[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BIDENOMICS & LAND MANAGEMENT:
THE MISGUIDED NATIONAL STRATEGY TO DEVELOP
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC
DECISIONS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 15, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-98
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC 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
54-898 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, February 15, 2024...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Wykowski, Henry, Advisor, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Questions submitted for the record....................... 9
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
Susie Feliz, Asst. Sec. for Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Statement for the Record............................... 25
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BIDENOMICS & LAND MANAGEMENT: THE MISGUIDED
NATIONAL STRATEGY TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC DECISIONS
----------
Thursday, February 15, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins,
Westerman, Hageman; and Stansbury.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Bidenomics and land management: the misguided national strategy
to develop environmental economic decisions.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, give their testimony,
and participate in the hearing from the dais.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule
3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming,
Ms. Hageman, and the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert, be
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good afternoon, everyone.
First off, I want to thank the Department of the Interior
for showing up today to discuss their contributions to the
Administration's strategy to develop a national system of
natural capital accounting. Regrettably, the Office of
Management and Budget, OMB; the Office of Science and
Technology, OSTP; and the Department of Commerce were not
willing to come before the American people and stand behind
their work on the National Strategy to Develop Statistics for
Environmental Economic Decisions, a U.S. system of natural
capital accounting and environmental economic statistics, for
short, the national strategy on natural capital accounting,
tongue twister there, which could fundamentally change the
management of our public land and water and the environment for
years to come.
The Department of Commerce refused to testify, but
committed to submitting testimony for the record. Well, as of
this hearing, the Committee hasn't received any testimony from
Commerce. They are now saying they will send the testimony next
week, after the hearing. We will have to see about that. Don't
hold your breath. Overall, it is clear the Biden administration
has a complete aversion to accountability.
The congressional oversight is not a choice. These
bureaucrats in DC need a shock to the system because they have
forgotten who they really work for, who are the American
people.
Additionally, this is not the first time OMB has obstructed
the Committee's oversight efforts. In fact, during the 118th
Congress, OMB has refused to discuss any of their work under
the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
OMB's repeated refusal to testify sends a clear message from
the Biden administration to the American people that we are
above the law, above Congress, and accountable to no one.
The refusal to testify also allows us to draw the inference
that OMB, OSTP, and the Commerce cannot justify, defend, or
even explain this bizarre and radical scheme. The brazen
defiance of congressional oversight by OMB, OSTP, and Commerce
is unacceptable. The people deserve transparency and
accountability. Regardless, this Committee stands ready to use
every tool at its disposal to administer effective oversight of
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce in reining this out-of-control
administration in.
Now, turning to our testimony hearing today, as many of you
know, the United States is a resource-rich nation unlike any
other. In many ways, we already account for our nation's many
priceless natural assets like minerals, timber, and oil and gas
production on Federal lands. However, as governments around the
world, international organizations, and the private sector
attempt to formulize the treatment of natural resources as a
form of capital, we must take great care so that our natural
capital accounting system will best serve our nation, rather
than serve as a weapon to achieve partisan goals.
I am also concerned that the United States will defer to
international authorities to guide the development and
implementation of a national system for our natural capital
accounting, following standards set by organizations
unaccountable to the American people such as the United
Nations, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and the
World Bank.
Unfortunately, but as expected, the Biden administration
plans to use their national strategy for natural capital
accounting to advance harmful mandates under the guise of
climate stewardship, exclusionary and legally impermissible DEI
initiatives, and radical anti-use priorities, rather than for
the benefit of the American people.
Notably, the national strategy underpins numerous related
initiatives for the Biden administration to include the America
the Beautiful 30x30 Initiative; the Bureau of Land Management,
BLM, proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule; and a
recently withdrawn New York Stock Exchange proposal to list
natural asset companies.
The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule represents a
seismic shift in public land management that will fundamentally
upend BLM's multiple use mandate, which has guided land
management practice for nearly 50 years. This rule is a threat
to rural communities across the West that depend upon the
responsible use and development of our public lands. That is
why I support H.R. 3397, the WEST Act, which will withdraw the
harmful proposed rule.
The Conservation and Landscape Health proposed rule also
supports the development of Natural Asset Companies, or NACs,
corporations that will control the rights and management
authority of certain areas, including public lands, for anti-
use purposes. This is particularly concerning, due to the
massive impact NACs could have on management of Federal lands,
effective conservation of wildlife habitat, and responsible
development of natural resources.
As Members of Congress, we must ensure that the ideas
endorsed by the national strategy do not become another tool
for the out-of-control Biden administration, radical eco-
activists, non-profits, and the international organizations to
control America's public lands.
As we have witnessed over the last 3 years, President Biden
is determined to lock up public lands and water across the
country from a sort of resource development, causing tremendous
harm not only to our economy, but to our national security, as
well. Russia and China are laughing at us as President Biden
repeatedly jeopardizes our national security and the security
of our great allies in Europe by handicapping vital domestic
resource development.
We must determine a better path forward for the future of
our land management and environmental policy for our nation, so
I look forward to our conversation today.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Stansbury, for her
opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
those who are joining us today.
You know, I am all for oversight of our nation's public
lands and conservation policies. I think it is important to
review them and understand how they will impact our
communities. So, for that, I am grateful for the opportunity to
have this hearing. But I do have to say, as we were preparing
for this hearing and trying to understand what exactly it was
about, we were a bit confused about how it was positioned.
In fact, it seems as though we have three unrelated public
lands initiatives that are all designed to increase public
participation and transparency and modernize the way that we do
our natural resources management as a country. But in the
casting of this hearing, many features of the kind of
conspiracy theories that we hear about on social media, foreign
actors, socialism, globalism, China, were all a part of the
conversation. And it even cast the New York Stock Exchange as
some extremist leftist eco-activist organization, if you can
believe it. So, I want to just kind of clarify what these
initiatives are, and talk about that before we get into our
Q&A.
