells, and we know that cleaning up 
these abandoned wells creates jobs in those local communities, 
which is also key.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to place into the record a recent 
Washington Post article titled, ``There could be millions of 
abandoned wells in the U.S. Plugging them is a monumental 
task.''
    Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Without objection. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                        Washington Post article

         There could be millions of abandoned wells in the U.S.

                  Plugging them is a monumental task.

washingtonpost.com, April 11, 2023 by Brady Dennis

The Biden administration has supercharged existing efforts by putting 
billions toward the problem. While exact figures are tough to come by, 
experts believe hundreds of thousands of orphan wells remain around the 
country.

OIL CITY, La.

The events that led Joe Tolbert to Well #173054 on a recent Tuesday 
began years ago, when President Biden promised to plug hundreds of 
thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that ``pose an ongoing threat 
to the health and safety of our communities.''

Congress set aside an unprecedented $4.7 billion to fund the idea in 
late 2021, and by last fall the Interior Department began sending an 
initial $25 million to two dozen states to stamp out wells from Alabama 
to Alaska that were contaminating groundwater and leaking planet-
warming gases.

Louisiana, home to more than 4,500 ``orphan'' wells--named so because 
often no viable owner exists--was among those to receive the infusion 
of federal money. The state hired outside contractors, who sought out 
local crews with the equipment and experience needed to do the 
difficult work of dismantling a long-festering environmental scourge, 
one well at a time.

That's how, on a gray morning in northwest Louisiana, in an area known 
as the Caddo Pine Island Oil Field, Tolbert and his three sons were 
once again among the cypress swamps and tall pines, pouring a half-
mile's worth of concrete that would officially end the life of Well 
#173054.

``We're dedicating everything to this right now,'' said Tolbert, 58, 
who owns Tolbert Construction in nearby Oil City. He previously spent 
years servicing wells in this once-prosperous corner of the state, but 
that work fluctuated with the industry's inevitable peaks and 
downturns.

``It's been an up-and-down ride,'' he said, noting that there's even a 
road called the Boom or Bust Byway that runs through town. Since 
January, his small business had found reliable work plugging dozens of 
rusty, leaking wells that litter this rugged landscape.

The push from the federal government to wrangle a problem that 
historically has received little attention marks a historic shift that 
could have profound impacts. Dedicating billions of dollars to target 
the most troublesome wells around the country has the potential to 
result in significantly fewer toxic substances, such as arsenic and 
benzene, polluting groundwater.

Also, while individual orphan wells don't typically leak large amounts 
of methane, collectively they account for a significant source of the 
potent greenhouse gas. So plugging the worst offenders has a clear 
climate benefit, scientists say.

``The more we plug and the faster we plug, the more methane we are 
capturing,'' said Ben Diebold, executive vice president for disaster 
services at Lemoine, one of the two firms with which Louisiana has 
contracted.

Still, a daunting task lies ahead.

Merely locating orphan wells can be arduous, and plugging them is 
tedious, time-consuming and expensive. To follow a crew like Tolbert's 
is to understand how the work is a mixture of sweat, science and 
improvisation. They must navigate swampy roads or thick forests with 
heavy equipment to access the wells, remove miles of steel piping, set 
underground plugs to prevent fluid from flowing, fill strawlike holes 
with cement and remove the well head, and restore the land to something 
resembling normal. The whole endeavor takes days, and can cost $30,000 
to plug a single well--and sometimes far more.

Multiply that times the staggering number of wells around the country, 
and it's clear that the current funding, while monumental compared to 
anything in the past, will only begin to chip away at the problem.

The money pouring into states to do this work is ``supercharging'' the 
modest efforts that previously existed, said Adam Peltz, a director and 
senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund who has worked on the 
issue for years.

But, he added, ``We are only scratching the surface on this.''
`We really only know where a fraction of them are'

The wells are everywhere.

They're in backyards and buried under thorny thickets in suburban 
woods. Rusted pipes rise from the farmland of Texas and New Mexico, 
from an Amish community in Kentucky, from the bayous in Louisiana and 
the dense forests in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They have been found under 
sidewalks and driveways, houses and apartment buildings--and in at 
least one Wyoming schoolyard.

Some wells are a century or more old, dating to an era when there was 
little to no regulation throughout much of the country. Others were 
drilled more recently, and abandoned over time as fossil fuel companies 
or small speculators went belly up or simply left them idle. Until 
recently, states had few incentives to identify the aging wells and 
scant resources to plug them.

Last year, researchers at EDF and McGill University published an 
analysis of more than 120,000 documented orphan wells in 30 states. 
Using census data, it detailed how 14 million people live within a mile 
of an orphan well, including 1.3 million adults with asthma.

According to the analysis, Ohio had the highest number of orphan wells 
on its books, at more than 20,000, followed closely by Pennsylvania. 
But state officials and the researchers behind that work acknowledge 
that such numbers only begin to capture how many actually exist.

``We really only know where a fraction of them are,'' Peltz said.

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission estimates the number of 
undocumented orphan wells to be between 310,000 and 800,000, though due 
to poor record keeping during much of the industry's century and a half 
of production, that number is likely even higher.

According to its most recent national inventory, the Environmental 
Protection Agency estimates the actual number of abandoned wells around 
the country could be in the millions, and that the methane that leaks 
from them each year accounts for nearly 3 percent of the U.S. total.

As states scour their records and their landscapes for long-forgotten 
wells to add to the lists of those that need capping, the federal 
government is doing the same.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $30 million to help 
establish a research consortium aimed at helping develop technologies 
and best practices for locating orphan wells, measuring the amount of 
methane leaking from them and prioritizing which to plug.

That has allowed Natalie Pekney, an engineer with the National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, and other Energy Department researchers to 
undertake a unique kind of detective work.

They have used drones, electromagnetic field detectors and other remote 
sensing technology to scour for orphan wells on public lands from 
Pennsylvania to Oklahoma. They have pored over topographical maps and 
historical photos, hiked through creeks and hacked through brush trying 
to pinpoint wells.

Sometimes, Pekney said, ``They are really hard to find even if you can 
navigate within 30 meters.''

After they locate a well, they measure any methane emissions from it 
and record its GPS coordinates. The idea, she said, is not to hunt down 
every well across the country, but rather to develop tools and methods 
that states can use to more strategically find existing wells and plug 
the most egregious environmental offenders.

``This is a methane emissions source we know how to mitigate,'' she 
said. ``We can go out and do it.''

`The more the merrier'

Curtis Shuck, a former oil and gas executive, jokes that he got into 
the well-plugging game ``long before orphan wells were cool.''

What began with an epiphany several years ago after he witnessed 
abandoned wells dotting an old oil field in northern Montana soon 
became a nonprofit known as the Well Done Foundation, whose work has 
been funded primarily by philanthropic donors and corporate sponsors.

Shuck believes there is a financial model to support the work, even 
though it can cost into six figures to plug troublesome wells, 
depending on the difficulty of accessing their location and other 
circumstances. He is confident that donors will back the work because 
there are immediate, tangible benefits in preventing pollution and 
reducing methane emissions.

His foundation also has backed a carbon accounting methodology that, if 
adopted by the American Carbon Registry, could offer an incentive for 
businesses that want to offset emissions. Already, the nonprofit is 
plugging or monitoring wells in about a dozen states and has plugged 25 
wells so far, with plans to keep expanding.

``This market-based solution has to be one of the tools in the 
toolbox,'' Shuck said, because even the hefty funding from Congress is 
not enough to solve the sprawling problem.

Peltz, from Environmental Defense Fund, said there's plenty of work to 
go around.

``The problem is so vast that we need all participants,'' he said. 
``Anyone who wants to plug a well and is competent, the more the 
merrier.''

In coming months, states will be scrambling to plug as many leaky wells 
as possible and measure the emissions they are preventing, in part 
because if they prove adept at the task, larger rounds of potential 
funding lie ahead.

At the same time, the federal government is also busy extinguishing old 
wells in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The National Park Service says it has identified roughly 1,800 oil and 
gas wells across at least 47 parks, and has undertaken more than two 
dozen projects to restore the land using money from the infrastructure 
law.

``We consider our grounds team to be like Indiana Jones,'' Julia 
Brunner, branch lead of the agency's Energy and Minerals Program, said 
in a release about the program. ``They are out there in the wilderness 
with hatchets, sometimes fighting off alligators to find these wells.''

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service last fall said that it had received 
more than $13 million to remediate 175 orphan wells across six national 
wildlife refuges in Oklahoma and Louisiana. That work is also underway.

But erasing the backlog is a tall order, in part because of the remote 
location of some wells, and also because their number is not static.

``There are wells that are going into orphan status as we speak,'' 
Jimmy Laurent, the agency's Southeast regional energy coordinator, said 
in an interview.

Patrick Courreges, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Natural 
Resources said the funding the state generates through a fee on oil and 
gas production--typically about $10 million annually--has allowed the 
state to plug roughly 150 wells a year. Meanwhile, an oil and gas 
downturn in recent years has caused the number of abandoned wells to 
surge past 4,500.

``We've been losing ground,'' Courreges said.

That is a key problem some other states are also trying to address.

While oil and gas operators in most states must submit ``financial 
assurance'' plans for how they intend to pay for plugging wells when 
they cease being productive, those plans often do not cover the full 
costs if companies walk away or go bankrupt.

Regulators in Colorado last year crafted tougher rules intended to keep 
more wells from slipping into orphan status, and imposed new funding 
requirements paid for by the industry to cover the costs for those that 
do. Officials in states such as Utah, Louisiana and Pennsylvania are 
considering measures with similar goals, Peltz said.

``This is all doable,'' he said, adding that sensible regulation and 
enforcement can prevent many active wells from becoming the ``next 
generation'' of orphan wells. ``The policy tools to fix it are known.''

`A long time coming'

In Louisiana, there are high hopes for the months ahead.

With the federal money flowing, the state and its contractors have 
already plugged more than 100 wells this year, and some workers say 500 
or more might be possible depending on the weather and any problems 
they encounter. ``We want to show bang for the buck,'' Courreges said.

Amid the race to plug wells, there are reminders of how difficult it 
will be to tackle them all, and of the dilemmas in choosing which to 
target.

Outside a house he owns on Bellaire Avenue in Shreveport, Rickey Jordan 
is still waiting for the state to plug the orphan well he discovered in 
2017. Well #22697 pokes out from the soil about 15 feet from where his 
daughter and two grandchildren sleep. The kids are no longer allowed to 
play in the backyard.

``This is not an abandoned oil field. It's a subdivision,'' Jordan says 
one day as he surveys the site in the quiet, predominantly Black 
neighborhood.

Records show the well dates back to 1939. Jordan has periodically 
detected gas leaking from it, and last June one state inspector also 
detected leaking gas, according to a report. Workers did come to weld a 
metal cap and install a valve, but Jordan struggles to understand why 
the state is focused on plugging wells in rural swaths of the state 
rather prioritizing plugging those in places like his backyard, where 
people live.

``I don't consider it harmless. I consider it a nuisance, an 
intrusion,'' he said. ``I worry about my property value.''

The most recent inspection of the well last summer provides one reason 
why the job will be tricky. An inspector noted that the well sits 
``among the roots of a 75 year old live oak'' and concluded, ``With the 
proper equipment the well could be plugged, but difficult.''

Courreges said one reason for the early focus on the state's 
northwestern oil fields is because they are an obvious target. Nearly 
three quarters of documented orphan wells are in that part of 
Louisiana, and many are relatively shallow. ``They say a squirrel once 
could have jumped from here to Texas on the oil derricks and never 
touched the ground,'' he said one day as he drove through Oil City.

For now, Joe Tolbert and his sons are just thankful for the work, and 
glad to be part of addressing a problem that has lingered for 
generations.

``It needs to be done. It was a long time coming,'' he said.

Still, Tolbert knows the spring rains will come and turn already rough 
dirt roads around the oil fields to muck, and the work will slow. That, 
and the fact that such a long backlog exists, means there is plenty to 
do as long as the funding remains.

``There are still wells out here that nobody even knows about,'' he 
said. ``We're not going to run out of wells to plug.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. Secretary Haaland, I think 
we are very concerned in DC about two major fiscal issues. One 
is the impending crisis that is only a crisis if we do not 
raise the debt limit. That is normally done on a regular basis.
    It is a made-up crisis that we might be taken to that 
brink. But the other piece is the proposed cuts to our 
agencies, to what Americans need to get the job done. Could you 
tell me if they had the proposed cuts that Republicans have 
talked about, what would that do to our ability to clean up 
orphaned wells?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question, and I would first just like to say that right now, 
there are over 10,000 well sites that are in the process of 
being plugged. That is on state and private lands. So, we 
recognize how important this is to the future of our country.
    Of course, reduction of the historic funding from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for orphan well cleanup would be 
a very large mistake for all the reasons that you mentioned, 
and above those, one of the most important is the jobs that 
this program creates. I know that this funding is already 
making a tremendous difference on the ground. I was recently in 
Texas where there was actually bubbling up oil. So, these are 
places that we know we can clean up. Legacy pollution is really 
a problem for many issues, but I am grateful that President 
Biden has seen the value in cleaning up these mistakes of our 
past.