The first is the National Strategy on Environmental
Economic Decisions. This is a policy and a roadmap that has
been put forth by the Administration to help address, really,
an error in how we quantify the benefits of different uses of
our public lands and natural resources. And it is based on the
idea that if you essentially value the full value that a
natural resource provides or a land provides, that you would
make different decisions.
So, a good example is, as we dammed and diverted various
streams and rivers in the West, many of the fisheries that were
in those streams and rivers were impacted by those development
activities, causing both cultural harm to the tribal and other
communities, but also significant economic impacts to the
fisheries communities. So, if you were to consider the full
economic, social, and cultural values of those resources in
your decision making, you might have come to a different
conclusion before going down a certain road. And this helps to
create a framework for bringing those economic and social
valuations into consideration of Federal decision makings.
But it is not just some radical idea that the Biden
administration came up with. It has been backed by the National
Academies, Nobel laureates, economists, and in fact, 80
countries around the world actually use this as a basis for
decision making. So, this is really about bringing the United
States into the mainstream in terms of how we do natural
capital accounting in our own decision making.
I also think it is worth noting that this was an initiative
that began during the Bush administration. In fact, some of our
great conservationists who served as political appointees
during that administration, as well as the Trump
administration, helped to try to advance the accounting of
natural capital that we are now looking at as part of this
policy.
The second is the BLM Public Lands Rule. We have already
had multiple hearings about this rule. Certainly, there are
some wild conspiracy theories about trying to tie up public
lands under this rule, but it is really about modernizing the
Federal Lands Management Act and making sure that our
communities and our tribes have a seat at the table and we
consider the conservation impacts of development.
But the third one, which, frankly, I was kind of shocked to
see as part of this hearing, is a proposal that was pulled from
the New York Stock Exchange that would allow, essentially, a
new kind of corporate entity to be traded that allows for
investors to invest in natural capital, so in natural assets to
ensure ecosystem integrity. That proposal was pulled
ultimately, and we are not sure what the final fate of that
will be, but it was intended as an economic tool to essentially
invest in conservation and improvements, and I think many
people would find it hard to believe that the New York Stock
Exchange is a radical leftist organization.
So, what all of these proposals really are about is about
making sure that, as a country, as a nation, as an economy we
are being responsible in our stewardship, especially as we are
on the brink of a major catastrophic change with climate
change, and that all of those communities, whether they are
tribes or rural communities, have a seat at the table in
deciding what happens to their lands.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the
conversation, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. I just want to
recognize some of her comments. Oversight is not debatable.
This Committee is about these different rules. And what we are
talking about is not about visitor participation on our public
lands, it is about leveraging our public lands on the
international stage.
When you start talking about the New York Stock Exchange,
this was real. This isn't hypotheticals. They turned that down.
I also want to remember to tell everybody that our Federal
lands are held in joint tenancy by the Federal Government on
behalf of the states, so they are already leveraged. So, if we
are trying to look at leveraging these parcels of land again,
wrong answer.
On that, I am going to turn now to introducing our witness,
Mr. Henry Wykowski, an Advisor of the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, DC.
I want to say thank you for coming on behalf of the BLM and
the Interior. As I said, the others did not show up.
Let me remind you that under the Committee Rules, you must
limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, as you know since being
here. It starts green, then it goes yellow at the last minute,
and red when you want to terminate.
Just press the ``on'' button for your microphone, and you
are now recognized, Mr. Wykowski, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HENRY WYKOWSKI, ADVISOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on how the Bureau of Land
Management's lands and programs directly and indirectly benefit
the health, wealth, and well-being of communities across the
United States.
On a personal note, it is an honor to appear before the
Subcommittee today on this side of the witness table. I spent
several years on the House Natural Resources Committee staff,
including time as a professional staff member working on public
lands issues, and I truly respect and appreciate the work this
Committee does to support American communities and protect the
health of our shared natural resources.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am appearing today as an
Advisor at the Bureau of Land Management.
On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages
approximately 245 million surface acres and roughly 700 million
subsurface acres. Much of our work is governed by the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, which sets out the
Bureau's multiple use and sustained yield mission. Under that
dual charge, the BLM manages public lands to support a wide
range of uses while protecting the health of those lands to
secure the resources and benefits that they provide for future
generations of Americans. Balancing these priorities, ensuring
appropriate use while protecting the health of the nation's
public lands, guides the Bureau in all of our work.
Activities related to the BLM's management of public lands
have been and continue to be a driver of the nation's economy
and a critical source of revenue and jobs for communities. BLM-
managed public lands and waters supported roughly $262 billion
in economic output and 1 million jobs across the country in
Fiscal Year 2022. Resource uses authorized by the BLM generated
substantial revenues for the U.S. Treasury, as well as for
state and local governments.
The importance of the sustained yield component of the
Bureau's dual mandate is coming increasingly into focus as the
BLM grapples with changing conditions on the landscape. Much
like communities across the nation, the BLM is responding to
extended droughts, increasingly large and intense fires, and
influx of invasive species and extreme weather events. These
changing conditions, largely driven by a change in climate, are
making it more difficult to manage the public lands for the
uses communities rely upon and wildlife require, from healthy
forage to fire resilient ecosystems.
BLM-managed public lands are also experiencing
unprecedented use and visitation as Americans flock to the
world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that these lands
provide. In fact, our public lands hosted more than 82 million
visitors in Fiscal Year 2022. These changing conditions and
uses pose challenges for the management of public lands and for
the BLM's capacity to deliver a sustained yield for future
generations of Americans.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the BLM is using
every tool available to meet our multiple use and sustained
yield mission, leveraging the best available science and data
and investing in land health while updating our regulatory
frameworks to meet the needs of 21st century land management.