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, and another area that I am 
very concerned about is the proposed cuts, what that would do 
to the Bureau of Indian Education, or also to the law 
enforcement. You have pointed out that right now the law 
enforcement is funded at maybe 17 percent of need, and the 
budget cuts would perhaps reduce the number of law enforcement 
in an area that is already underserved, as well as teachers in 
the Bureau of Indian Education, can you just touch quickly on 
what the proposed budget cuts would do for law enforcement?
    So, as we are making sure that we have better law 
enforcement in Indian Country, as well as teachers, can you 
touch quickly on that, because I am running out of time?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, of all the issues that 
tribes bring to us, law enforcement is one of the top issues 
that they are struggling with and therefore we are struggling 
with it. If the budget cuts go through, we could lose 1,500 
tribal law enforcement personnel. That is tribal law 
enforcement officers, plus the support personnel, and it could 
also lead to 500 fewer teachers. There would also be delay in 
BIE school repairs in the building of schools for children.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, these are real budget cuts that 
are going to impact people in their safety and in their ability 
to teach our children. Thank you very much Madam Secretary, I 
yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady from New Mexico. The 
gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Haaland, thank 
you for joining us today. Late last month, you testified in 
front of the Appropriations Committee, my friend and colleague 
Mr. Reschenthaler asked you about the mineral withdrawal in my 
district. You said, and I quote, ``Well, we did a mineral 
withdrawal in the boundary waters.'' Secretary Haaland, do you 
understand why this statement that you made under oath is 
false?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, it is my understanding that 
we made a decision in this area.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, I have to interrupt you. Do 
you understand why the answer that you made under oath is 
false? There is no mining in the wilderness area, and there is 
no mining in the surrounding buffer zone, either.
    As the Secretary of the Interior, and as a former Member of 
Congress on this Committee, you should have known there was 
never a proposal to mine in the boundary waters per the 1978 
Act. Secretary Haaland, do you recognize the document behind 
me?
    Secretary Haaland. Would you like me to----
    Mr. Stauber. Do you recognize that document?
    Secretary Haaland. It is----
    Mr. Stauber. For those that don't know, it is the updated 
list of critical minerals released from your Department last 
year.
    Secretary Haaland. OK, yes.
    Mr. Stauber. Now do you recognize it?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, sorry.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. In your exchange with Mr. Reschenthaler, 
you said in reference to the minerals in the Superior National 
Forest that you banned, and I quote, ``I don't know what kind 
of minerals were there. I don't think they were critical 
minerals.''
    Well, as someone who works, lives, and recreates there, and 
as someone who has the privilege of representing the people 
that live there, let me tell you, those minerals that you 
banned include nickel, cobalt, palladium, platinum, and other 
group metals. Again, this is a list produced by your own 
Department, Madam Secretary, and you told Mr. Reschenthaler 
that, ``I don't think they were critical minerals.'' That is 
unbelievable.
    Secretary Haaland, you claimed the withdrawal that you 
forced upon my constituents is in the boundary waters. That is 
wrong. Do you now understand?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I should have said that it 
was boundary waters watershed.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, so, let's correct that.
    Secretary Haaland. The watershed area.
    Mr. Stauber. Madam Secretary, I only have so much time, let 
me correct it.
    Secretary Haaland. Of course.
    Mr. Stauber. Then you either misspoke, or misled, in the 
testimony. Which was it last week?
    Secretary Haaland. I should have added the word watershed, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. You don't think that the withdrawal included 
critical minerals. Again, that is wrong. You had to be told 
that there were critical minerals. It was only after the 
hearing that you made the changes, and today, you are making 
the changes because you had no idea when Mr. Reschenthaler was 
asking you, you had no idea that the withdrawal was not in the 
boundary waters, and you had no idea that there were critical 
minerals that you banned in the boundary waters.
    So, how can you as Secretary of the Interior not know where 
the wilderness is? And how can you not know that your agency 
withdrew critical minerals? You own this decision to take off-
line massive amounts of critical minerals that we need for 
everyday life, and our strategic national security. Your 
decision, Madam Secretary, is either purely political, or 
ignorance. It is either ignoring your own agency's research, or 
a political move to satisfy your radical anti-mining activists.
    This ill-informed decision has left the United States more 
dependent on China. Now that you have been given the facts, are 
you willing to rescind your order to withdraw the opportunity 
to mine critical minerals outside of the wilderness and the 
buffer zone?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, what I would like to say is 
that with respect to the mine that you are referring to, it was 
always called a copper mine, and copper is not on that list.
    Mr. Stauber. It has nickel and cobalt. It is the biggest 
copper nickel find in the world. In closing, I would like to 
state for the record, this withdrawal, according to the Forest 
Service, includes a taconite and copper ban as well, and Madam 
Secretary, the Iron Range in Northern Minnesota mines iron ore 
that makes 80 percent of this nation's steel, and you banned 
taconite.
    Taconite is included in the ban that you supported and 
signed. I will enter my documents into the record, and again, 
it is frustrating that you made a decision without any 
knowledge whether there was critical minerals in there, and you 
made the decision thinking that the mining was going to happen 
in the boundary waters. You were mistaken. Per the 1978 Act, 
there was never going to be mining in the boundary waters or 
the buffer zone.
    Again, you had no idea when you made that decision what 
critical minerals were in there, and furthermore, you had no 
idea that we had project labor agreements to put union men and 
women to work for generations, and I yield back.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, has the time expired, or is 
there more hyperventilation that we need to endure.
    Mr. Stauber. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. I have given leeway to several others, so I 
would----
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, a point----
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you for the clarification.
    Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, if I may, if we would indulge a 
point of order.
    Dr. Gosar. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Grijalva. We have significant differences in terms of 
policy and philosophy on this Committee, no question about it, 
but berating the Secretary or any witness that we have before 
us, diminishing and demeaning the victim exactly, but----
    Mr. Stauber. Point of order, Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Grijalva. I think it is inappropriate, and I would 
suggest decorum as part of our----
    Mr. Stauber. I request the Ranking Member's words to be 
taken down. That is factually inaccurate.
    Mr. Grijalva. I will save us the exercise of going through 
that and indicate to the gentleman that my comments are 
directed in general and not specifically to anyone, but if he 
is offended by them, I apologize for that, but I do not 
apologize for the call for real decorum in this dais.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I respectfully request those words 
be stricken. That is inaccurate.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chair, point of clarification, what 
specific word is sought to be struck?
    Dr. Gosar. We are getting to that.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK.
    Dr. Gosar. I am trying to establish what those are.
    Mr. Stauber. The fact that a Member has berated the 
Secretary of the Interior?
    Mr. Huffman. That was factually correct.
    Mr. Stauber. That is absolutely not correct
    Mr. Huffman. And that is being charitable. Berating is 
being charitable.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Huffman, I spoke the truth with passion. 
And when you speak the truth with passion and protecting my 
constituents, it is with passion.
    Dr. Gosar. We are going to take a 5-minute recess. The 
Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. 
After some discussions, I think we have reached an agreement 
where Mr. Grijalva will make a statement and then Mr. Stauber 
will make a statement. And then, hopefully, we will move on. 
Mr. Grijalva, I recognize you.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just 
reiterate the statement that I made earlier. If my colleague 
feels that that was a direct, personal insult, I apologize for 
that, and I would do that again. The comments were in general, 
as to the decorum in general and how we conduct meetings and 
how we treat our witnesses, but in terms of any personal 
affront that the gentleman took from my words, I do apologize 
for that, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Stauber, you are recognized.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Grijalva, the 
respect I have for you, I think we have had personal 
conversations, I appreciate that. I just don't want anybody to 
misinterpret maybe my volume for my passion. It is not an 
insult. I am concerned about energy. I am concerned about 
critical minerals being mined by child slave labor, and it goes 
on and on, when we have the ability to do it here. I will yield 
back, and will continue with the proceedings.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. We will now proceed 
with questions. I appreciate the cooperation of the Committee 
to restore order in the Committee, and I now recognize the 
gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank the Chairman. I would encourage 
the Chairman to not take any more bathroom breaks, because when 
he left the room, it apparently devolved, but in any event--and 
I want to be careful about characterizing anyone's remarks--I 
will just stick with, it is good to see you, Madam Secretary.
    Welcome back, and I for one am very grateful that you are 
here. I am grateful that you are leading the Department of the 
Interior. I think you are doing an outstanding job. It, of 
course, was a privilege, or one of the privileges of my career, 
and I know I speak for many of my colleagues here to serve with 
you on this Committee and on the Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
and I couldn't be more grateful for the work that you are doing 
across our country. And, of course, we have been excited to 
welcome you to Colorado on multiple occasions.
    We are grateful for your partnership with Secretary Vilsack 
in the decisions that ultimately the President made last year 
regarding public land protections in Colorado, Camp Hale being 
designated as a national historic site, and the BLM withdrawal 
at the Thompson Divide.
    Of course, we are also grateful for the way in which you 
have implemented the legislation that we successfully got 
across the finish line and that President Biden signed into law 
to protect the Amache site in Southeastern Colorado, and I look 
forward to telling my young children about that visit one day, 
which was incredibly powerful and meaningful.
    I want to say thank you also for the work that you were 
doing with respect to wildfire management, and I thought I 
would approach this in two ways. So, first, we, of course, are 
very grateful that we were able to come together on a 
bipartisan basis to make some significant headway in ensuring 
that our wildland firefighters are getting the compensation 
that they deserve.
    They have been woefully underpaid, as you know, for 
decades, and we are finally starting to fix it. But more 
remains to be done, and I will follow up with your office 
outside of today's hearing, but we have had some letter 
exchanges with the Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary, the 
Honorable Joan Mooney, as well as with her counterpart at the 
Forest Service regarding some of the implementation challenges, 
and I think, as you probably know, wildland firefighters were 
expecting as a result of the infrastructure bill that they 
would have a supplemental pay base increase, and there has 
been, obviously, some confusion with respect to the 
implementation of the bill around some of how that is 
calculated.
    So, we will just continue to work with all of you. We 
understand that more needs to be done at the congressional 
level as well to ultimately ensure that the President's budget 
request, which includes significant wildland firefighting pay 
increases, also is enacted into law.
    All that being said, what I want to ask you, Madam 
Secretary, is I am sure that you are aware of the budget 
decreases that some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have spoken about publicly. You are generally aware?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. And I know it has come up today during the 
hearing, but just to give you a sense, Madam Secretary, the 
Freedom Caucus has passed a resolution that would call for a 
$645 million decrease in the wildland fire management line 
item, which is a Department of the Interior agency-wide line 
item. Could you describe just in practical terms what that 
would mean if the Republican budget decrease were enacted into 
law for our Federal wildland firefighters?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, it is hard to even imagine 
that, because as you know, and you experience this in your 
district, wildland fire is a consistent threat, a persistent 
threat. We no longer have fire seasons. We have fire years, and 
that is because we are in the crisis of climate change, and it 
is just going to get worse.
    So, it would be the worst thing to decrease the resources 
we need to fight those wildland fires, and certainly I think 
all of us can recognize that wildland firefighters are the 
heroes of our country, and they deserve to be compensated 
fairly and equally and deserve to have the benefits and the job 
security that they need.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank you, Madam Secretary. I couldn't 
agree with you more. I think the draconian budget cuts that 
have been proposed by some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are deeply dangerous for the West. I will just 
speak for the folks in Colorado that I represent, the Rocky 
Mountain West, the water conservation projects for the Colorado 
River, which the headwaters of which is in my district, the 
wildland firefighter pay increases and stabilization measures 
that we had been fighting for, Representative Porter and I just 
came from an event with wildland firefighters talking to them 
about the stakes. So, I would hope that we could pull back from 
the edge and ultimately come together on a bipartisan basis to 
ensure that our wildland firefighters are paid appropriately.
    And I will look forward to following up with your agency, 
Madam Secretary, specifically on the supplemental pay increase 
issue for further clarification.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Neguse. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Graves, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. Madam Secretary, thank you for being 
here. Madam Secretary, I have not been shy about looking at 
this Administration's energy policy and finding that it is 
absolutely incomprehensible. This Administration has released 
an energy outlook out of the Department of Energy that shows 
that there is going to be a 50 percent increase in global 
energy demand.
    A 50 percent increase in global energy demand in oil and 
gas specifically. Yet, you yourself made statements saying that 
we are not going to produce oil and gas, the President has made 
statements we are not going to produce oil and gas. The 
Administration released a budget that explicitly said that they 
would not fund any projects that benefited oil and gas, or 
resulted in lower prices for oil and gas. And when I talk to 
our constituents today, wow, has this Administration been 
successful in that we have seen gasoline prices that are 
outrageous.
    I would like to remind people that on the day that the 
President took office, gasoline prices in my home state, the 
lowest price was a $1.74 a gallon. $1.74 a gallon. Madam 
Secretary, how in the world is it compatible to have our own 
Department of Energy saying that oil and gas demand is going to 
increase, and this Administration effectively stopping lease 
sales, preventing any new energy from being able to be 
produced, and just lastly, Madam Secretary, to put things in 
perspective, you would have to go back to the Jimmy Carter 
administration to find anything that is even remotely 
comparable to the number of acres that have been leased under 
this Administration.
    And let me clarify what I mean by comparable. The Jimmy 
Carter administration leased 100 times more acres than this 
Administration has in the first 20 months. I have never seen 
anything like this, and the impact on families across America 
is profound. Can you explain this to me?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
First, I will say, and I have said this many times, oil 
production on Federal lands is at an all-time high.
    Mr. Graves. Not as a result of actions of this 
Administration. So, don't take credit for the previous 
administration, and even the Obama administration's actions. We 
are talking about future oil and gas demand, we are talking 
about actions under your Administration. Please, I am not going 
to hold you accountable for previous administrative actions.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, our staff has been hard at 
work on applications for permits to drill. They have been doing 
that since I have been in office. We are moving forward 
following the law.
    Mr. Graves. Madam Secretary, I don't know that they have 
been hard at work, because we just had--after the White House 
is out there, the president is out there blaming the energy 
industry, and saying that folks are sitting on the APDs, and 
everybody used this statistic over and over and over again, 
over 9,000 APDs out there approved whenever the Department 
doesn't even know how many APDs are out there. They came back 
and said they were, what, 2,600, 2,400 off?
    I mean, this is incredible, and as you know, that statistic 
is not an accurate statistic in that there are so many other 
actions, approvals, permits that are required to actually 
produce, many of these APDs are actually in litigation as well. 
So, it is disingenuous to say that, but I'm sorry, I 
interrupted you. Please.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you. There are nearly 7,000 
permits to drill currently, that are not being used. Pursuant 
to the IRA, we reinstated Lease Sale 257, 258, last year. Lease 
Sale----
    Mr. Stauber. But Madam Secretary, those were required by 
law. Those were not actions of this Administration. You didn't 
want to do it. The Biden administration didn't want to do it. 
That was crystal clear. The only reason those lease sales are 
progressing is because the law requires it, not because of 
anything that you wanted to do. You fought. You fought in Court 
against requirements to do it, because we believe that you are 
not complying with the Mineral Leasing Act, or the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act that requires lease sales.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, if I could continue, 
because I just want you to know that we have had lease sales. 
Lease Sale 259 was held on March 29, 2023. Lease Sale 261 will 
be held the end of September 2023. So, we are following the 
law. We are moving permits through the process. There is career 
staff who take their jobs very seriously, and I appreciate the 
work they do.
    Mr. Graves. Madam Secretary, I have 10 seconds left, I want 
to slide one question in real quick. I am watching emissions go 
up under all of this that is supposed to be done under the 
auspices of climate change. How is this helpful? Emissions are 
going up, not down, under these policies. They are going up, 
not down.
    Secretary Haaland. Well, we are also working on our clean 
energy goals, and at some point, hopefully----
    Mr. Graves. But, none of this is successful. We are 
becoming more dependent upon foreign countries, prices are 
going up, and emissions are going up. I have never seen 
anything like this, and I will just yield back, but again, I 
want to say, I have never seen such incomprehensible energy 
policy having such a profound impact on American families 
across the country. Thank you, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from California. Ms. Porter, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. I hope you can hear me, Secretary 
Haaland, at this volume.
    Secretary Haaland. I can, yes. Thank you.
    Ms. Porter. For far too long, oil and gas have skipped out 
on their responsibilities, leaving abandoned and orphaned wells 
all over our public lands. We know of about 120,000 oil wells 
sitting unplugged and idle right now. However, the Washington 
Post recently found that the number of orphaned wells in the 
United States could be as high as 1 million.
    But we are just scratching the surface of an even larger 
issue. When oil and gas companies get a permit, they make a 
promise to taxpayers to clean up their mess. They promise to 
cover the cost of cleanup. Secretary Haaland, when was the last 
time BLM updated their oil and gas bonding requirement?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much. I want 
to say that there is a proposed rule currently that will 
implement the changes from the Inflation Reduction Act as well 
as address BLM's bonding requirements.
    Ms. Porter. I am very glad to hear of some progress on that 
front, because the last time BLM updated it was 1960. Do you 
know, Secretary Haaland, what is the average cost of the bond 
that oil and gas must put up before they can drill?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I don't have that figure 
in front of me, but----
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, the minimum bond--and I am going to 
make sure you can see this. I will read it to you. The minimum 
bond is $10,000. That is the bond. And then, this is the 
typical bond cost, $10,000 for a single well. The median cost 
of doing the bare minimum, just capping it, not cleaning it up, 
just capping it, is $20,000. The actual cost of doing surface 
reclamation is $76,000, and the high point here to completely 
clean it up, and the most expensive wells cost about $145,000 
to reclaim. Yet, this is the bond amount. Do you think a 
$10,000 bond for oil and gas is good enough given these costs?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I know that depending on 
where the orphaned oil and gas wells are, it depends on what 
the cost is. So, it absolutely varies according to where it is. 
We visited some of those sites in the city of Los Angeles, and 
those are clearly going to be more expensive than doing it out 
in a field in Texas.
    Ms. Porter. Are you aware of any wells that can be capped 
and reclaimed for the 1960 bond amount of $10,000?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I recognize that 
everything has increased since the 1960s. So, it stands to 
reason that these costs, yes, are more expensive today.
    Ms. Porter. Do you, Secretary Haaland, support BLM updating 
its bonding requirement to reflect the actual cost of clean up?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, we absolutely agree with 
you that bonding reforms are long overdue, and the BLM is 
working on that proposed rule for the revision of existing 
regulations pertaining to fossil fuel leases and lease process, 
and we hope to have that rule later this year, and we will keep 
your staff apprised of that.
    Ms. Porter. I appreciate that, because in 2018, the GAO 
found that bonds for 99.5 percent of wells on public lands are 
not sufficient to cover clean-up costs. So, according to 
Columbia University, it can cost us all as taxpayers $24 
billion--I had to relook at the number--$24 billion to find and 
plug just half a million abandoned wells, with taxpayers taking 
the hit.
    So, on behalf of all those who love our Federal lands, on 
behalf of every American taxpayer, I hope that you will force 
oil and gas companies to pay to clean up their own messes and 
update the bonding requirement for extraction.
    I want to turn to another topic. In my last hearing as O&I 
Subcommittee Chair, we had a bipartisan hearing on park 
overcrowding, and a major problem we uncovered was that the OMB 
was holding up approval of the collection of information we 
need at the park level to manage overcrowding, and I sent a 
letter in March about this to OMB. I have not received a 
response.
    I know you are concerned about overcrowding too. Would you 
call Administrator Revesz and ask them to accelerate approval 
to get the Park Administration this critical information they 
need to make sure that we can protect our public lands and 
allow Americans to enjoy our parks?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, we are happy to reach out 
to OMB to ask if they can move this forward.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you so much, Secretary Haaland, I yield 
back.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Guam. Mr. Moylan, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, Guam, 
Hawaii, and CNMI have the largest total number of COFA 
migrants, and between 2004 and 2018, these three jurisdictions 
reported $3.2 billion in costs related to being host 
communities for these COFA migrants.
    While during this time period, between 2004 and 2019, they 
received only $509 million in Federal grants and reimbursements 
to offset these costs. Not $509 million each, but a total 
combined. This estimate is about $34 million pool shared, with 
Guam receiving an average of $13 to $14 million a year.
    Madam Secretary, can you commit to working with my office 
on addressing this inadequate and unfair financial burden 
placed on Gaum and my constituents by these COFA agreements, 
agreements which our community had no say in?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, we would be more than happy 
to reach out to your office and see how we can help to work on 
this issue together.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you. Changing subjects, Madam Secretary, 
as you are aware, Guam plays a critical role when it comes to 
the Indo PACOM theater, and the nation's defense. We are a 
community of proud patriots with the highest number of enlisted 
per capita in the nation.
    However, our road infrastructure overall is terrible, and 
while recent Federal funds have helped to a certain extent in 
repairing certain roads, and please don't get me wrong, we are 
very appreciative. We are a very appreciative community, but 
much more work needs to be done.
    Madam Secretary, can you explore your existing authority to 
help direct more discretionary spending toward funding the road 
and bridge repairs in Gaum through grant programs, and can you 
commit to working with my office on addressing this issue?
    Secretary Haaland. Again, Congressman, we are so happy to 
see how we can help with this issue in Guam, and recognize the 
hardship that it causes to your constituents. We will be happy 
to reach out.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate that, and for my final question, 
Madam Secretary, do you plan on visiting Guam in the near 
future, and I would like to invite you to my district so that 
you can see firsthand proud patriots of America's soil who are 
often forgotten.
    Forgotten when it comes to certain Federal programs such as 
supplementary Social Security income, also known as SSI, yet we 
continue to display our hospitality, and I will be reaching out 
to your office soon to seek support on legislation to allow the 
qualified residents of Guam to attain SSI benefits as any other 
American citizen residing in a U.S. state would receive. But in 
closing, I do hope that you would accept my offer and visit 
Guam to truly understand what the needs of the resident of the 
territory are, a territory under your jurisdiction. I thank 
you, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. It would be my 
honor to visit Guam. So, of course, we will see how that fits 
in with my schedule, but I appreciate the invitation and it 
would be my honor to visit you there. Thank you.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Madam Secretary for joining us today. It is wonderful to see 
you here testifying. I want to echo a little bit of one of my 
earlier colleague's comments in that we are very grateful for 
many of the decisions and policies coming out of the 
Department, but we are also very concerned about some of this 
business as usual, to use his words, around oil and gas 
development.
    As was stated several times during this hearing, oil 
production is at an all-time high under the Biden 
administration. Higher than even under the Trump 
administration. And part of that, within the context of that, 
is the Department's decision around the Willow Project.
    There has been overwhelming opposition around the 
Department's decision to approve the Willow Project, which was 
picked up after the Trump administration's decision was turned 
over in an attempt to do the same. This project was first 
approved under the Trump administration 2020, and tossed out in 
Court as unlawful. It instructed the BLM to reassess the 
project's full climate impact and consider alternatives.
    When the Biden administration then picked up Trump's failed 
project for a second approval attempt, it seems to have still 
failed to meet the court's assessment requirements. In fact, we 
have heard from the Nuiqsut community leaders that have 
maintained that the BLM has ``completely failed to acknowledge 
their attempts at consultation,'' and I would like to submit 
that letter from them to the record.