The BLM is investing $161 million from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act in targeted
restoration projects across 11 Western states to repair
degraded or damaged public lands resources. These projects,
which are collaborative and partnership-driven, will restore
wildlife habitat in the sagebrush steppe, re-create wetland
meadows, and repair watersheds.
Additionally, the BLM is engaging in several key planning
and regulatory updates that aim to guide future decision making
in order to balance uses on public lands while protecting land
health. This work benefits from accurate data on the conditions
of public lands and the potential impacts of management
actions.
When finalized, these proposed rules will help provide a
more consistent framework for project applications, minimize
potential conflicts with sensitive resources, and ensure
healthy landscapes, abundant wildlife habitat, clean water, and
balanced decision making.
While the BLM was not directly involved in the development
of the Biden-Harris administration's National Strategy to
Develop Statistics for Environmental Economic Decisions, the
BLM welcomes efforts that will contribute to a better
understanding of the value of BLM-managed public lands and
waters at the national level. Continuing to ensure the best
available science and information as well as public input are
included in Bureau decisions helps improve BLM management, and
helps protect the important resources and values communities
expect from their public lands.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wykowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henry Wykowski, Advisor, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on how
the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) lands and programs directly and
indirectly benefit the health, wealth, and well-being of communities
across the United States.
The Value of Public Lands
On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages approximately 245
million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, and
approximately 700 million subsurface acres, roughly 30 percent of the
nation's onshore mineral resources. The BLM is charged with stewarding
a diverse array of resources for the benefit of all Americans.
Much of this work is governed by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), which sets out the Bureau's multiple use and
sustained yield mission. Under that dual charge, the BLM manages public
lands to support a wide range of uses, such as renewable and
conventional energy development, livestock grazing, conservation,
mining, watershed protection, hunting, fishing, and other forms of
recreation, while protecting the health of those lands to secure the
resources and benefits they provide for future generations of
Americans. Balancing these priorities--ensuring appropriate uses while
protecting the health of the nation's public lands--guides the Bureau
in all of our work.
Activities related to the BLM's management of public lands have
been and continue to be a driver of the nation's economy and a critical
source of revenue and jobs for communities across the nation. BLM-
managed public lands and waters supported $262.7 billion in economic
output and 1 million jobs across the country in Fiscal Year 2022.\1\
Resource uses authorized by the BLM generate substantial revenue for
the U.S. Treasury, as well as for state and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information, please see: https://www.blm.gov/sites/
default/files/docs/2024-01/Valuing%20America%27s%20Public%20Lands.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of the sustained yield component of the Bureau's
dual mandate is coming increasingly into focus as the BLM grapples with
changing conditions on the landscape. Much like communities across the
nation, the BLM is responding to extended droughts, increasingly large
and intense fires, an influx of invasive species, and extreme weather
events. These changing conditions, largely driven by a changing
climate, are making it more difficult to manage the public lands for
the uses communities rely upon and wildlife require, from healthy
forage to fire resilient ecosystems. BLM-managed public lands are also
experiencing unprecedented use and visitation as Americans flock to the
world class outdoor recreation opportunities these lands provide. Our
public lands hosted over 82 million visitors in Fiscal Year 2022, an
increase of 9 million visitors since 2020. These changing conditions
and uses pose challenges for the management of public lands and for the
BLM's capacity to deliver a sustained yield of these lands and
resources for future generations of Americans.
Managing for Land Health & Balanced Use
The nation is increasingly aware of the benefits healthy public
lands provide, and how important these benefits are for communities and
our nation's economy: fire resilient forests and rangelands help
protect homes, communities, and businesses from the impacts of
wildfire; wetlands and healthy riparian areas keep water on the
landscape; and habitat that supports pollinators is essential for our
agricultural economy and food security--80 percent of the world's
flowering plants need a pollinator to reproduce, and those pollinators
are responsible for fully one third of the food we consume.
As we come to better understand the important services healthy
lands and ecosystems provide for communities and how those services are
threatened by climate-driven impacts, it is imperative that the BLM
continue to fully embrace and meet our sustained yield mandate and
protect the health and productivity of the nation's public lands for
the benefit of current and future generations of Americans. Under the
Biden-Harris Administration, the BLM is using every tool available to
meet our mission, leveraging the best available science and data and
investing in landscapes and land health while updating our regulatory
and resource management frameworks to meet the needs of 21st century
land management.
Investing in Land Health
As part of President Biden's Investing in America agenda, the BLM
has identified 21 Restoration Landscapes across 11 western states and
has invested more than $161 million to target efforts to restore
degraded or damaged public land resources. This once-in-a-generation
investment from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law will support collaborative and partnership-driven
restoration work, coordinating investments from the Bureau's fuels
management, range, wildlife, forestry, aquatics, and recreation
programs where they can make the most meaningful impacts for
communities and BLM-managed resources. Restoration Landscape projects
will restore wildlife habitat in the sagebrush steppe of the high
desert, re-create wetland meadows, and repair watersheds on former
industrial timberlands.
In Arizona, for example, the BLM is focusing on projects in the
mountainous Sky Islands to reduce fuel loads, improve groundwater
management in the San Pedro River drainage (in partnership with Cochise
County and the Department of Defense), protect critical wildlife
migration corridors, and support recovery of threatened and endangered
wildlife. In New Mexico, the BLM is continuing its long-term
restoration investment through partnerships in the Lower Pecos River
landscape. Restoration efforts will remove mesquite, which has invaded
this landscape and damaged fragile soils, reduced native grasses, and
decreased groundwater recharge. Restoring this landscape will improve
water quality, increase forage for livestock and wildlife, and enhance
recreation and hunting opportunities for rural communities in southeast
New Mexico and west Texas.
Policy & Planning Updates
The BLM is engaging in several key planning and regulatory updates
that, when finalized, will help guide future decision-making in an
effort to balance uses on public lands while protecting land health.
This work benefits from accurate data on the conditions of the public
lands and how management decisions will affect natural resources and
different uses. Efforts like the proposed update of the Western Solar
Plan and the ongoing Sage Grouse Planning Amendments will help the BLM
more effectively manage the public lands, driving development to the
most appropriate areas while avoiding conflicts with sensitive habitats
and resources that might delay or derail projects. Helping guide
development will allow the BLM to maximize agency resources to review
appropriate projects while responsibly stewarding the public lands.
Similarly, regulatory updates like the proposed Fluid Minerals Leases
and Leasing Processes Rule covering onshore oil and gas, and the
proposed Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy
Rule will help meet BLM's statutory obligations under the IRA and
provide a more consistent framework for project applications and
reviews, while avoiding development conflicts.
The BLM's proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would
update the Bureau's regulatory framework, ensuring balance through
multiple use and sustained yield management. The proposed rule would
acknowledge conservation as being on an equal footing with other public
land uses, thereby enshrining Congress's direction in FLPMA, while
establishing a framework to ensure healthy landscapes, abundant
wildlife habitat, clean water, and balanced decision-making on our
nation's public lands.
The concepts of the proposed rule are consistent with strategies
used by other state and federal land management agencies to ensure the
federal government has tools and direction to identify areas in need of
restoration or protection, as well as the ability to encourage
investments in public lands to help balance the impacts of development.
The proposal would direct land managers to make management decisions
informed by empirical assessments of land health conditions. The
proposal would also give the BLM new tools to work with appropriate
entities interested in performing restoration or compensatory
mitigation work on public lands.
The proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would also
further improve the BLM's use of science and data, supporting the
expanded application of land health requirements and better
incorporating the best available information into decision-making on
the ground.
Incorporating the Best Available Science & Data into Land Management
Across all its work, the BLM gathers and considers the best
available science, data, and information to inform decision-making.
Ensuring that robust information and public input are incorporated into
Bureau decisions helps to inform and improve BLM management, and also
helps protect the important resources and values communities expect
from their public lands.
On January 19, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration released the
National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic
Decisions (National Strategy), which initiated a multi-year effort to
help the federal government understand and consistently track changes
in the condition and economic value of land, water, air, and other
natural assets, which underpin businesses, enhance quality of life, and
act as a stabilizing force for economic prosperity and opportunity.
Ultimately, the National Strategy will help bridge the gap between
economic statistics and the environment, with an emphasis on better
data to understand nature's critical contributions to the U.S. economy
and to guide policy and business decisions moving forward.
While full implementation of the National Strategy will take a
number of years, its key, foundational concept--gathering the best
available science, data, and information to make reasonable decisions--
is something that the BLM has been doing for decades. Moreover, as
conceived, this effort will help ensure greater consistency across
agencies in the collection and use of environmental data, which could
help improve inter-agency coordination and decision-making.
While the BLM was not involved in the development of this National
Strategy, the Bureau welcomes efforts that will contribute to better
understanding of the value of BLM-managed public lands and waters.
Nature has delivered natural assets to us for millennia. It is our job
to ensure those assets are available to future generations. By
continuing to collect and improve data and information on these
resources, and by incorporating that information in all of its
decision-making, the agency will be better equipped to ensure that
public lands continue providing the exceptional resources that
Americans know and love for generations to come.
Conclusion
The BLM is committed to managing America's public lands in a
balanced, science-based manner for the benefit of current and future
generations. The decisions we make about how we manage public lands
will have a profound impact on Americans across the country, and the
BLM takes that responsibility and its multiple use and sustained yield
mission seriously. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
We look forward to working further with Congress on this issue, and I
am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Henry Wykowski, Advisor,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Wykowski did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. What influence did natural capital accounting standards
from the United Nations (UN) or other international bodies, such as the
World Bank, have on the Biden administration's National Strategy to
Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions: A U.S. System
of Natural Capital Accounting and Environmental Economic Statistics
(National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting)?
Question 2. How do the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) use standards designed by the UN to align
their work implementing natural capital accounting and ecosystem
services valuation into agency decisions and actions?
Question 3. Did anyone at DOI and/or BLM consult with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), or the Department of Commerce (Commerce) regarding the
development or implementation of the National Strategy for Natural
Capital Accounting?
Question 4. Can you provide the Committee with the list of people
at DOI and BLM who consulted with OMB, OSTP, and/or Commerce on the
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting? Additionally, provide
the names of the respective OMB, OSTP, and Commerce officials and a
list of topics and issues discussed.
Question 5. OMB has issued a number of directives on how Federal
agencies should develop and enact policies to incorporate and
institutionalize natural capital accounting and ecosystem services into
Federal decision making and actions. These include Memorandum M-16-01,
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making, and
Memorandum M-22-15, the Multi-Agency Research and Development
Priorities for the FY 2024 Budget.
5a) How are DOI and BLM adhering to the OMB directives to
incorporate and institutionalize natural capital accounting and
ecosystem services into Federal decision making and actions?
5b) Specifically with regard to OMB Memorandum M-22-15, how are DOI
and BLM identifying and prioritizing R&D investments that advance
ecosystem services?
Question 6. What are the next steps for DOI and BLM in the
development of a system for natural capital accounting, ecosystem
services valuation, and environmental-economic statistics?
Question 7. What further developments can we expect to see over the
next year from DOI and BLM on developing and implementing a system for
natural capital accounting, ecosystem services valuation, and
collecting environmental-economic statistics?
Question 8. How will the implementation of National Strategy for
Natural Capital Accounting potentially affect oil and gas leasing on
federal lands?
Question 9. Has BLM conducted any sort of outreach to the oil, gas,
and energy industry to hear their perspective on how the National
Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting could affect oil and gas
leasing on federal lands?