    [The information follows:]

                         Willow Project letters

                     Congress of the United States

                          Washington, DC 20515

                                                 April 13, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    We write to express our serious concerns about the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) allowing construction to begin on the Willow Master 
Development Plan (Willow or Project) in the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (Reserve) given pending litigation. Noting vocalized concerns 
from the President, the Department of the Interior (DOI), the community 
of Nuiqsut, and the general public about the impacts of the Project, 
DOI must suspend the Right of Way Permit (ROW) immediately and reject 
any future filings by ConocoPhillips for an Application for Permit to 
Drill (APD). Further, we urge DOI to use the contained secretarial 
authority to pause any permit or other action toward development in the 
Alaska National Petroleum Reserve (NPR-A) until the agency completes a 
comprehensive assessment of the implications of future oil from the 
NPR-A and considers the input of all stakeholders.

    On March 14, 2023, groups including Sovereign Inupiat for a Living 
Arctic, Alaska Wilderness League, and Natural Resource Defense Council 
(the litigants) filed lawsuits against the approval of the Project. 
These lawsuits allege that BLM failed to fulfill its mandate and has 
broad authority to protect the Reserve's environment and people in its 
previous analysis of the Project. In doing so, the litigants allege 
that Willow's approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the Endangered Species Act, the National Petroleum Reserves Production 
Act, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA), the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and the Administrative 
Procedure Act.\1\ DOI has not provided sufficient time to 
comprehensively review the well-grounded litigation against Willow's 
approval. Given the extensive claims, DOI should halt any advancement 
of the Project until the litigation is decided in the courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  https://trustees.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-14-1-
Complaint.pdf; https://earth justice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1-
complaint.pdf

    We are mindful of DOI and the White House's apprehension over their 
authority to suspend permits. However, the NPRPA validates that BLM 
``shall include or provide for such conditions. restrictions, and 
prohibitions'' on activities within the Reserve as it determines 
necessary to protect the Reserve's surface resources.\2\ The statute 
places no limitations or conditions on this authority. Further, BLM has 
considerable discretion to suspend all operations on existing leases or 
units.\3\ Under the NPRPA, BLM may suspend operations and production 
``in the interest of conservation of natural resources'' or to mitigate 
``reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface 
resources.'' \4\ BLM has the authority to deny or delay an Application 
for Permit to Drill,\5\ and ConocoPhillips' leases reflect BLM's 
authority to condition, restrict, or prohibit activities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6506a(b) (emphasis added)
    \3\ Id. Sec. 6506a(k)(2) (``The Secretary may direct or assent to 
the suspension of operations and production on any lease or unit.'')
    \4\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3135.2(a)(l), (3)
    \5\ Id. Sec. 3162.3-1(h)(2) (BLM has authority to ``[r]eturn the 
application and advise the applicant for the reasons for disapproval), 
id. Sec. 162.3-1(h)(3) (stating that BLM can respond to an APD by 
advising the applicant of the reasons why final action will be delayed 
along with the date such final action can be expected), see also N. 
Alaska Evtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir. 2006) 
(assuming government could deny a specific application altogether if 
adequate mitigation measures are not available)
    \6\ See U.S. Department of the Interior, Offer to Lease and Lease 
for Oil and Gas. Form 3100-11 (Oct. 2008) Sec. 6 (BLM can require 
additional reasonable mitigation measures as conditions of approval to 
``minimize[] adverse impacts to the land, air, and water, to cultural 
biological, visual, and other resources, and to other land uses or 
users''), id. Sec. 4 (``Lessor reserves the right to specify rates of 
development and production in the public interest.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, on April 3, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the 
Court of Alaska denied the litigants' request for injunction and 
allowed ConocoPhillips to proceed with initial construction this 
winter.\7\ Construction now underway includes blasting the Arctic 
tundra with explosives to mine gravel for drill pads. This mining will 
permanently damage the landscape within the ecosystem and destroy vital 
habitats for migratory birds, waterfowl, caribou, polar bears and other 
wildlife, as well as subsistence uses for wildlife in and around the 
mining area and blast zone.\8\ BLM has the authority to stop this 
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau for Land Mgmt., 
No. 3:23-cv-00058-SLG; No. 3:23-cv-00061-SLG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
58502 (D. Alaska April 3, 2023)
    \8\ DSEIS App. D.2 Page 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The public health risks also deserve further consideration and 
necessitate a comprehensive areawide plan. On March 23, 2023, 
ConocoPhillips proved its equipment unreliable in the State of Alaska 
hearing on the natural gas leak that occurred last year at the CD1 
drill site in the Alpine oil field near Nuiqsut due to a component 
failure related to melting permafrost. Willow's drills will use the 
same infrastructure that failed last year. It is unreasonable for DOI 
to allow an APD before ConocoPhillips proves a similar disaster will 
not occur, especially considering the impact such a disaster would have 
on the local community.
    As Nuiqsut community leaders Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Eunice Brower, 
and Carl Brower wrote to you ``The consultation process has been deeply 
disappointing and contrary to the administration's obligations for 
tribal consultation and to consider Indigenous knowledge. The City and 
Native Village of Nuiqsut have provided input to BLM throughout the 
cooperating agency process which BLM has completely failed to 
acknowledge.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://ndncollective.org/consultation-process-inadequate-new-
letter-from-nuiqsut-community-leaders-to-department-of-interior/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ROD fails to acknowledge other voices as well. Between BLM's 
release of the DSEIS on February 1, 2023 and the ROD's approval, over 1 
million people sent letters concerning the Project to the White House, 
and over 5 million people signed petitions requesting the Project's 
damage be prevented. A pause on any permit or other action toward 
development in the NPR-A would allow the time to properly consider 
their input.
    Given the permanent damage ConocoPhillips' preliminary construction 
efforts will inflict on the surrounding ecosystem and community, 
necessary steps must be taken to mitigate harm as it undergoes 
comprehensive review. Suspending the Right of Way Permit and rejecting 
future filings by ConocoPhillips for an APD permit or other action 
toward development in the NPR-A until DOI completes a comprehensive 
assessment of the implications of future oil from the NPR-A would 
ensure we take the right steps for our future and grant all 
stakeholders the chance to be heard.
    Thank you for your attention to this crucial decision, and we look 
forward to your prompt action.

            Sincerely,

        Jamaal Bowman, Ed.D.          Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Jared Huffman                 Raul M. Grijalva
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Jan Schakowsky                Mike Levin
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Nydia M. Velazquez            Nanette Diaz Barragan
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress
        Jerrold Nadler                Emanuel Cleaver II
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Barbara Lee                   Eleanor Holmes Norton
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Adriano Espaillat             Rashida Tlaib
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Cori Bush                     Katie Porter
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Sydney Kamlager-Dove          Jill Tokuda
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Maxwell Alejandro Frost       Danny K. Davis
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Lloyd Doggett                 Yvette D. Clarke
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Jimmy Gomez                   Suzanne Bonamici
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Diana DeGette                 James P. McGovern
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Summer Lee                    Earl Blumenauer
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Sara Jacobs                   Jamie Raskin
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Mark DeSaulnier               Paul D. Tonko
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Steve Cohen
        Member of Congress

                                 ______
                                 

                                                  March 3, 2023    

Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Secretary Haaland:

    Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the proposed Willow 
Master Development Project (Willow). We are writing to emphasize the 
problems with the consultation process and the mitigation measures 
identified in the Willow final Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (SEIS), and to explain why the administration must deny any 
version of the proposed project. We write in our individual capacities, 
based on our experience with this process.
    This is not the first time we have explained why these measures are 
inadequate. But as the City of Nuiqsut and Native Village of Nuiqsut 
noted in their recent cooperating agency comments to BLM, none of their 
input or concerns about these measures were documented in the 
preliminary SEIS. We are disappointed but not surprised to see that BLM 
has once again ignored their input and comments on the preliminary 
document and appears to have made no additional changes in response to 
their concerns before the release of the SEIS. It seems that despite 
its nod to traditional ecological knowledge, BLM does not consider 
relevant the extensive knowledge and expertise we have gained over 
millennia, living in a way that is so deeply connected to our 
environment.
    The long list of mitigation might look impressive to politicians 
and government decision-makers. To us, it is an attempt to break the 
importance of our life and culture into fragments that are each a mere 
technical problem to be solved so the project can go forward. BLM does 
not look at the harm this project would cause from the perspective of 
how to let us be us--how to ensure that we can maintain our culture, 
traditions, and our ability to keep going out on the land and the 
waters.
    BLM's narrow focus on justifying why the project should go forward 
subverts any meaningful discussion or consideration of why the No 
Action Alternative should be selected. This was true in the context of 
the frame the agency applied to every single one of our cooperating 
agency consultations, and may also be true for a Record of Decision 
that points to a long list of new measures that promise to make this 
project acceptable. Each measure is framed as an argument to let the 
project go forward and represents a monumental misunderstanding about 
what is required for us to survive.
    At a minimum, we request a delay in the release of the record of 
decision until BLM can engage with the City and Native Village of 
Nuiqsut meaningfully regarding mitigation to protect our health and 
subsistence way of life.
I. The consultation process has been deeply disappointing and contrary 
        to the administration's obligations for Tribal consultation and 
        to consider Indigenous Knowledge

    The City and Native Village of Nuiqsut have provided input to BLM 
throughout the cooperating agency process which BLM has completely 
failed to acknowledge. As BLM states, during the cooperating agency 
process we met for many days to discuss our concerns with BLM about the 
impacts of the project. BLM presented the City and Native Village of 
Nuiqsut with a list of ``cooperating agency suggested mitigation 
measures,'' but none of these were measures Nuiqsut suggested. The City 
and Native Village explained extensively why the measures would be 
ineffective and would not achieve their intended purpose. Yet, the 
draft SEIS did not mention the information provided. Instead, the draft 
SEIS simply listed the mitigation measures in an appendix, without any 
discussion whatsoever.
    When the City and Native Village of Nuiqsut received a copy of the 
preliminary final SEIS, they noticed that BLM again characterized this 
list as ``cooperating agency suggested mitigation measures,'' and again 
failed to acknowledge their input. They again pointed out this omission 
to BLM. However, when the final SEIS was released, we once more 
discovered that nowhere in the SEIS does BLM acknowledge our extensive 
input about why the mitigation measures are inadequate. The only 
mention of our input at all is from the Native Village of Nuiqsut's 
comments on the first EIS. Nothing the City and Native Village provided 
during the supplemental EIS process is mentioned.
    This administration has committed to support and help advance the 
priorities of Alaska Native leaders, including those related to 
sustainable land management and the conservation of natural, cultural, 
and historical resources.\1\ The White House has also committed to 
elevating Indigenous traditional and ecological knowledge in federal 
scientific and policy processes.\2\ It is essential that BLM consider 
the information the City and Native Village of Nuiqsut provided about 
why the mitigation measures designed to protect the caribou migrations, 
as well as other mitigation measures, will not be effective. It is a 
matter of our survival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful, May 6, 2021 
(Principle 4).
    \2\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and 
Agencies: Implementation of Guidance for Federal Departments and 
Agencies on Indigenous Knowledge, Nov. 30, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The disclosure of this information is also required by the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires that the agency make 
every effort to disclose and discuss in the draft EIS all major points 
of view on the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the 
proposed action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In re Big Thorne Project, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1147 (D. Alaska 
2015), aff'd. 857 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2017), and aff'd sub nom. In re 
Big Thorne Project & 2008 Tongass Forest Plan, 691 F. App'x 417 (9th 
Cir. 2017); see also The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 1001 
(9th Cir. 2008) (affirming that agency must ``acknowledge and respond 
to comments by outside parties that raise significant scientific 
uncertainties and reasonably support that such uncertainties exist.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM must also respond to the critiques the City and Native Village 
of Nuiqsut provided. The agency must disclose all comments and discuss 
``any responsible opposing view which was not adequately disclosed in 
the draft [EIS] and shall indicate the agency's response to the issues 
raised.'' \4\ As the Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal 
Consultation (Nov. 30, 2022) explains, ``consultation requires that 
information obtained from Tribes be given meaningful consideration.'' 
The memo also requires federal agencies to maintain a record of tribal 
input received and an explanation of how Tribal input influenced or was 
incorporated into the agency action. The SEIS reflects none of these 
obligations. We participated in the cooperating agency process with 
good will and exhaustive effort. Unfortunately, we now find it 
necessary to write publicly, outside of the process, so that you can 
hear our views directly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ In re Big Thorne Project, 93 F. Supp. 3d at 1147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The government's management of the NPR-A stifles our voice and 
        threatens our wellbeing

    Federal officials ask why other North Slope villages do not 
outwardly state opposition this project. Those villages get some 
financial benefits from oil and gas activity but experience far fewer 
impacts than Nuiqsut. We are at ground zero for the industrialization 
of the Arctic. The SEIS suggests that to mitigate this imbalance, the 
NPR-A Impact Mitigation Fund could direct a minimum of 15% of the grant 
funding to the City of Nuiqsut.\5\ This hardly addresses the imbalance 
in costs and benefits within the North Slope Borough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measure #37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The politicians and proponents of oil development are correct that 
we get some money from oil development in the NPR-A. But think about 
the purpose of this money, and what we use it for. The very existence 
of the Impact Mitigation Fund suggests that it is somehow fair for 
industry to pass along the expenses of harm from oil development--and 
the responsibility for addressing them--onto us, as long as they've 
paid us to deal with them. How exactly is that considered a benefit to 
us? Anyhow, the life, health, and safety and the importance of 
tradition and culture could never be protected from one development 
with 15% of the funds available. No dollar can replace what we risk.
    But an even bigger reason government officials do not hear all of 
the opposition that our people have to oil development is because the 
power of one of the largest companies in the world reaches into every 
community and household, and into the environmental review process 
itself, censoring what we say to one another in Facebook groups (which 
the company administers), censoring our reports of violations (because 
the company employs the observers),\6\ censoring our basic governmental 
functions (because the company's charitable giving supports our city 
government),\7\ censoring our efforts to express our concerns (because 
the company organizes and controls the meetings to address these 
concerns),\8\ censoring scientific research (because the company 
controls, designs, and funds the studies),\9\ censoring information 
about the impacts of their activities (because the company controls, 
designs, and funds the monitoring and reporting),\10\ and censoring our 
attempts to teach our children how to become leaders and protectors of 
our land and culture (because the company designs and pays for school 
programs).\11\ The corporate power is so strong and pervasive, it 
seeped into the process of writing this very letter, which we were 
unable to finalize in its original form on behalf of the City and 
Native Village.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ SEIS Suggested cooperating agency mitigation measure #35, which 
would provide information on how to report violations, does not fix 
this problem. The existence of a complaint procedure does not remove 
the pressure our people feel to keep quiet.
    \7\ See, e.g. ConocoPhillips, Local Community Giving https://
www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/creating-shared-value/global-
giving/local-community-giving/ (noting assistance with community civic 
services); see also ConocoPhillips, Listening to Stakeholders on 
Alaska's North Slope https://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/
sustainability-news/story/listening-to-stakeholders-on-alaska-s-north-
slope/ (noting the formation of the Nuiqsut Community Development 
Foundation, which provides ``support'' to our community); see also 
ConocoPhillips 2021 Sustainability Report at 123 (noting funding for 
city administration).
    \8\ See, e.g, suggested cooperating agency measure #37, where 
ConocoPhillips would conduct inter-community subsistence workshops; see 
also ConocoPhillips 2021 Sustainability Report at 121 (conducting 
``frequent engagements with communities located closest to our 
operations from community meetings, open houses, and reports to state 
and local organizations.'')
    \9\ See, e.g., ConocoPhillips 2021 Sustainability Report at 111 
(``collaborating'' with BLM's North Slope Science Initiative); see also 
id. at 121 (listing environmental study programs in Alaska including 
air quality monitoring stations, caribou, bird, and fish surveys, 
hydrological studies, lake water quality and recharge monitoring, 
subsistence hunting studies, and tundra rehabilitation) .
    \10\ See, e.g., SEIS suggested mitigation measures #56, #57, #59, 
ConocoPhillips 2021 Sustainability Report at 103 (conducting polar bear 
surveys); id. at 111 (``collaborating'' with BLM's North Slope Science 
Initiative, which includes monitoring); id at 116 (monitoring caribou 
impacts).
    \11\ See, e.g., suggested cooperating agency measure #20, where 
ConocoPhillips would fund traditional and western scientific education 
programs in Nuiqsut schools to ``help inform and improve the 
community's understanding of the oil and gas industry development and 
its associated impacts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Packaged as suggested mitigation measures in the Willow SEIS, 
ConocoPhillips would pay for a small amount of our fuel \12\ (which we 
need to travel farther for hunting) and pay for greenhouses \13\ and 
food storage facilities \14\ for imported store-bought foods that are 
too expensive for us to buy anyway (because their activities are 
chasing our animals away). It would also provide funding to support our 
healthcare clinic (because their activities are causing us respiratory 
and other illnesses) and pay for a cultural center \15\ (because oil 
development is destroying our culture). It would pay us $250,000 for 
much needed search and rescue equipment the moment they begin project 
construction. Once the processing facility is built (which is designed 
to make Willow the next Prudhoe Bay of the North Slope), we'd get 
another $250,000 for search and rescue.\16\ Do you know why our search 
and rescue needs have increased? Because climate change, caused 
primarily by fossil fuel development, has made our hunting and travel 
so much more dangerous. Do you know why existing sources of funding are 
inadequate? Because the State will only providing funding if we go 
through a pre-approval process (which is not possible when we're 
responding to emergencies in the middle of the night or on weekends), 
because our tension with the North Slope Borough means that it has been 
less supportive of us than it could be, and because ConocoPhillips 
provides us with rescue vehicles that cannot be repaired in Nuiqsut and 
are therefore useless as soon as they break down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measure #52.
    \13\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measures #40. This is not a 
new mitigation measure. ConocoPhillips promised these greenhouses a few 
years ago, and still hasn't followed through.
    \14\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measure #67.
    \15\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measure #58.
    \16\ SEIS suggested cooperating agency measure #4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How can any of these measures be considered mitigation? They are 
payoffs for the loss of our health and culture. They are small gestures 
offered by a company that made $19 billion in profits last year.
    Make no mistake. Our community needs financial support, scientific 
studies and monitoring, and economic development. We face dire threats 
to our lives daily, including epileptic seizures by children at school 
and no trained staff to respond, cancer diagnoses, food insecurity, 
respiratory failure, suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, and accidents 
that occur when we travel out on the land or on the sea. Many of these 
problems are caused by oil development, but these social impacts are 
not captured or adequately disclosed by the SEIS's technocratic 
monetization of the social costs of carbon nor BLM's brief description 
of health impacts.
    Why is our only option to have ConocoPhillips fund the support we 
need? Why would any local, state, or federal government allow a company 
that is responsible for so many of our problems continue creating those 
problems? Why would any government continue to foster our dependence on 
a fading industry, instead of investing its attention, resources, and 
money in creating an economy that is ready for and will be competitive 
in a post-fossil fuel economy? This is the definition of environmental 
injustice. It is also the definition of corporate capture, where 
private industry uses its financial and political influence to provide 
essential government services and take control of government decision-
making and oversight. This dynamic helps explain why BLM considers it 
``mitigation'' to stop industrial traffic to protect caribou and their 
calves only after the agency has consulted with the company to assess 
the impacts this would have on operations.\17\ Similarly, why does BLM 
consider such basic obligations as providing an adequate number of 
inspectors to ensure compliance \18\ and gaining site and road access 
for these inspections to take place \19\ as ``mitigation'' and not 
simply a core part of its responsibilities? With the financial and 
political power that create this dynamic, it is not hard to understand 
why the Mayor of the North Slope Borough, a staunch opponent of the 
last big development pressures we faced, supports this project. The 
City of Nuiqsut has had an open invitation to the North Slope Borough 
Mayor to visit us since the CD-1 gas leak. He has refused to come and 
discuss our concerns with us, yet he speaks on our behalf to state and 
federal lawmakers and decisionmakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Cooperating agency suggested measure #50.
    \18\ Cooperating agency suggested measure #36.
    \19\ Cooperating agency suggested measure #55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another reason the government does not hear more about our 
opposition to this project is that we have expressed our concern for 
decades, but it has not made any difference. Many of us get discouraged 
and give up. We have gone through process after process, and the agency 
is always designing new mitigation, but the facts about what has 
happened to us and our land over this period are indisputable: the 
infrastructure has surrounded us, the caribou have left our traditional 
hunting grounds, and our mental and physical health has deteriorated. 
We have fought to protect our life, health, and safety every step of 
the way, yet this is where we are. The government acknowledges there 
are problems, but industrial development is always allowed to continue. 
Providing us with a process to explain to BLM how this development is 
harming us, without ever making any real decisions to prevent this 
harm, demoralizes and depresses us. The processes do not even maintain 
the pretense of addressing our concerns. They are only defenses of why 
the project should continue.
    Finally, the government does not hear the full opposition to this 
project because we are told, ``the government sold the leases, so this 
is going to happen anyway.'' This constant refrain from the federal and 
state government and ConocoPhillips has penetrated the North Slope 
Borough's position, so that even our own municipality does not defend 
us. The SEIS removes many of the legally flawed statements that 
reinforce this view, but it will take more than their elimination from 
this SEIS to undo the decades of damage that this incorrect 
interpretation of BLM's authority has done to our voice. It is time for 
the administration to assert affirmatively and clearly that it has not 
only the authority but the obligation to protect us, and that the 
leases are, and always have been, subject to this obligation.
III. More durable protection for Teshekpuk Lake is necessary but will 
        not sufficiently protect our village
    The Department of Interior recently stated it would improve 
protections for the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area (TLSA). Maybe the 
administration will even defer the well pad proposed in TLSA (BT2). 
Protection of TLSA is essential but achieving stronger protection 
within these lines on a map cannot be made as a tradeoff for 
sacrificing Nuiqsut. The impacts of Willow would be almost entirely 
outside of the TLSA. Even one well pad is likely to deflect the spring 
migration, when caribou are headed to their calving grounds north of 
Teshekpuk Lake. This migration is imprinted on them, directing them to 
the place where they will most successfully give birth. Any deflection 
of this path will threaten their calving success and their population, 
as well as our nutritional, spiritual, and cultural connection to these 
animals. Even one well pad at Willow opens the door to western 
expansion, which BLM recognizes would be devastating for our land, 
water, air, and animals. Deferral of well pads for now will not stop 
the exponential industrial development that faces us.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See, e.g., Cooperating agency suggested measure #2, which 
would defer BT5 until three years after the construction of the 
Project's other three drill sites are complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The mitigation measures do not mitigate impacts; instead, they 
        allow development to go forward and measure those impacts as 
        they occur
    Many of the SEIS suggested mitigation measures are designed to 
allow activity to go forward, and to simply study the additional 
impacts to our village and our resources as they occur. This mechanical 
approach to studying the harm we undergo feels like a form of human 
experimentation, especially since the administration is well-aware of 
the serious impacts to us from the oil development that has occurred 
thus far. BLM proposes to monitor impacts as they occur, but doesn't 
identify any thresholds that would be imposed, or any actions that BLM 
would take if those thresholds were exceeded.
    Most concerning are the measures that study our health while 
letting the project go forward. If BLM knows that our health is 
deteriorating, how can it in good conscience allow an activity to go 
forward which will make our health worse? Are we again the government's 
chosen guinea pigs, in a modern-day Project Chariot? These measures 
propose to simply continue studying the impacts of contamination and 
pollution on our food, our air, and our water, while allowing the 
pollution to continue.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See, e.g., ROP A-11, ROP A-12, cooperating agency suggested 
mitigation measures 18, 25, 27, 30, 31, 39, and 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also deeply disappointing are the measures that would continue 
observation of activity that threatens our food security, while 
allowing that activity to go forward.\22\ BLM knows our village and 
others are struggling to put food on the table because of the 
industrial activity already occurring, and the agency is going to study 
how that gets even harder, as Willow goes forward.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Cooperating agency suggested mitigation measures 1, 2, 5, 24, 
38, 42, 43, 48, 56, 57, 59.
    \23\ The analogy to Project Chariot is not hyperbole. After 
determining that creating a port at Point Hope with a nuclear bomb was 
inappropriate, nuclear researchers buried radioactive material in the 
area and turned their project into a study to measure how much 
radiation was necessary to ``render a population dependent after local 
food sources have become too dangerous.'' Johansen, Bruce E. 
Environmental racism in the United States and Canada: Seeking justice 
and sustainability. ABC-CLIO, 2020, p. 257. Now it seems that the 
government is studying just how much disturbance to caribou is 
necessary to eliminate our subsistence lifestyle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM also recommends greenlighting a project that it admits will 
contribute to climate change and studying those impacts are as they 
occur.\24\ The agency also proposes to measure the tundra damage from 
Willow, while allowing the project to go forward.\25\ These, too, have 
significant negative impacts on our community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Cooperating agency suggested mitigation measures 12, 17.
    \25\ Cooperating agency suggested mitigation measures 32, 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. The SEIS does not analyze whether or to what extent the mitigation 
        measures would be effective.

    Many measures would mitigate only part of the impacts and BLM does 
not explain how effective the measures would be, the basis for that 
determination, and what the remaining impacts would be. Many of them 
are also vague, which prevents any meaningful analysis of their 
effectiveness.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ See, e.g., ROP F-1, Additional mitigation measure 3.6, 
cooperating agency suggested mitigation measures 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 19, 
20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, and 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, all the Required Operating Procedures (ROPs) can be easily 
waived, at the complete discretion of the local BLM office. Some of the 
ROPs are not even included in ConocoPhillips' project design.\27\ The 
SEIS states that ``some of these measures are similar to existing NPR-A 
LSs and ROPs or other requirements and are included to show the Project 
proponent's commitment to adhering to them.'' \28\ Does that mean that 
the ROPs that are not included in ConocoPhillips' design features 
demonstrate the company's lack of commitment to following them? For the 
design features that are similar, but not identical, to the SEIS ROPs, 
why has BLM not required ConocoPhillips to modify them, so that they 
align with the ROPs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ See, e.g., ROPs A-11, A-12, B-2, and M-2.
    \28\ SEIS App I.1 at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The environmental racism and injustice of oil development on the 
North Slope must stop. Oil development paid for our utilities, our 
schools, and so many other advancements we have benefited from. But 
providing these services is the responsibility of our governments, not 
private corporations. And we have a right to these services whether we 
agree to hosting an industrial wasteland in our backyard or not. The 
municipal, state, and federal government must stop insisting otherwise 
by delegating this responsibility to the oil industry.
    The government also has an obligation to protect us from the harms 
of the oil industry and must stop expecting us to sacrifice our own 
lives ``in the national interest.'' Fenceline communities have been 
asked to do so for too long, and environmental justice requires a new 
approach.