9a) If not, does BLM have plans to do so?
Question 10. The National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting
states that not having a natural capital accounting system impairs our
nation's ability to fight climate change. What additional abilities BLM
intends to gain from the National Strategy on Natural Capital
Accounting to ``fight climate change''?
Question 11. Given President Biden's terrible track record with
resource development, how can you assure the American people that DOI
and BLM will not abuse a national system for natural capital accounting
to lock up public lands and waters from resource development?
Questions Submitted by Representative Hageman
Question 1. In a January 19, 2022 Press Release, Secretary Haaland
is on record as promoting the non-profit organization ``Foundation for
America's Public Lands.'' That Foundation integrates public and private
partnerships to promote conservation of BLM lands, and is reportedly
led by BLM Director Stone-Manning, former BLM Director Kornze, and
former Montana Governor Bullock.
Would you please share with this Committee how the Foundation for
America's Public Lands implements Executive Order 14072 and the
Administration's Natural Asset Capitalization program being promoted by
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy?
Question 2. If adopted by the Department of Interior, the
Conservation Leasing System in BLM Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule would impose--through regulation--the targets of the Paris
Agreement, the economic objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008,
and the monetized Natural Asset Inventory Policy being promoted by the
White House.
Would you please share with this Committee why such transformative
policy changes are needed, and how changes in BLM Regulations would
affect the current Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Inventory system
required of the Secretary under the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act?
Question 3. Has the BLM begun incorporating ecosystem services
impacts into their environmental analysis under NEPA or any other
program such as land health assessments, evaluations and
determinations?
3a) If so, what accounting system/framework is the BLM using to
calculate this value?
3b) If not, when does the BLM anticipate adding these impacts into
their assessments?
______
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and,
once again, thank you for coming. I appreciate seeing you. I am
going to recognize myself for my next 5 minutes.
As you are aware, the Foundation for America's Public Lands
is the official charitable partner of the BLM. My question to
you is, would you please share with the Committee how the
Foundation for America's Public Lands implements Executive
Order 14072? This is the strengthening the national forest
communities and local economies executive order.
Mr. Wykowski. Mr. Chair, the Foundation is a separate
entity from the Bureau, acting as a non-profit, so I couldn't
speak to their activities. But I don't believe they are under
any obligation to act on executive orders by the President, as
they are not part of the executive branch.
Dr. Gosar. My understanding is they are in there to support
the Administration. And in use over the parks and that aspect.
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admittedly,
representing the Bureau, don't engage directly with the
Foundation. They do act as a partner chartered by the Congress
to support some of BLM's activities, but I couldn't speak to
exactly how they carry out that mission.
Dr. Gosar. I am going to ask you another question. How does
this work interface with the Administration's national strategy
for natural capital accounting?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Mr. Chairman, apologies. I am not
engaged directly in the operations of the Foundation. It is a
separate entity, so I couldn't speak to how they carry out that
strategy.
Dr. Gosar. Now I am going to switch gears. If adopted by
the Department of the Interior, the Conservation Leasing System
and BLM's Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would impose
through regulation the targets of the Paris Agreement, the
economic objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, and
the monetized National Asset Inventory policy being promoted by
this White House.
Mr. Wykowski. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you repeat the
question? I am sorry, apologies.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Would you please share with the Committee
why such transformational policy changes are needed, and how
changes in the BLM regulations would affect the current
multiple use and sustained yield inventory system required of
the Secretary under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act?
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, the
proposed public lands rule is really driven by our multiple use
and sustained yield mission. We believe that there is an
opportunity to continue to build on the great work that BLM has
done for the past 50 years to ensure we are protecting the
health of public lands to ensure a sustained yield for future
generations of Americans.
And although the proposed rule isn't finalized, we believe
that tools within it like the proposed conservation leases will
be an effective tool to help better support that sustained
yield mission.
Dr. Gosar. So, you do know that these lands are held in
joint tenancy for the states with the Federal Government,
right? You do understand that.
Mr. Wykowski. Mr. Chairman, I think that I would defer to
the Department's solicitors on the appropriate relationship
between the Federal Government and the states on the legal
status of those lines.
Dr. Gosar. So, states like Arizona were actually coerced
into the States, they joined the Union, and we were coerced by
Taft to actually accept those Federal lands aspects. And a lot
of our budgetary aspects are determined, on BLM lands, by the
way, on energy and mineral development, as well as grazing
leases, right?
Mr. Wykowski. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, as I noted in my
testimony, the Bureau has a significant economic contribution
to both the Federal Treasury and state and local government
revenues.
Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you, how do you amortize
something like participation, the Ranking Member used this
aspect, around the world, how do you monetize that?
Mr. Wykowski. While the BLM was not involved in the
development of the national strategy, as I noted, we definitely
support opportunities to better understand the value of these
resources and how we can use them to support the Bureau's
sustained yield mission.
Dr. Gosar. So, do you actually develop them? Is this
process going to allow others to develop these resources when
we can't develop these resources?
Mr. Wykowski. Are you referring to the conservation leasing
process? Sorry, I just want to make sure I am understanding.
Dr. Gosar. I am talking about this asset program.
Mr. Wykowski. The national strategy? Again, the Bureau was
not involved in the development, but my understanding of the
strategy as I prepared for this hearing is that it is a 15-year
phased approach, so I think it would be probably a little bit
premature, exactly, to speculate on how it might, if it all,
impact land management decisions in the future.
Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, it seems very awkward to me that we
are amortizing these lands when first in line is our states,
because we utilize those, as you know, in minerals in Arizona;
there is oil and gas and coal and Wyoming. So, these are all
very important aspects of the budgetary process that tries to
maintain a balance of conservation with multiple-use doctrines,
whether it be energy, mineral, timber, and also leasing
processes.