            Quyanaq for your consideration,

              Rosemary Ahtuangaruak       Carl Brower

              Eunice Brower

                                 ______
                                 

    Additionally, the Alaska Wilderness League has confirmed 
that they were not consulted at all before the Department 
released the environmental impact statement, but I would 
actually like to direct my question to Mr. Beaudreau as the 
Deputy Secretary of the Department. I am interested in the 
decision-making process and the contours of the decision-making 
process around Willow. Who within the Department were some of 
the key stakeholders? Who were the leaders involved in making 
this decision?
    Mr. Beaudreau. The Willow Project was an application before 
the Bureau of Land Management. So, BLM Alaskan staff conducted 
the analysis, the supplemental EIS analysis, as directed by the 
court.
    Also involved, of course, through the chain of command was 
the BLM Director, and the Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Land and Minerals. Ultimately, I signed the recorded 
decision, so it is my signature on that document.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you signed the record of decision 
around the Willow Project?
    Mr. Beaudreau. Yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did the White House at any point weigh 
in on a preference on this decision with you?
    Mr. Beaudreau. As with all of the matters in front of the 
Department, we, of course, coordinate with the White House. At 
the end of the day, though, a permitting decision like Willow 
is one that rests with the Secretary and her authorities, and 
as Deputy Secretary, I was the one who signed the recorded 
decision.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And did BLM or anyone in the Department 
provide rationale for not consulting some of the major 
stakeholders, or failing to consult properly or account 
properly, such as the consultation from the Nuiqsut community, 
or the Alaska Wilderness League?
    Mr. Beaudreau. Again, both Rosemary, the mayor, and 
Nuiqsut, and folks at Alaska Wilderness League are people that 
we know well in the Department, and I know well personally. So, 
I don't mean to contradict, but there has been throughout this 
process very close communication with Nuiqsut as well as with 
all interested stakeholders.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, and one last question. Given 
the precarious nature of the project's approval in the courts, 
and given your role in the decision, will the Department 
consider holding off on approving permits to drill for Willow 
until the litigation is settled?
    Mr. Beaudreau. The posture of the Department right now is 
that the recorded decision has been issued. There has been 
litigation filed. Absent an injunction from the court, the 
project has the approvals to conduct the activities reflected 
in the recorded decision.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida. Ms. Luna, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Luna. From ensuring the Bureau of Ocean Management 
continues to follow the moratorium on Florida's offshore energy 
development to the Fish and Wildlife Service's protection of 
critical marine species and their habitats, the Department of 
the Interior plays a substantial role in my district and 
throughout the state of Florida.
    Florida beaches are vital to the success of our coastal 
communities and the protection of our wildlife. In 2021 alone, 
Florida's visitors contributed $101.9 billion to the local 
economy and supported nearly 1.7 million jobs. The moratorium 
on offshore energy development projects in Florida's beaches 
and wildlife from disasters like the 2010 BP oil spill, and 
protects our national security interests, as well as protecting 
our military readiness and training activities at Eglin's test 
ranges and complexes throughout the Jacksonville range complex 
areas.
    Similarly, Florida's beaches are home to some of our most 
beloved marine wildlife, some of which are protected under the 
Endangered Species Act, but, unfortunately, the erosion of 
Florida beaches puts many wildlife that are listed under the 
ESA at risk, making it necessary for routine coastal 
maintenance.
    For example, the Sand Key Project in my district is up for 
renourishment, and the erosions of beaches like Sand Key can be 
devastating, because it leaves infrastructure prone to flood 
damaging, which negatively impacts the local economy, and also 
demolishes many habitats that endangered species and threatened 
wildlife rely on.
    In fact, the Sand Key Project has directly impacted species 
like the loggerhead turtles, piping plover shorebirds, Western 
Indian manatees, Eastern black rails, red knots, wood storks, 
and American crocodiles, all of which are federally classified 
as endangered or threatened species, and reside in or around 
the Sand Key region.
    With that being said, my question is for you, Secretary 
Haaland. The erosion of shorelines affecting natural resources, 
energy defense, public infrastructure, and tourism. How has the 
Department of the Interior and Bureau of Ocean Management 
worked to address the erosion along our nation's coastal 
beaches, barrier islands, and wetlands?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you, and first I 
want to thank you for your care and concern about the marine 
life in your district, and beyond Florida. I went to Florida 
and had a chance to be in the Everglades, and it really is a 
magical place.
    Honestly, I would be happy to get back with your staff 
about any specific programs that we have for coastal erosion in 
your area, and certainly we are always happy to work with you 
on any ideas or projects that you would like to present to us, 
and we care deeply about these areas.
    Ms. Luna. This next question is for anyone on the panel. 
How long does it typically take the Department of the Interior 
or each bureau to provide the necessary permits for projects 
like Sand Key where sand placement is critical to the 
restoration of endangered habitats?
    Mr. Beaudreau. As the Secretary said, we can provide 
statistics like that. I will say, as the former Director of the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, marine minerals and coastal 
restoration is one of the primary missions of BOEM, working 
with our partners, including the Army Corps, on those types of 
projects.
    Ms. Luna. If I can just ask you a real quick question. The 
Army Corps is giving us pushback, and they are failing to 
acknowledge that this is actually very endangered habitat. So, 
we need help on it, because they are giving us some 
bureaucratic nonsensical answer, and obviously I think you guys 
might have a little bit of pull there, so we would appreciate 
your help.
    Mr. Beaudreau. Well, I will reach out to Mike Connor at the 
Army Corps, who used to have my job, so I know he appreciates 
our mission.
    Ms. Luna. I am about to do a protest, like, I am not even 
kidding. I am about to go to the office and protest, because it 
is nonsense. OK, is the Department of the Interior or Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management committed to following the offshore 
energy development moratorium on the Eastern Gulf? As you know 
from Florida, I would bet you probably can't find a Florida Rep 
that is going to want anything off our shores. I don't care 
what it is.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, yes.
    Ms. Luna. OK, good. I like to hear it. Thank you, guys. 
Chairman, I yield my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico. Ms. Stansbury, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to take 
this opportunity like some of my colleagues have before me to 
welcome our Madam Secretary, and Deputy Secretary, and Director 
Flanagan, who I had the pleasure of working with in a former 
life, and to say New Mexico is in the house. We are excited to 
have you here today, and before I dive into some of the 
budgetary matters that we are here to talk about today, I do 
want to just take a moment to acknowledge the incredible work 
that you have done as a leader within the Department of the 
Interior, and in the Administration, along with all of you who 
are serving and all of your staff.
    What a difference leadership makes across all areas and all 
missions and bureaus of the Department, whether that is 
addressing tribal affairs and being good partners to our 
sovereign Tribal Nations, addressing the climate crisis, or 
tackling our conservation and our water issues.
    So, with that in mind, I want to just really celebrate some 
of the big successes that the Department has made over the last 
couple of years, and also acknowledge some of the proposals in 
the budget that I am very excited about. In particular, on 
tribal affairs, the Biden administration, after a 4-year hiatus 
of the Tribal Nations Conference, has begun to convene and 
consult once again with our Tribal Nations.
    The budget makes significant investments in our Tribal 
Nations, and the particular initiatives, Madam Secretary, that 
you have led on around missing and murdered Indigenous women 
and the boarding school project, and I am excited to also see 
in the budget full funding for contract support costs, which is 
vital to our Tribal Nations, and something that I worked on for 
many years, which is to secure mandatory funding for Indian 
water right settlements.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is long past due 
to get it done. Our tribes are depending on us, and we have to 
get that across the finish line, and I want to commit to you 
all today that I am here to be in that fight to make it happen.
    On conservation and science, obviously we see significant 
investments in this budget, especially appreciative of the 
commitment to the 30x30 Initiative, which Madam Secretary, you 
have taken such a leadership role. The increase in firefighter 
salary funding, which we know is so vital for our first 
responders, and, of course, the comprehensive approach to 
conservation and water issues in general.
    And, of course, the commitment and leadership of the 
Department in helping to get our climate and clean energy 
dollars on the ground, which this body passed through our work 
on the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law.
    So, it is really an extraordinary accomplishment. I am 
excited. As you all know, I worked at OMB, and I am a bona fide 
budget nerd. So, I am always excited to read about the 
initiatives that are in the Department's budget. But I do want 
to take a couple of moments to touch on some issues that are 
near and dear to New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, which 
Madam Secretary, you know oh so well, as the former 
Congresswoman for our district.
    And the first is I want to thank you personally for your 
support for the To'Hajiilee Community School. We just passed 
over $90 million to help replace that Community School in the 
To'Hajiilee community of the Navajo Nation. And as you know, 
Madam Secretary, that will transform that community not only by 
bringing dollars to update that facility, but also jobs and 
really a transformative impact in the community.
    But as I think has been stated, that is just one school, 
and we have an over $4 billion backlog in BIE schools, and I 
know that there is an increase in this budget for our BIE 
schools, but it only comes to about one-tenth of the total 
amount needed to actually address that backlog.
    My first question is, and I think I can assume the answer, 
will you commit to working with us here in Congress to make 
sure we get full funding to address that backlog?
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you very much. Secondly, I want to 
just touch really quickly on four projects that are really 
vital for our district and our tribal communities, and that is 
to ask for your support and your help in getting administrative 
efforts to protect Chaco Canyon across the finish line, 
administrative efforts to withdraw the Buffalo Tract in New 
Mexico, to advance the water rights of the Middle Rio Grande 
Pueblos, which are currently beginning the adjudication 
process, and to protect Oak Flat, which of course is the sacred 
land of the Apache people which not only live in Arizona in the 
Chairman's home state, but also in our state in New Mexico.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much. I know 
that a lot of the projects and issues that you mentioned, they 
are being looked at in our Department, and I just appreciate 
your support and your full support of Tribal Nations across our 
country. Thank you.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I know I am out 
of time, but I do want to just say I would be remiss if I did 
not bring up the issue of the Colorado River. The basin states 
have made extraordinary efforts to try to find a collaborative 
path forward.
    My colleague from California is not here to defend his home 
state, but we really need to make sure that all of our basin 
states come together in good faith, and that we do not have a 
Federal takeover of our waters on the Colorado.
    So, I do want to ask for the commitment of the Department 
to work collaboratively with our states and tribes on the 
Colorado, as well as the Rio Grande. Thank you very much, and I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Gosar, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary 
Haaland. I am going to ask you a question. Do you think it is 
important to weigh all factors before making a decision to 
withdraw lands or waters from mineral production?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Congressman. Of 
course, there is a process.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes or no? I mean, you don't exclude any 
information, do you?
    Secretary Haaland. We follow the process. We want to hear 
from all the stakeholders. We do a thorough job.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Do you know how much money current mineral 
production provides to the Navajo Nation members every year?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I don't have that figure in 
front of me.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, let me give it to you. In 2022, almost $40 
million of revenue went to Navajo allotees from one company 
alone. Do you know how much Navajo members stand to lose from 
restricting future production in the proposed buffer zone in 
the Chaco Canyon mineral withdrawal, and do you know how much 
it would cost the government?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I know that we don't--I 
mean, it is hard to project what those numbers are if those 
areas have not been under production, but I appreciate the 
question, and----
    Dr. Gosar. Well, let me give you some examples. The answer 
is $194 million over 20 years. It would also cost the BLM over 
a billion dollars in royalties over those 20 years. Now, the 
mineral estate owned by the Navajo allotees is in a 
checkerboard pattern with Federal lands, and without the 
Federal leases and right-of-ways, their minerals won't be 
developed.
    And this is very key, because I supported the Chaco Canyon 
monument, but I also had a commitment from the now-Senator that 
there would be access to an easement that would address the 
allotees. Would you commit to considering these impacts before 
making a final decision with that withdrawal, and if so, having 
an easement for those allotees?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I just want to assure you 
that any withdrawal protects existing rights of those allotees.
    Dr. Gosar. So, access is a part of that?
    Secretary Haaland. What I can tell you is that any 
withdrawal is protecting the existing rights of the people who 
live in those areas.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, it should be very simple and that easement 
for access to those royalties or to those minerals be part of 
that decision.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congressman. I know that, as 
I mentioned, there is a process. Currently, there is a public 
comment period happening with respect to the issue that you 
have raised, and there has not been a decision made as of 
today.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Why is the Department of the Interior 
continuing to issue mineral withdrawals, and then throw up 
other administrative hurdles for minerals that our country 
already has, like lithium, copper, nickel, and others, while at 
the same time the President is trying to buy them from other 
countries with taxpayer dollars from the Inflation Reduction 
Act? Why are we supporting people like the Chinese when they 
are using child labor in the Congo? We have it right here. We 
do it better than anybody else? Why would we not?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question, 
and I know that as Deputy Secretary Beaudreau mentioned earlier 
about the work on the inter-agency work group for mining 
reform, we are working to move this law into the 21st century.
    There are places for critical minerals to mine in this 
country. We are working hard to move some of those forward. The 
Department has actually permitted 20 new mines or mine 
modifications since January 2021.
    Dr. Gosar. So, I am glad you said that. Arizona is famously 
known as the copper state due to our tremendous reserves. Due 
to the significant supply fluctuations since 2018, copper and 
other minerals not currently designated as critical by your 
Department may now qualify under the existing USGS methodology 
as critical minerals.
    As Secretary, you have the authority to re-evaluate the 
critical minerals list at any time between the required 
evaluations of every 3 years. Given the severe supply chain 
risks that have deepened with China's growing global influence, 
can you commit to a re-evaluation of the current critical 
minerals list before the required update in 2025?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I know that the United 
States Geological Survey is mandated by the Energy Act of 2020 
to redo that list every 3 years. So, I believe that, yes, 2025 
is the next time that they will update that list.
    Dr. Gosar. It says that is the minimum. I mean, as the 
Secretary, you should be looking at the landscape and you have 
the ability to change those as a directive, and I think based 
upon what technology is going through here, this is very 
important to have. So, I yield back.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York. Ms. Velazquez, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member. 
Secretary Haaland, welcome to the community. As you well know, 
the renewable energy industry on public lands and Federal 
waters has incredible potential to accelerate the clean energy 
transition. I am excited to see the progress so far in my home 
state of New York, which now has five commercial scale offshore 
wind projects in active development.
    The Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats passed last 
Congress, included several boosts to clean energy through a 
significant amount of funding for permitting. My question to 
you is, how DOI is using the Inflation Reduction Act funds to 
encourage sound and streamlined permitting for renewable energy 
projects on Federal land and waters, specifically offshore 
wind?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question, and, of course, permitting happens because we have 
experienced staff in place to move those applications forward. 
We can't do it without staff. If we are able to hire more 
staff, then it stands to reason that we can get those things 
done faster.
    The Fiscal Year 2024 budget contains significant resources 
to ensure that we are moving forward to meet the President's 
goals. It includes $64 million for BOEM's renewable energy 
program, with a $12 million increase to support permitting.
    Ms. Velazquez. So, what is DOI doing to help prepare 
communities for these emerging clean energy industry in terms 
of workforce and community outreach, particularly in 
underserved communities?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I know that we are 
working hard to make sure that the new jobs that are going to 
be available in this clean energy sector, that people are 
trained for those jobs. That is one of the reasons why union 
labor is so important in some of these projects, because they 
do have a training component.
    So, of course, as you know, everyone is working right now. 
We have a very low unemployment rate, but we are always working 
to make sure that folks are trained for tomorrow's jobs in this 
sector.
    Ms. Velazquez. Well, I want to see a real outreach in 
underserved communities that have faced and deal with the brunt 
of environmental injustice in those communities. So, they need 
to reap the benefits at least in terms of job creation that 
will come with the transition from fossil fuel to energy.
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.
    Ms. Velazquez. President Biden's Justice40 initiative will 
ensure that at least 40 percent of the overall benefits of 
Federal investment in climate-related programs go to 
disadvantaged communities that have been disproportionately 
affected by pollution. The Fiscal Year 2024 budget includes $2 
million to support these efforts. Can you briefly discuss how 
the Department is transparently implemented Justice40 across 
the several programs overseas?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. The Bureau of 
Reclamation will be awarding $550 million in grants, contracts, 
or financial assistance agreements for disadvantaged 
communities for up to 100 percent of the cost, planning, 
design, or construction of water projects, to provide domestic 
water supplies to communities or households that did not have 
reliable access to domestic water supplies.
    Additionally, Reclamation will also be distributing $4 
billion in grants, contracts, or financial assistance for 
drought mitigation, to public entities, and to Indian tribes. 
The Office of Insular Affairs receive $15.9 million to provide 
technical assistance for climate change planning, mitigation, 
adaptation, and resilience to the U.S. insular areas and $25 
million to the Office of Native Hawaiian Affairs to carry out 
programs for climate resilience and adaptation activities.
    We are very proud of the funding that we have been able to 
manage moving forward in these communities, and as I mentioned 
earlier, it is the communities that can least afford it that 
are having the worst effects of climate change.
    Ms. Velazquez. And I hope that you include the territories 
that are our responsibility.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Haaland, 
one of my priorities in Congress is holding the government 
accountable and making it more transparent so that Georgians 
know where their tax dollars are being spent. Reviewing your 
budget request, I noticed that it includes $53.6 million to 
fully transition the Department's light duty fleet to zero 
emission vehicles.
    Secretary, one of the major challenges with all electric 
vehicle fleets is getting enough critical minerals to make the 
chips and batteries necessary to make these vehicles run. Right 
now, the United States imports more than 50 percent of its 
supply for 25 different minerals from China.
    Would you rather we be relying on China and forced labor 
for these chips, or open up mining in Minnesota, Nevada, and 
other places, and get those critical minerals from right here 
in America?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question, and as we mentioned earlier, we are working hard to 
move this issue forward. The inter-agency work group on mining 
reform is working to expedite some of those permits and so 
forth, but we recognize that we would like to do more here in 
our country, and we have also recognized the need for critical 
minerals. So, we want to do more domestic production. President 
Biden believes wholeheartedly in energy independence for our 
country.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Moving on, then. Secretary Haaland, 
how many employees does the Department currently have?
    Secretary Haaland. Employees, we are a little over 60,000.
    Mr. Collins. I think somebody needs to adjust your website, 
then. On the front page, it says 70,000. Where are these 
employees located? Are they here in DC?
    Secretary Haaland. We have employees all over the country, 
Congressman. Here in DC, out West, all over. We have national 
parks all over the country, wildlife refuges all over the 
country.
    Mr. Collins. I was just asking about the majority of them, 
if they were here in DC?
    Secretary Haaland. I don't think there is a majority in DC. 
I think the vast majority are out in the field and working on 
our public lands.
    Mr. Collins. Let me shift gears for a minute and get to 
what I was asking for, then. On April 10, President Biden 
signed Representative Gosar's bill ending the COVID-19 national 
emergency. Secretary, how soon after he signed that bill did 
you order all of the Department of the Interior headquarters 
employees back into the office?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, as I mentioned, a lot of 
our employees work out in the field. It is their jobs to be on 
our public lands. With respect to----
    Mr. Collins. The ones that are in the headquarters, though, 
have they been ordered back into the office?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for that. I know that we are 
working. There are still some members of our team who are 
teleworking several days out of the week, but for the most 
part----
    Mr. Collins. So, you haven't ordered them back into the 
office yet?
    Secretary Haaland. I have not placed an order to tell 
everyone to come in 9 to 5, Monday through Friday.
    Mr. Collins. But most of your testimony today has been 
about how short staffed you are. I would think that it would be 
more efficient working from the office in the headquarters 
instead of from the house.
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman----
    Mr. Collins. I mean, the pandemic is over. You could have 
already had them back in the office.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much. With respect to the 
staff shortages, those are mostly in the BLM, and those are 
mostly some of the positions out West. I know that some folks 
are working a hybrid schedule, like the rest of the Federal 
Government and corporate American. I can assure you that----
    Mr. Collins. So, I guess my last question is--it doesn't 
sound like you have ordered them back into the office at all. 
So, if not, when do you plan on ordering them back into the 
office?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I really want to assure you 
that everyone works very hard in my Department. We are working 
every single day regardless of where we are working. And 
certainly----
    Mr. Collins. I don't think it is a matter of working hard. 
It is a matter of being productive for the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, I have no more further questions. Thank you. 
I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from California. Ms. Kamlager-Dove, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just thank you 
for coming back to the Committee to chair. I think there was a 
question of Secretary Haaland about if she knew where the 
wilderness is, and sometimes I think this Committee is the 
wilderness.
    Having said that, thank you for speaking with us today, and 
for the important work that you are doing heading the 
Department of the Interior. I think at the rate that we are 
headed with these proposed cuts, we would be looking at cutting 
the meat, the bone, the life out of the Department, which is 
incredibly important--you all do incredibly important work in 
terms of protecting our Federal lands and our Federal 
resources.
    I have a question. How is the DOI using BIL and IRA funds 
to support job creation specifically related to revitalizing 
communities at the front lines of the energy transition, and, 
specifically, how would the Republican proposed budget cuts 
reduce the Interior's job creating power?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question, 
Congresswoman, and I could say that with regard to renewable 
energy, we work with states, local communities, industry, and 
labor to ensure that we develop the workforce to support all of 
these projects. Offshore wind has the potential to create more 
than 44,000 jobs and support nearly 33,000 more on top of that. 
We are also working to make sure that the right incentives are 
in place to encourage this work. The cleanup of abandoned mine 
lands has created jobs and closed thousands of dangerous mines.
    Those are jobs that folks have lost because mines have 
closed, or things have shut down, but we are reinvigorating 
those communities with jobs on our abandoned mine land and 
orphan well projects. So, we are very proud of the work that we 
have been able to generate as a result of President Biden's 
policies and President Biden's budget.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you. I have one additional 
question. While the Department's budget continues to increase 
its funding request for offshore renewable energy, which we 
greatly need, and the Administration speaks to the need to 
addressing our climate crisis, we also just saw the 
Department's approval of the Willow Oil Project in Alaska.
    So, I would like it if you could explain this disconnect. I 
ask because I represent the District of Los Angeles, which is 
home to one of the largest urban oil fields in the country, and 
this is an issue for us.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. I went to Los Angeles, so I saw some of those 
orphaned gas wells in people's backyards, and I saw pictures of 
what Los Angeles looked like during that time that you speak 
of.
    It is a top priority for us in this Administration to move 
responsibly with our clean energy transition. Onshore, BLM is 
processing over 32,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity, 
68 renewable energy projects, solar, wind, geothermal, and five 
electricity transmission lines, which I spoke of earlier in 
this hearing. There are over 120 pending applications for 
onshore solar and wind development with the potential 
generation of roughly 50,000 megawatts.
    So, we are working very hard on this transition. The clean 
energy industry is very excited about the progress that we have 
made, and I believe they will continue to make investments into 
the work that we are doing.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. Thank you for that, and I am 
hoping that you all are preparing for the surge in development 
as it relates to clean energy, new technologies, 
implementation, et cetera. How are you going to manage it in 
terms of environmental impact and staffing capacity?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. With 
respect to that issue, BLM's renewable energy coordination 
offices, they are called RECOs, are working to expedite cross 
agency permitting and coordination, and one of the keys to that 
as I mentioned earlier is making sure that all stakeholders are 
at the table.
    When we start, we have to keep people informed and keep 
people so that we can all move forward together. The funding 
increase in the 2024 budget will support increased staffing and 
program work to increase the pace of renewable energy 
processing and managing increasing workload volumes. So, we 
intend to make use of every dime of that 2024 budget to move 
our country forward.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. Thank you so much for that, and 
also I appreciate your extemporaneous tutorial on body language 
earlier, and with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. Bentz, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for being here. I am happy to see you here today, 
but I didn't see anyone from your agency present at our Water 
Subcommittee hearing in Fresno just 8 days ago, and I was 
surprised at that, given the situation we face in California, 
the immense amount of water, some say as much as 5\1/2\ feet of 
water content across the entire Sierra, ready to rush down the 
hills and flood Sacramento and the Central Valley.
    So, I was very surprised not to see you there, or see 
someone there. The Chair of our Natural Resources Committee, 
Mr. Westerman, was there, because he realizes, as did the other 
Congressmen attending, just how incredibly dangerous the 
situation is for all of California, and also the opportunity 
that is being squandered as we fail to recognize the need for 
more storage.
    And to that end, I just want to make clear for the record 
we were disappointed in not seeing your agency there. Now, I 
understand Camille, I think Camille, Director Touton, is doing 
a great job given the many, many challenges she faces. I 
wouldn't have expected her to be there, but there could have 
been somebody from your Department.
    Let me shift away from that and go to the dam removal on 
the Klamath. Of course, the Klamath, the upper Klamath is in my 
district. Apparently, the removal of four dams on that river is 
proceeding.
    That has started. The concerns are many regarding the 
removal of those four dams. In fact, I think the Corps of 
Engineers and also FERC told me in a roundtable about a year 
ago when I asked them a series of very pointed questions about 
their plan, that they really weren't sure of the answers, 
because they hadn't done this in 20 years, and that is not a 
good answer, but here are some specific questions.
    The first, the Keno Dam is above the rest of the dams. It 
is not being taken out, but there is about $100 million of 
deferred maintenance on that dam. Who is going to be 
responsible for that bill once, as I understand it, the 
certificate of the license is going to be handed over to the 
Bureau of Rec, and I am just wondering if PacifiCorp, who owns 
the project now, is going to be responsible for that $100 
million repair bill that that dam carries with it. If not, who?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you for the question, 
and, of course, just so I can tell you, we really try to meet 
all requests, and we appreciate being invited to the 
roundtable, or the field hearing. So, you are talking about the 
repayment of costs, is that what you are--I'm sorry.
    Mr. Bentz. The dam is worn out, and it needs about, between 
$80 and $100 million worth of repairs. Before the Bureau 
accepts the hand off of the ownership of that project, I hope 
the Bureau is going to protect all of us taxpayers and the 
water users below that dam from the deferred maintenance costs 
of the dam.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. So, I am asking, who is going to pay that 
between $80 and $100 million bill?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question. The 
Department is committed that the water users covered by the 
2016 Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement will not bear the 
costs associated with operating and maintaining the Keno 
facility. We remain committed to that, we are happy to stay in 
touch with you in your office about any of----
    Mr. Bentz. I'm sorry, say that again, who did you just say 
is not going to be paying the costs?
    Secretary Haaland. I am informed that the water users 
covered by the 2016 agreement will not bear the costs 
associated with----
    Mr. Bentz. And that is fine. I am happy to hear that. The 
second question is, will the U.S. Government have to pay that 
$80 to $100 million?
    Secretary Haaland. I apologize, Mr. Bentz. I will get back 
with you with all of those details, if that is OK. We will 
contact your office shortly after this.
    Mr. Bentz. All right. And I very much want to have that 
contact in writing so I can share it with everybody else, 
because there is huge concern that PacifiCorp, and the state of 
Oregon, and the state of California are trying to offload that 
incredibly large obligation on the taxpayers, and I just don't 
think that is right. So, I am looking forward to that.
    Secretary Haaland. I understand.
    Mr. Bentz. Just a few seconds I have left. It seems to me 
there is $162 million that is being spent on fixing the river. 
Can you tell us how the Bureau is involved in the expenditure 
of that $162 million that Senator Merkley obtained for 
restoration purposes?
    Secretary Haaland. I apologize, Tommy, can you--he knows it 
better than me.
    Mr. Beaudreau. No problem at all. We are extremely 
appreciative of the funding for restoration of a system that 
needs it, and those investments are long overdue. So, the 
Bureau of Reclamation is developing the spend plan and the 
plans for deploying those dollars as we speak.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island. Mr. Magaziner, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Secretary, for your work and for joining us today. In Rhode 
Island, we know that a swift transition to clean energy is 
possible, that it can save costs for rate payers on their 
electric bills, reduce emissions, and create jobs. My district 
is home to the Block Island Wind Farm, the first offshore 
windfarm in North America. And we are also home to the planned 
Revolution Wind Farm currently under construction.
    When complete, Revolution Wind will provide nearly 1.6 
million megawatt hours of clean energy into our grid each year. 
That is enough electricity to meet roughly a quarter of Rhode 
Island's total electric demand state-wide. The project will 
generate clean power for more than 350,000 homes and displace 
more than 1 million metric tons of carbon pollution, and, 
importantly, will save Rhode Islanders roughly $100 million on 
their electric bills compared to the prevailing rate for 
electricity.
    Building off of the success, Rhode Island is currently 
pursuing an additional procurement for offshore wind that will 
more than double this capacity and put our state on the path to 
100 percent renewable energy by the end of this decade.
    Rhode Island stands as proof that clean energy development 
can be done in a thoughtful way that incorporates community 
input, protects industry, and safeguards local wildlife. During 
each review process, Rhode Island and Federal agencies held 
dozens of meetings, Q&A sessions, community seminars, public 
comment periods, to give a voice to residents and stakeholders.
    And the Inflation Reduction Act will enable more offshore 
wind and clean energy projects to come on-line and get us 
closer to the Biden administration's goal of deploying 30 
gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which will save 
Americans money on their electric bills, reduce our dependence 
on foreign energy, put us on the path to energy independence, 
create 100,000+ good clean energy jobs, and reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by more than 70 million metric tons.
    Madam Secretary, can you just expand at a high level on 
what role you see offshore wind playing in achieving American 
energy independence, and what goals do you have for offshore 
wind development nationally in the coming years?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question and 
everything you said. Yes, we are on board with that, and we 
really want to make sure that we are reaching the goals that 
the President has set, 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 
2030.
    I feel that we can reach that goal, and we can do that 
because we are ensuring that we are taking the communities who 
will be the workforce behind these efforts with us. So, I can 
say that everything you said, yes, we agree with you, we want 
to see this come to fruition, namely the way we can lower 
energy costs for Americans will mean a tremendous amount. As a 
single mom, I understand what that means. So, 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind by 2030, that is a goal we have. We would love to 
surpass that, and we will work hard to get there.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. The Administration budget 
includes funding to support effective environmental reviews and 
accelerate permitting for offshore wind. Can you talk about how 
important this funding would be in the timely processing of 
applications while also maintaining high standards for 
community input and environmental review?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Congressman, and 
yes, the funding for agency staff would ensure that permitting 
work can be done correctly and efficiently. People actually 
work on these things, so there is a process to that. The lack 
of resources causes significant problems.
    One, it can lead to slower times. Two, if the process is 
not done correctly, then the permits can be at risk to 
challenges and other problems and we want to make sure that 
things are done right the first time. It is true across the 
board, including for clean energy, so we feel very committed to 
doing things in the right manner. If we have the staff, that 
means we have the opportunity to move those permits forward.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. And, finally, the House 
Republican Freedom Caucus has proposed to reduce the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management budget to zero dollars. Can you just 
briefly describe the impact that that would have on permitting 
and environmental reviews across the board?
    Secretary Haaland. It would be devastating. And, currently, 
the clean energy industry--they are committed to these goals, 
and they have a lot invested in the future of our country. So, 
I feel we have a commitment to all of the workers who are 
building these offshore wind turbines, who are doing everything 
there is involved with that. So, it would be devastating.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Secretary. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Puerto Rico. Mrs. Gonzalez-
Colon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and happy to 
see you here, Madam Secretary. And thank you for visiting the 
island during last November, specifically the San Juan National 
Historic Park. I have so many questions, some of them I will 
submit for the record. I know you have been here for a long 
time, but there are many other questions that I will try to 
focus.
    The first one is that in both Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023, 
my request, Congress had provided the U.S. Geological Survey a 
$500,000 increase to update the combined National Seismic 
Hazard Model for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which 
has been last published in 2003. As you know, the National 
Seismic Hazard Model for the 48 states is regularly updated 
every 6 years. So, it has been quite a long time that the 
territories have not been updated.
    I know that the agency is also working on updating the 
models for Alaska and Hawaii, and these models describe the 
likelihood of potential impacts of earthquakes and serve as the 
basis for seismic protections in building codes, and we were 
just hit in 2019 by another earthquake in the south.
    So, according to the information previously shared by the 
geological survey with our office, maintaining the funding 
level through the Fiscal Year 2024 would allow them to deliver 
a draft Puerto Rico-U.S. Virgin Islands seismic hazard map in 
2024, and a final one updated model in 2025.
    However, I am concerned that the Department's Fiscal Year 
2024 budget delayed the release of the updated seismic hazard 
model for the two territories, U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto 
Rico, until the end of 2026. So, my question will be, why is 
the Department proposing a $500,000 reduction in delaying the 
release of the updated Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands maps 
to the end of 2026?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I apologize. I am going 
to check on that with my staff and get back with you, if that 
is OK, soon after this hearing. I know that is a concern for 
you, and I just want to make sure that we have all of the----
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I appreciate it.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, of course.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I appreciate it. Whatever other 
additional resources you may need or require to achieve this, 
let us know, but the information we got from the agency was 
that $500,000 was enough, and we appropriated the funds for 
this, and now seeing the reduction in the budget plan, it is 
like, not going according to what we proposed.
    The next question that I have is, we were talking a few 
minutes ago about wind leasing and a goal of conducting 
offshore wind. During the last Congress, we amended the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act to provide you authority to conduct 
offshore wind leasing in Federal waters of the U.S. 
territories.
    And according to the budget request, the Department will 
begin moving forward with lease planning processes in Puerto 
Rico in the current fiscal year. Can you provide us at least 
more information about what will it consist of, or what sort of 
work will be carried out this year?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, thank you very much for 
the question. The Department and BOEM plan to initiate the area 
identification process by forming an inter-governmental 
renewable energy task force, which will help ensure early and 
frequent communication throughout the renewable energy leasing 
process. We expect to formally propose the formation of the new 
Puerto Rico task force very soon, and we look forward to 
working with your office, and the government of Puerto Rico, 
and its diverse stakeholders on this issue moving forward. So, 
we will absolutely be in touch about this and appreciate you 
asking the question.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I appreciate that. The first idea of 
this legislation came from a Member of Congress, Madeleine 
Bordallo from Guam, and we got the bill, it was approved, and 
finally we got it passed in a sort of amendment in the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act that was approved during the last 
year. So, I mean, this is something that we are pushing for. 
So, my office will be more than eager to help with any 
stakeholders on the island, and the energy authorities as well.
    I will submit some questions for the record, but my last 
question today is, we saw that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
administered five national wildlife refuges on the island. We 
are talking about more than 22,000 acres. However, I am 
extremely concerned about staffing shortages in those areas. We 
used to have 28 employees 10 years ago, and now we just have 
10. If there is a reason for that, it is complicated to hire in 
those areas. What is the Department currently doing to address 
staffing needs in those national wildlife refuges in Puerto 
Rico?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, staffing is important to 
us everywhere, and certainly in Puerto Rico. Just to let you 
know that sites in Puerto Rico will receive funding from the 
Great American Outdoors Act. The San Juan National Historic 
Site is estimated to receive nearly $42 million for repair of 
the walls and I saw those walls and they are----
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I remember.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, indeed. So, just know that we care 
about the wildlife refuges and the national park sites in 
Puerto Rico as much as we care about them anywhere. So, we will 
absolutely keep you updated, and happy to work with you moving 
forward to make sure that we have the folks there who need to 
get the work done.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and I will 
submit the rest of the questions for the record.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Good to see you again.
    Secretary Haaland. Nice to see you too.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Gallego. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Madam 
Secretary. Earlier this year, California and the other six 
states in the Colorado River Basin, including Arizona, 
submitted two separate proposals to address water shortages in 
the basin.
    Based on those proposals, the Bureau of Reclamation 
recently offered three alternatives. Do nothing, and risk Lake 
Mead and Lake Powell reaching dead pool. No. 2, proportionately 
distribute water restrictions during times of water shortages, 
or place the cuts almost entirely on Arizona, our communities, 
and our economy.
    Since it is pretty obvious which of those I prefer, and 
which would objectively make the most sense if we are having a 
serious discussion of water needs in the year 2023, instead of 
1923, I would like to ask instead about the review process 
itself. What were some of the most impactful, alarming, or 
surprising findings during the Department's recent review 
process, and what did this review process teach us about long-
term solutions in the region?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you so much for the 
question. I have Deputy Secretary Beaudreau with me who I 
tasked with working on Colorado River issues. If it is OK, I 
will have him answer the question.
    Mr. Beaudreau. Yes, thank you, Representative Gallego, and 
it was great to see you in Phoenix a couple weeks ago speaking 
specifically on the investments we are making for 
sustainability of the Colorado River system. I think the most 
shocking set of facts that are presented in the supplemental 
environmental review, is the depletion of the reservoir. And 
the visuals are there, if you go out to Hoover Dam or Lake Mead 
and see the bathtub rings, but what is really astounding is the 
hydrological projections going forward. And that was the 
purpose of presenting the no action alternative, where in a 
time of climate change, the most severe impacts to the river 
system are from doing nothing. And that is a profound statement 
about the challenges we face in light of changing climate in 
this sustained drought.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. Last Congress, Democrats provided 
significant investments for drought mitigation and climate 
resilience, including $8.3 billion in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, and $4 billion in the Inflation Reduction 
Act. Can you briefly share how the Department has implemented 
this funding to address drought mitigation efforts? Secretary 
Haaland, if you want to start with that one?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question, 
Congressman. The bill is allowing the Department to allocate 
resources needed to help build a path to a more resilient 
future, of course, and that is important because climate change 
is not going away.
    Reclamation has allocated approximately $1.7 billion in BIL 
funds to projects across the West for water conservation, water 
recycling, more storage, rehabilitation of infrastructure to 
ensure long-term sustainability in the face of this changing 
climate.
    This includes 82 new WaterSMART projects in the Colorado 
River Basin, that is for $284 million of the bill funding. It 
also includes longer term drought resilience projects like $210 
million for water storage projects across the West.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary, and something that I 
truly cherish was the day you and I held a hearing together on 
missing and murdered Indigenous women. And the first ever in 
Congress, and it was groundbreaking. So, I would like to ask 
you about that important issue. As we have heard in the 
Committee many times, American Indian Alaskan Native persons 
experienced violence at a grossly disproportionate rate in this 
country. These realities are even worse for Indigenous women 
and girls, which is why we have worked together in the past 
legislation addressing this crisis of violence, including my 
proposal to combat family violence and to provide resources to 
tribal law enforcement. However, according to the Department's 
estimates, House Republican's budget cap proposal will result 
in a loss of over 1,500 tribal law enforcement personnel.
    Of course, this would not improve safety on tribal lands. 
Secretary Haaland, considering this, how will the House 
Republican's cuts to the tribal public safety funding impact 
the Department's current work combating this crisis?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, thank you so much for your 
support on this issue, and I will always appreciate you 
standing up for tribal communities and specifically for this 
terrible violence against Indian people.
    This proposal would have, of course, real and damaging 
impacts on our country. If spending for defense programs kept 
level, then non-defense programs would face steep cuts of 22 
percent or more. That is $3.7 billion for DOI. Tribal 
communities have historically been underfunded. Law enforcement 
is one of their top priorities. Every time they call us, it is 
about law enforcement. We know how important that is to them.
    But if they are continually underfunded, they cannot 
sustain these deep reductions that would have terrible results 
for tribal public safety, justice, law enforcement, and those 
are the highest priorities for our tribes, and as you said, 
losing 1,500 law enforcement personnel in Indian Country would 
be devastating across the country.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary. I yield back, and it is 
good to see you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming. Ms. Hageman, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, have 
there been any new coal leases or lease modifications approved 
either for thermal or met coal under your leadership at the 
Department of the Interior?
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Congresswoman. I know that 
this met coal question came up earlier. We are happy to have 
the BLM or someone from that bureau be in touch with you about 
that. I couldn't say specifically which projects have been 
approved or permitted and which haven't.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, are there any outstanding coal lease or 
lease modification applications currently pending before the 
Department of the Interior?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I am more than happy to 
make sure that we can get that list to you if that is OK with 
you, but the BLM is committed to the district court that 
reinstated the coal leasing program moratorium that it will 
initiate the remedial environmental analysis shortly. So, we 
are working on this issue.
    Ms. Hageman. So, you don't have an answer for my question 
as you sit here today?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, we will be happy to get 
back with you about the number of permits, if that is what you 
are asking.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Do you know how long the applications that 
are pending before the DOI have been pending, and what is the 
reason for the delay?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I know that our staff 
works on permitting every day. It is hard to say why some take 
longer than others. However, I do want to let you know that the 
BLM has made me aware of the importance of the project that you 
are talking about.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Madam Secretary, do you believe energy 
poverty is a good thing?
    Secretary Haaland. I don't know the term, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. You have never heard of the phrase, energy 
poverty?
    Secretary Haaland. I have not heard of that term.
    Ms. Hageman. It is probably pretty self-explanatory though, 
don't you think?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, I think what we are really trying 
to do with our clean energy goals is make energy more 
affordable for every single American.
    Ms. Hageman. I would like you to answer my question, which 
is, do you believe energy poverty is a good thing? In other 
words, that people going into poverty and being unable to 
afford food, or medicine, or things like that, because of the 
rising cost of energy. Do you think that is a good thing?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I understand the 
challenges that many Americans face. I raised my child as a 
single mom, and had to decide whether I could pay the rent, or 
my student loans, or even my gas bill, so I understand that. It 
is very difficult.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes, so you agree that energy poverty is not a 
good thing, is that right?
    Secretary Haaland. I want to say that we are working very 
hard to make energy more efficient and more affordable, which 
is why we are moving forward on our clean energy goals.
    Ms. Hageman. But that is the case. Coal is an affordable 
energy, isn't it? It has been for decades.
    Secretary Haaland. I know that our country relied on coal 
for a very long time, and we are very grateful for so many of 
the workforce that powered our nation for a very long time.
    Ms. Hageman. Right, and coal is an affordable energy, isn't 
it?
    Secretary Haaland. Ma'am, I want to say that President 
Biden believes in energy independence for our country, and I 
believe that using different energy sources around the country 
will help communities everywhere, and will keep energy more 
affordable?
    Ms. Hageman. Including coal and oil and gas, correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, we are in a transition 
currently to a clean energy future, and I believe very strongly 
that we will get there, and energy will be more affordable for 
everyone.
    Ms. Hageman. So, then energy poverty is a policy of this 
Administration from what I can tell from your answers.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, we are working very hard 
to make sure that all Americans can access affordable energy, 
and that is one of the reasons why we are working on hard on 
this transition.
    Ms. Hageman. But your policies do the exact opposite, which 
increase the cost of energy, correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, President Biden truly 
understands the challenge of working people, and we want to 
make sure that energy can be affordable for every American.
    Ms. Hageman. Madam Secretary, do you know what the recovery 
criteria is for the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear?
    Secretary Haaland. I beg your pardon?
    Ms. Hageman. Do you know what the recovery criteria is for 
the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear?
    Secretary Haaland. What I know is that the grizzly bear, 
although it may be thriving in some places, it is not thriving 
in other places.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Do you know the recovery criteria for the 
Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear?
    Secretary Haaland. I would be happy to get back with you 
with that specific answer, ma'am.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, it is roughly 600-700, the recovery 
criteria. Do you know how many bears are currently living in 
the Greater Yellowstone recovery area?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I don't have the number 
of grizzly bears in front of me at the moment, but I am happy 
to get back with you.
    Ms. Hageman. Were you aware then that there were over 1,100 
grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone area?
    Secretary Haaland. I appreciate you sharing that 
information with me.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon. Ms. Hoyle, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary 
Haaland, for testifying for the Committee today. I represent 
Oregon's 4th Congressional District in Southwest Oregon, and 
the Bureau of Land Management manages over 800,000 acres of 
timberland in my district.
    We are really good at growing trees. The majority of the 
forest lands in my district are made up of the Oregon and 
California railroad revested lands, or the O&C lands, and these 
lands are unique, their history, their location, purpose, are 
far different than any place else in the country.
    The checkerboard pattern of private, industrial, state, 
tribal, and Federal forest makes it complicated to manage, and 
even more complicated to protect, especially in this era of 
climate-driven megafires that threaten communities, wildlife 
ecosystems, and rural economies.
    In 2020, we lost 1.1 million acres and 4,000 homes in 
Oregon, and we would like to not have that happen again. 
Because of the unique pattern of ownership, the state of Oregon 
for years has cooperated with the BLM on a unique fire 
protection agreement called the Western Oregon Operating Plan.
    I think you are familiar with it. The BLM, the state, 
timber industry partners, jointly pay the shared fire 
protection agreement for the O&C lands, and the Oregon 
Department of Forestry uses these funds as wildland 
firefighting agencies to protect all the lands so that we are 
not having different people doing different things, and they 
are renown for their high quality and effective initial attack 
that reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfires, both with 
their permanent staff where needed, and contracting with local, 
high quality private wildland firefighting companies that are 
familiar with how to fight fires in the Northwest and on the 
O&C.
    It works well, and it keeps 95 percent of all fires from 
growing over 100 acres. It protects a lot of constituents like 
myself who live in the wildland urban interface, and, again, it 
is a very good thing.
    Our national forests are faced with an incredible 
challenge. We have an aging firefighter fighting workforce, and 
insufficient resources to meet the needs of the catastrophic 
wildfire season. The issue is, we are nickel and diming and 
arguing over continuing this contracting with the Oregon 
Department of Forestry and the BLM because we have a limited 
amount of money that we put up front for forest fire 
prevention, and also initial attack. But once it is a mega 
fire, we have unlimited money.
    So, because of an accounting error where we are arguing 
about the color of money, we are spending a lot of money, and 
we are losing millions of acres of forest land. So, I know that 
Congress provided significant wildfire related funding to the 
BLM in the Infrastructure Law, but if additional funding 
upfront would make it easier for the BLM to remain a full 
partner in the Western Oregon Operating Plan, I would love to 
fight with you for that investment. It is a smarter, better use 
of taxpayer dollars, and I understand you have committed to 
Senator Merkley that the BLM will remain in the Western Oregon 
Operating Plan. I thank you for that commitment. It is very 
important.
    Can you also commit today to working on a long-term 
solution to address the challenges both in funding and working 
through anything that would prevent or hinder the BLM's 
continued participation in the Western Oregon Operating Plan?
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, yes, we are absolutely 
committed to working with the state of Oregon on a long-term 
basis. I was really happy to have a chance to be in Oregon with 
Senator Merkley recently, and, of course, seeing that beautiful 
country, we are saddened by the wildfires that happened, I 
believe it was last summer.
    So, as I mentioned earlier, these are not fire seasons any 
longer. They are fire years, and all of us have to diligent. 
So, yes, working together is the best solution, and we will 
certainly be committed to that.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, and that is important, because we are 
hearing that Federal officials at the BLM are looking and would 
like to exit the Western Oregon Operating Plan, or change it 
significantly, in part because of Oregon's operating 
procedures, and I have run an agency, and I know bureaucracies 
can be difficult, and we are committed to working from Oregon 
to make sure that we have better communication, but the key is 
the funding, and the fact of the matter is, it is more 
expensive to fight fires in the O&C lands in the wetter 
forests, so we cannot compare how much it costs to fight a fire 
in Arizona to what it costs to fight fires in the O&C lands, 
and I think we have to really take a look at these things 
differently, because the next time that we have really bad 
wildfires, it is not just going to be 4,000 homes. It will be 
one of our urban areas, and it will make the Paradise 
California Fire look like a campfire. People will die.
    Secretary Haaland. Yes.
    Ms. Hoyle. And we really, really need--I really want your 
commitment to make sure that not only that you will work on it, 
but we will put our money where we need to, funding it upfront, 
and also making sure that we are addressing this beautiful 
forestland the way that we absolutely need to.
    Secretary Haaland. Congresswoman, I feel confident that BLM 
will find an agreement with the state and continue to work 
together to ensure that all parties are fully participating in 
the agreement. So, we are happy to stay in touch with your 
office. Please reach out any time, and we want to make sure 
this is successful.
    Ms. Hoyle. Great.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record the Department of 
the Interior's budget information for the past two fiscal years 
for the Office of Wildland Fire.
    In fact, this year, the Democrat Administration reduced 
discretionary funding for the Wildland Fire Management at DOI 
by $365 million compared to last year, and that is a decrease 
from $1,029,000,000 in 2022, to $664 million in 2023, and I 
would like to point out that Republican proposals to go back to 
2022 actual spending levels would increase DOI funding by $365 
million for wildland fire over what is currently in place this 
year, and just let me say that again, that is reduced funding 
for wildland fire by $365 million, and for those keeping track, 
that is about the same amount of funding the Department sent to 
parks in Nancy Pelosi's district.
    I would like to enter this to correct the record from what 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said earlier about 
Republicans reducing funding for the Office of Wildland Fire. 
Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]