With that, I have run out of time, so I am going to give
the Ranking Member her 5 minutes so she is on a plane too.
Ms. Stansbury. OK. I do want to just take a few moments to
try to clarify a little bit about history, land tenure,
leasing, and what we are talking about with natural capital and
some of these rules.
First of all, I think it is important just to understand
the history of the West. The lands that are now currently in my
state, in Arizona, and in the rest of the West are Indigenous
lands. They have been stewarded for thousands of years by our
Native communities, and they were then a part of Spain and
Mexico. They were invaded by the United States in the 1840s and
came into the United States' public land holdings in 1848 under
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was actually decades
before either of our states became states.
So, while the states have state lands that are administered
and owned by the states and administered for the purposes of
getting value out of them, the Federal Government holds tenure
to Federal lands. So, there are two systems there, and they are
managed under two different governance systems, and this is
really about Federal lands. These rules, this framework would
only pertain to Federal lands, not state lands. So, let's make
sure that we are clear on that.
In terms of the use of natural capital, it is kind of a
really nerdy concept, so I think it can be difficult for folks
to understand. It really comes out of environmental economics
from the 1960s and 1970s, and it was this idea that when you
are valuing natural resources, if you have a commodity like,
say, minerals or oil and gas, it is already traded on a market,
so you are able to put an economic value on it. If you are
doing a cost benefit analysis, you can say, all right, if we
develop this resource we are going to get this value out of it,
and ultimately we can provide a monetary value.
But I think over the last four or five decades, we have
really understood that by only considering the economic value
of commodities that can be sold, that you undervalue other
assets on these public lands that may have also economic
benefits, things like protecting forests that are part of our
vital watershed, other ecosystem benefits like fisheries, for
example, of our rivers and streams. And by providing an
economic value, then when you do a cost benefit analysis you
can put on equal footing and more transparency to say is it
worth developing this mineral or this particular natural
resource at the expense of this other resource which we didn't
previously value? So, it is really an economic concept.
And as I understand it, Mr. Wykowski, I know you have
already said here today that you weren't involved in the
development of the framework, but the valuation framework that
the Administration has put forward and would ultimately become
a part of how agencies do evaluation would be in the context of
things like NEPA, public land set-asides, things like that. Is
that correct?
Mr. Wykowski. Certainly, and we would definitely follow the
law, even as we work through how to implement this strategy.
Ms. Stansbury. But at the end of the day, it really is a
way to value resources that were not previously valued,
correct?
Mr. Wykowski. That is my understanding of the strategy
assets, as you mentioned, to expand the consideration of assets
that are not adequately valued currently, so----
Ms. Stansbury. But it would still happen through a public
process. So, that valuation, whether it was done through an
administrative process of public land management policy, or the
creation of a new monument, or a deciding whether or not to
open a specific area for leasing would still follow the same
public process whereby those who have an interest in the land,
tribes, others would participate in that process. Is that
correct?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, as the strategy is a 15-year approach,
I think we are still a long way from considering directly how
we will participate in these processes. But that said, we
certainly welcome opportunities to better understand the value
of these resources so that we can build them into things like
those NEPA processes, and allow opportunities for adequate
public comment and help better inform decisions.
I think that there is a great potential there for that
process to work closely with many ongoing processes at the
Bureau.
Ms. Stansbury. I know I am going to run out of time here,
but I just want to clarify for everyone out there who is
listening. This doesn't replace existing processes. This is a
way of bringing another factor into cost-benefit and to
decision making so that we don't undervalue resources that our
communities depend on and our ecosystems depend on. So, I think
it is just really important that people understand this is
about leveling the playing field, creating transparency, and
making our decision making more robust.
Thank you. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Just a quick question, Mr. Wykowski. In this
system, you have nothing. You don't have something that you can
show. When I mine something, I have something to show and I can
sell. Now what we are putting forward is a value on what
conservation, or what we are looking at, clean air or whatever.
You are not giving anything. You feel good about that aspect,
but you have nothing, right?
Mr. Wykowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, while we were not
directly involved in the development, my understanding is that
the accounts would cover a wide variety of values, including
energy and mineral resources, fisheries, timber, as well as
some of these harder-to-measure resources, like the value of
clean water and fire-resilient forests.
Dr. Gosar. I would have a hard time believing that we are
going to leverage our current mining, which doesn't exist very
much. I mean, it takes over 20 years to get a mining permit,
actually, to a position, and I doubt it, it even takes longer
than that.
But from that standpoint, I think we are pigeon-holing this
Ponzi scheme because all you are doing is you are making it
feel good because you don't own anything. That is the basis of
a Ponzi scheme, you keep going down the road trying to invest,
but there is nothing there for you to inherently say this is
what I did, right?
Mr. Wykowski. I am not familiar with the structure of Ponzi
schemes, but my understanding is that the strategy is driven by
the Office of Management and Budget; Science, Technology, and
Policy; as well as our colleagues at the Department of
Commerce, and that it is a whole-of-government effort to
capture the value of these resources that we are currently not
adequately valuing in our national economic considerations.
Dr. Gosar. I see this very problematic all the way across
the board, and----
Ms. Stansbury. Some people actually value clean air,
though.
Dr. Gosar. Oh, and I think our clean air is actually
cleaner than it was----
Ms. Stansbury. And addressing our climate crisis.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I would actually like to debate that, too,
because I think current policies don't show us that we are
actually embracing climate change. We are actually doing it
worse off, because we are actually utilizing more oil and gas
that are dirtier than what we produce. So, I think we could
argue that back and forth.
Ms. Stansbury. I think you just made the point of why we
need this. So, that is a great place to end----
Dr. Gosar. I don't think I did, I don't think I did.
The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Stansbury, for holding the hearing today.