                    Funding for Wildfire Management
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    The Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas. Mr. 
Hunt, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much, 
Madam Secretary, for being here. Thank you for your time. We 
really, really appreciate it. Wind and solar are booming, and I 
know that because I am from Texas, and when I drive across my 
great state, I could see the industry growing at a pretty rapid 
pace.
    In your written statement, you state that your budget 
builds on the, ``tremendous growth accomplished by renewable 
energy programs last year.'' My question for you is, should 
growth in the oil and gas industries keep pace with the growth 
in the wind and solar industry?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, I think the idea is to move 
our clean energy transition forward in a way that it can help a 
lot of Americans to have more affordable energy costs, but I 
think the idea of a transition is to move to a clean energy 
economy, and that way we don't have so much dependence on a 
finite resource, such as oil.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, do you think the workers in oil and gas 
industry deserve the same level of certainty in the future as 
workers in the wind and solar industries?
    Secretary Haaland. I want to assure you that we are always 
in communication with every piece of activity on our public 
lands. We are in touch with the folks whose industries they 
affect.
    Mr. Hunt. Well, the Biden administration says that we will 
be moved off of gas powered government vehicles by the year 
2035, so I would argue that that is the direct opposite of job 
certainty. But as an Apache helicopter pilot and somebody that 
has spent a lot of time in the military, I don't think that is 
possible. And I am going to tell you why. I am not a big fan of 
the word transition at all, to be honest with you.
    Secretary Haaland. OK.
    Mr. Hunt. The reason why I am not a big fan of the word 
transition is because actually according to Bill Gates, if 
every single American drove an EV tomorrow, we would only 
reduce the demand of a barrel of oil by 8 percent, which means 
that the microphone that I am speaking in, the glasses on your 
face, the clothes on your back, literally everything that we 
use is a byproduct of our industry, and you made a statement as 
well. You said as we move forward, we will continue to have oil 
and gas continue to be part of the mix.
    What do you mean by being part of the mix, and for how much 
time do you think we are going to be part of the mix, because I 
think it is going to be for a very long time, at least in my 
lifetime.
    Secretary Haaland. Of course, it is hard for me to predict 
how long into the future that fossil fuels will be a part of 
our energy mix, but as I mentioned, the idea is to move more to 
a clean energy future. That provides a lot of jobs for folks, 
and we will continue to make sure that we can have jobs for 
folks in that industry.
    Mr. Hunt. So, do you think that the Federal Government 
should do more to regulate the oil and gas industry?
    Secretary Haaland. I am not quite sure I understand what 
you mean by that, but we have certain obligations to anything 
that----
    Mr. Hunt. Well, I guess what I am asking is, do you think 
we should stifle, as in the Federal Government reach into the 
private sector to stifle the growth of one industry in order to 
promote another industry?
    Secretary Haaland. For our part of the Department of the 
Interior, we manage our public lands. So, we only have 
management authority over our public lands. Not on any state or 
private land.
    Mr. Hunt. Right.
    Secretary Haaland. So, it is up to those folks what they 
do, but for our part, we have to manage our public lands 
according to the law, and with respect to the best management 
practices, because they belong to all the Americans.
    Mr. Hunt. Yes, ma'am. So, would you support an equitable 
approach to the growth of wind and solar potentially on Federal 
lands, and also allowing us to continue to drill for natural 
gas and oil on Federal lands at an equal pace without the 
government infringing upon those sectors?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, with respect to gas, leasing gas/
oil permits, those move forward. We follow the law. Somebody 
submits a permit to drill, we in good faith move that permit 
forward in a process. So, we aren't working to stifle anyone. 
We are working very hard to make sure that everybody is treated 
fairly.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, and lastly, I am going to shift gears here 
real quick. I only have a few more seconds here. In your 
written testimony, you said the Interior continues to work 
across the Department to expand equity, diversity, and 
inclusion. What exactly does that mean?
    Secretary Haaland. It means that we want our Department to 
look like America. We want everyone to have an opportunity to 
be a part of our really wonderful Department that cares for our 
public lands and our cultural heritage.
    Mr. Hunt. Let me add one more thing, and then I will close 
on this, ma'am. The word that I think is missing from the 
statement though is also qualified. Qualified. When I flew on a 
plane from Houston here today, I did not peek my head in the 
cockpit and say, I hope every pilot met their diversity 
inclusion goals.
    What I really wanted to make sure is that the people that 
were in front of that plane could fly it, so we didn't crash 
it. So, I understand the idea of being more inclusive. I 
understand the idea of being more diverse. I have been black 
for my entire life, but I also want to make sure that we also 
talk about the most qualified person gets the job, and with 
that, I yield back my time, sir, thank you.
    Secretary Haaland. Absolutely, thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. Ranking 
Member Grijalva, it appears we have gotten to the final two, 
and I hope we can maintain decorum and order.
    Mr. Grijalva. Well, unless you lose control, Mr. Westerman. 
I am doing OK right now.
    The Chairman. I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 
Secretary. You confirm to me your class and your demeanor in 
this whole hearing, and I appreciate it very much, and the 
Committee members appreciate it. Last week, Madam Secretary, I 
stood alongside tribal representatives of the Grand Canyon 
Tribal Coalition as they renewed a long-standing campaign to 
permanently protect their Grand Canyon homelands.
    In a nod to this Administration's demonstrated commitment 
to elevating Indigenous voices in public land management, the 
Tribe called on President Biden to use his authority under the 
Antiquities Act to designate more than 1 million acres in the 
area as national monuments. The tribes have served as the 
principle protectors, guardians, stewards of the Grand Canyon, 
their real and spiritual home, since this time.
    And they simply want these special and sacred lands to have 
the permanent protections they deserve. So, while you are here 
with us, today I would like to take this opportunity to invite 
you to the lands that make up the tribes' proposed national 
monument at the Grand Canyon, so you can be there, experience 
the area that you know well yourself, and hear firsthand from 
the tribes why the protection of these lands is so important to 
them, to Arizona, and in fact to the nation and to the millions 
of visitors all over the globe who wish to preserve this 
international icon for generations to come. So, we will extend 
that invitation, Madam Secretary, and we hope that you will 
consider it and accept it. So, I leave that with you.
    Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Ranking Member. I 
would want nothing more than to travel to the Grand Canyon. I 
know it is a sacred place for many tribes, and I appreciate it 
being so important to you as well. So, yes, we would love to 
visit, and we will work on that.
    Mr. Grijalva. And I know you are not promoting a policy of 
energy poverty for the people of this nation, and while the 
word transition might be uncomfortable for some, it is a 
reality, and as we transition into clean, renewable for the 
sake of the planet, the sake of the lands you protect and the 
waters you protect, the sooner, the better.
    And in terms of the poverty question, it is interesting 
that the budget that is being proposed, or talked about, or 
teased out by the Republican Majority and the Speaker talks 
about people not having food stamps and nutrition.
    It talks about the elderly and disabled not having the 
support that they need to keep their heating and cooling on in 
this climate changed weather of ours. It talks about reducing 
the number of kids and families of single parents on Medicaid 
and other programs that provide healthcare. Rental assistance, 
attention to the homeless. So, if we are talking about poverty, 
there is going to be ample opportunity for the Republican 
Majority to show their concern about helping those that are not 
in a position, unfortunately, to be helped, and that the rest 
of us have a responsibility to them.
    I have questions about permitting and permitting reform, 
and for a moment, I ask unanimous consent to put a study in 
that it is the policies of reform and change in gas and oil 
does not jump the price of gas on the pump. It has become 
methodological now, but it is not fact. The other issue is----
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Grijalva. So noted, sir, but I am not the Chairman, you 
can object or not. Anyway, I just want to send those requests, 
because I think that the permitting issue is a ruse to try to 
weaken other kinds of laws, whether it be NEPA, Endangered 
Species, bedrock environmental laws.
    It is thinly veiled, that is the excuse, child labor is an 
excuse, while Republican governors across this country are 
promoting the reduction in child labor laws in their own 
states. So, I leave you with that, and my sincere thank you for 
the work that you are doing, that your staff is doing, and I 
yield back to the Chairman, sir.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I have a couple of 
items to submit to the record here. The first is the Section 
70203, labeled the Presidio Trust, it is from the draft IRA 
bill that was heard in this Committee in September 2021, and it 
does have language in it that says in addition to the amounts 
otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Presidio 
Trust for Fiscal Year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury or 
not otherwise appropriated $200 million to remain available 
until September 30, 2026, and, again, this was the draft bill 
that was heard in this Committee. It was highly objected to by 
our side of the aisle for a special--not even an earmark for 
Speaker Pelosi, but just a direct expenditure for the Presidio.
    So, we objected to that, and also, I am submitting into the 
record Public Law 117-169 from August 16, 2022, also known as 
the IRA Act. This is the law that was passed. It says under 
Section 50224 under the National Parks System Deferred 
Maintenance, in addition to amounts otherwise available, there 
is appropriated to the secretary for Fiscal Year 2022 out of 
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $200 
million to remain available through September 30, 2026 to carry 
out priority deferred maintenance projects through direct 
expenditures or transfers within the boundaries of the National 
Park System. That is the law, without objection, it is so 
ordered.

    [The information follows:]

        Sec. 70203 Presidio draft IRA bill, dated September 2021
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 
                                 

           Public Law 117-169, the IRA Act, dated August 2022

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    The Chairman. So, Secretary Haaland, I now recognize myself 
for 5 minutes for questions. It is clear in the law that it was 
not the intent of Congress for $200 million to go to Presidio 
Park. Actually, would you agree or disagree with the fact that 
it was $200 million in the hearing and the final law for 
Presidio, and in the final law, it specifically did not say 
Presidio. How would you say that has congressional intent for 
$200 million to go to Presidio Park?
    Secretary Haaland. Congressman, first, I would just like to 
say that we are all very proud to have the Presidio as a public 
land that belongs to all Americans.
    The Chairman. But do you believe that is the intent, or not 
intent?
    Secretary Haaland. It is my understanding that we merely 
implemented the Congressional intent on the deferred 
maintenance provision in the Inflation Reduction Act with 
respect to the Presidio.
    The Chairman. So, the law specifically does not say 
Presidio. You have testified earlier that you or no one in your 
staff spoke to Former Speaker Pelosi's office, so how did you 
determine that it was Congressional intent to send all $200 
million of deferred maintenance to Presidio Park?
    I mean, the perception is that this was a payoff to Speaker 
Pelosi for getting the IRA passed, that this is an issue she 
pushed, and continued to push, and got it stuck into the IRA, 
and then her friends in the Administration turned around and 
sent that money to Presidio, even though there was high 
objection from Congress for putting that money specifically 
there. So, how do you dispel that perception?
    Secretary Haaland. Chairman, I want to assure you that we 
follow the law on every single thing that we do. I cannot speak 
to the specifics of the situation at this time.
    The Chairman. Well, there were $200 million specifically 
sent to your agency for maintenance backlog, and all of it went 
to the Presidio Park, which was not the intent of Congress.
    I want to move on. You have talked about a climate crisis, 
and there is also a perception that this Administration has put 
an all out attack on domestic energy. I think the actions of 
this Administration and your Department would substantiate 
that, but you have presented a different picture here today. 
You have said that under your leadership, there is more 
production of oil and gas on Federal lands than ever before. Is 
that correct?
    Secretary Haaland. Yes, Chairman.
    The Chairman. So, do you take credit for that, or do you 
think that is because of actions that have happened before, or 
does the Biden administration take credit for that?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, I mean, I don't think we go to 
work every day thinking about who is going to get credit for 
what. We are just doing our jobs, and when permits come 
through----
    The Chairman. So, how much of that production would you say 
has happened on permits issued under this Administration?
    Secretary Haaland. Well, we have certainly approved many 
applications for permits to drill. That is our job. We are 
following the law with respect to that. If land is leased, and 
folks have rights to the land, and they submit an application 
for a permit to drill, we have to process it.
    The Chairman. And do you think there is an energy crisis in 
our country? You have talked about a climate crisis. Do you 
think there is an energy crisis?
    Secretary Haaland. Chairman, I know that President Biden is 
committed to energy independence for our country. That is the 
reason why we are going gangbusters on our clean energy 
transition. Those are viable sources of energy that we are 
working to lift up.
    The Chairman. So, at the end of March, we passed H.R. 1, 
the Lower Energy Cost Act. We had a press conference later in 
the afternoon. The country's focus was shifted toward the 
Manhattan DA and under the radar the next day, OPEC announced a 
supply cut on oil.
    And, today, gasoline prices are 6.8 percent higher than 
they were at the end of March because OPEC has control of the 
dial on the price at the gas pump. Are you committed to 
producing more energy in the United States, of all the above 
energy, and the world didn't get the memo on the transition. 
This is global consumption of energy by fuel source.
    The transition that gets talked about here is what you--I 
can hardly see from where I am sitting, wind and solar, from 
here to here, it is all carbon emitting sources. That is what 
is happening on the world market today. You have talked about 
removing dams in Mr. Bentz's district. The largest component of 
non-carbon emitting energy is hydropower.
    Yet, this Administration gives lip service, tries to create 
the perception that it is about all of the above energy, that 
we are producing more energy on Federal lands than ever before, 
yet I think we are ignoring the facts, and there is not an all 
out effort to increase all forms of energy.
    I know 30 gigawatts of wind power by 2030, guess what, 
China built 38 gigawatts of coal power plants last year, and 
they will build that many again this year. So, that is a tiny 
drop in the bucket to get to the point that we need to get to.
    So, my final question, are you committed to an all of the 
above energy strategy that lowers cost for Americans? Are you 
committed to reducing the permitting debacle that keeps not 
just traditional energy projects from happening, but from new 
energy sources such as wind and solar, can we work together to 
make those things happen?
    Secretary Haaland. Chairman, we are always willing to work 
with you and your office. Our door is open. Please reach out to 
us when you would like. We are committed to energy independence 
for our country. We believe very strongly that for our part in 
the Department of the Interior, moving our clean energy sources 
forward are one component of our vast energy production 
resources, and, of course, we are willing to work with anyone 
to make sure that our country is set for the future.
    I really do have to say that all of this is because climate 
change is the crisis of our lifetime. We have an obligation to 
future generations to make sure that we have a planet for them 
to live on, and that is why I am here, and that is why I am 
working incredibly hard to make sure that we can realize that 
transition, that we can have differing energy sources.
    We can't continue to be a one industry country. We are 
expanding, we are proud of the expansions we are making. We are 
going to continue to work very hard, and certainly all the 
career staff who are working diligently to move any and all 
permits forward, they will continue with your help on our 
budget, and we appreciate very much you listening to me today 
as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary, and I will just close 
by saying that I think we are all working toward the most 
affordable, reliable, and cleanest energy for the future, but 
we have to use common sense in that, and we can't ignore the 
data, ignore the facts, and ignore the logic, and get blinded 
by an emotional argument that is very real, but we also need to 
be realistic in the policies that we make, and the way that 
those policies are executed. Again, thank you for your valuable 
testimony, and thank you to the Members who participated today.
    There may be some additional questions by members of the 
Committee, 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. Eastern Time on 
April 22. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business 
days for these responses. If there is no further business, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 2:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Levin


                               .
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]