It is no secret that the Administration has used our
Federal lands to try to implement their most egregious climate
and environmental-focused policies. Their actions over these
past 3 years have done nothing to help Americans who rely on
this land for their livelihoods and also, despite their claims,
have done nothing to keep our American landscapes clean and
beautiful.
Take, for instance, the Judith Gap in central Montana. Once
a pristine expanse, it is now marred by towering wind turbines
that disrupt local wind patterns and frequently fail to
generate energy during Montana's harsh winter conditions. I
have posted online just 3 weeks ago this very event. It is 30
degrees below zero, I drove through the middle of the wind
farm, and not a single one of the turbines was turning.
It is extremely concerning how an administration whose
apparent goal is environmental protection could force such a
visually intrusive and unreliable energy source onto the
American people. And this is just one example of the
shortsighted and poorly-thought-through policies concerning
Federal lands and enacted by this Administration.
Consider the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule
proposed last summer, which initially seemed like another
instance of the Administration appeasing the climate zealots.
However, subsequent developments revealed a much more
concerning agenda: the Conservation Lease BLM Rule, which
clearly violates the Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM's mandate
for multiple use, appears to pave the way for leasing parcels
of land to Natural Asset Companies.
While public outcry and this Committee's intervention
compelled the SEC to retract its plan for Natural Asset
Companies, recent information suggests that the group behind
this scheme is undeterred. The notion of commodifying public
land for foreign entities and prohibiting the resources that
are located on the land from being developed, allowing them to
profit from taxpayer-owned resources while treating water and
air as commodities is truly dystopian.
With all this in mind, and while it should be no surprise
that the other three witnesses did not come here to defend
their decisions by testifying today at this Committee hearing,
I have several questions for you, Mr. Wykowski.
First and foremost, thank you for your willingness to come
in to testify before this Committee and showing the courage
that, unfortunately, the other witnesses lacked. However, with
that in mind, how do you square your agency's Conservation
Lease Rule with its blatant violation of the Taylor Grazing
Act?
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The
public lands rule is really driven by our multiple use and
sustained yield mission, and will help us to better manage the
resources across the landscape while ensuring a sustained yield
for future generations of Americans.
I think we might have to agree to disagree on its
interaction with other laws, but I personally am not an
attorney, and would refer to the Department's attorneys on the
relationship between the Taylor Grazing Act and----
Mr. Rosendale. So, what I will tell you is that the Taylor
Grazing Act, it calls for, and it is in statute, that the
priorities are for agricultural purposes, much of which is to
sustain food sources for people across the United States. This
was put into place back in the 1930s, and that is when they
were focused on that.
And now, the BLM rule is literally taking conservation
measures and placing it above that food production, that
agricultural use, which is completely in contrast to the
statute itself. So, that is why we have had so much of a
problem watching BLM propose a rule that truly is in conflict
with the statute itself.
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, as I noted, the proposed rule
really derives from our obligations under FLPMA. It doesn't
elevate conservation above other uses, but ensures that we are
providing for adequate conservation use alongside other
multiple uses so that we can deliver a sustained yield for
future generations of Americans across our public lands.
Mr. Rosendale. Regarding the SEC and New York Stock
Exchange recently-withdrawn rule regarding the Natural Asset
Companies, do you see any issue with allowing foreign countries
or entities to invest in and control U.S. Federal lands, and
profit from prohibiting the use of the resources that are
located on those lands? Do you see any problem or conflict with
that?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, I am only familiar with the
SEC's proposal from what I have read about it in the popular
media, but the Department has been quite clear that we were not
involved or engaged in the SEC process. So, I would hesitate to
speculate on how that might play out if it were adopted.
Mr. Rosendale. OK, Mr. Chair, I would yield back. Thank you
so much for the opportunity.
Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlewoman from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In October 2023, the SEC proposed a rule to approve the New
York Stock Exchange's request to list Natural Asset Companies.
I led on a letter to the SEC with 31 other Members in the
House, expressing strong opposition to the process and the
proposal itself. Thousands of stakeholders across the country
wrote to the SEC in opposition to this proposal, due to the
surrendering of local control to elite investors, radical
environmental groups, and even foreign governments.
Briefly, NACs would have prohibited the ``unsustainable
activities'' on public and private lands. In bureaucratic
language, this is code for blocking all legitimate economic
development, including energy development, food production,
grazing, logging, and access to other raw materials needed for
housing and industrial construction.
In short, what NACs would do would be to allow someone like
Bill Gates to buy the natural assets of, say, Shoshone National
Forest in the state of Wyoming and block essentially all access
management and use to that resource. But not just someone with
billions of dollars, such as Bill Gates. It would also allow
China, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and other malign actors from
purchasing the natural assets of these lands, both Federal
lands, BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service lands, but it also would apply to private lands or any
private lands who had conservation easements on them. So, those
farmers and ranchers who had placed conservation easements on
their property could wake up one day and be in partnership with
the Chinese Communist Party.
Obviously, this is something that was one of the most
dangerous rules I have ever seen, and I am pleased that the New
York Stock Exchange saw the light and withdrew it.
But Mr. Wykowski, I just have a couple of questions for
you. I know you weren't involved in the SEC's proposal, but I
am highlighting these concerns because the BLM is responsible
for the management and mismanagement of these resources on 10
percent of this country's acreage, and I can't even imagine
that the BLM would think that the SEC's or the New York Stock
Exchange's proposal was appropriate or that it would be a good
thing to do. Do you know whether the BLM weighed in with the
SEC, challenging the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange's
ability to sell the natural assets of BLM lands?
Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, my understanding is that the
Department has been clear that we had no engagement with the
SEC on this proposal.
Ms. Hageman. So, you had no engagement with the SEC at all?
The SEC never contacted the BLM and said, ``We are going to
sell your''--or the New York Stock Exchange, they didn't
contact you and say, ``We are going to sell the natural assets
to the BLM lands?''
Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I would have to refer you to
the SEC for how they go about their----
Ms. Hageman. No, I am asking the BLM.
Mr. Wykowski. Well, as I noted, the Department has had no
engagement with the SEC on this withdrawn proposal.
Ms. Hageman. Interesting. Did you call them up and say,
``We don't like this idea?''
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congresswoman, we have not had any
engagement with the SEC on this proposal.
Ms. Hageman. So, why don't you think that the BLM should
weigh in on this proposal that would have sold all the natural
assets to the BLM lands, to say, China?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, I am not familiar with the content of
the proposal----
Ms. Hageman. So, the BLM is just not taking a position.
Mr. Wykowski [continuing]. Only from what I have read in
the popular media, but we, in all our land management work, are
committed to following the law and meeting the tenets of our
multiple use and sustained yield mandate.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Wykowski, do you believe that just
perhaps our foreign adversaries would have a reason to cripple
our access to raw materials needed for legitimate economic
development? Don't you think that would be something that our
foreign adversaries would want?
Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I am here today to represent
the Bureau of Land Management, so that is outside of my area of
expertise.
Ms. Hageman. Well, the BLM is where we access coal and oil
and gas. It is where we have grazing rights, and trona. It
can't be outside of your expertise. That is what we do on our
BLM lands.
Mr. Wykowski. And certainly we are committed to meeting all
those multiple uses on the public lands through our management.
Ms. Hageman. In the case of the New York Stock Exchange's
proposal, they didn't include any kind of investment exclusion
for foreign adversaries. In fact, the Intrinsic Exchange Group,
who worked closely with the New York Stock Exchange, explicitly
stated that foreign governments could invest in these NACs.
They are not just OK with it, they actually extended the
invitation.
I think that that is of grave concern, and something that
the American people should understand, that the New York Stock
Exchange, along with the SEC, were inviting foreign governments
to come in in purchasing, for example, the natural assets
associated with all of our BLM lands.
But I also think it is important for the American people to
understand that the BLM did nothing to push back on that kind
of a radical idea.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arkansas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the
witness for being here today.
And I do want to make a clarification here. The idea of
valuing our natural assets I don't think is a bad idea, and I
think the United States is probably behind in that, in creating
standards. And my understanding is that some foreign entities,
even China, are working on international standards that could
be used against us, be used against products produced in
America.
My first question is, and I want to make the distinction
between developing standards and using those standards in a
nefarious way. So, can you tell me where we are on the
international stage as far as the United States leading on
developing standards for valuing our natural assets?
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question. My understanding,
although the Bureau was not directly involved in the
development of this proposal, is that it is an opportunity to
participate in an ongoing process that, I believe 80 countries
globally are developing standards, so this is an effort by the
U.S. Government to coordinate across several agencies to
develop these standards in a cohesive manner to support
interagency engagement.
This is a 15-year phased strategy, and we are very early in
the beginning stages of that strategy.
Mr. Westerman. I am concerned that we are getting behind,
and we are allowing people who don't have our best interests at
heart to develop these standards, where the United States has
generally been a leader in standards development around the
world.
Now, with that said, the Committee has heard concerns from
every corner of the country that the proposed Conservation and
Landscape Health Rule could be used to restrict currently
permitted activities on BLM lands such as grazing, energy
production, and recreation. So, how would a national system for
natural capital accounting potentially affect conservation
leasing, as outlined in the proposed Conservation and Landscape
Health Rule?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, as I noted, we are relatively
early in the development of this strategy. It is a 15-year
phased approach, so it is potentially a little early to
speculate on how it might be used. But as I noted in my
testimony, we welcome opportunities to use better data to
understand the value of these assets to inform our decision
making.
Mr. Westerman. In the proposed Conservation and Landscape
Health Rule, why did BLM decide to allow foreign entities to
apply for conservation leases?
Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question, Congressman. That
was a comment we heard loud and clear during the comment period
on the proposed rule, and it is one that, as we move towards
finalizing the rule, we are certainly mindful of and hoping to
address as we move forward.
Mr. Westerman. That doesn't really answer why we allowed
them to do that in the first place.
[Chart.]
Mr. Westerman. But in the interest of time, the poster
behind me, which is taken from an April 2023 presentation from
the Department of the Interior, outlines how natural capital
accounting aligns and supports DOI and BLM priorities in the
Biden administration, which, that being said, it is ironic,
with Ms. Hageman's questioning, that BLM or DOI had no contact
with the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange throughout this
process.
Can you explain how DOI and BLM will use natural capital
accounting to advance your DEI and environmental justice goals?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, this is a 15-year
strategy, so I think it would be early to speculate how, if at
all, this might impact land management decisions on the ground
at the BLM.
Mr. Westerman. You didn't talk about DEI and environmental
justice goals. How are you going to use that?
Mr. Wykowski. As I noted in my testimony, the Bureau was
not involved in the development of this national strategy, but
we look forward to working with our colleagues across
government to figure out the appropriate implementation, to
work within the multiple use and sustained yield mandate
provided by Congress.
Mr. Westerman. So, this presentation and meeting behind me,
you are saying basically it didn't happen, that you are not----
Mr. Wykowski. I am here today as a representative of the
Bureau of Land Management. I would have to refer to the
Department of the Interior for questions about other agency
priorities.
Mr. Westerman. Well, my next question is how will DOI and
BLM use natural capital accounting to advance the America the
Beautiful Initiative and 30x30 goal to lock up 30 percent of
America's lands by 2030.
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, it is early in the
development of this natural capital accounting strategy, so I
would hesitate to speculate on how it might be implemented on
management on the ground.
Mr. Westerman. Speaking of 30x30, Congress has been asking
this question for a long time, and I hope we can finally get an
answer today for the American people: How much progress has
been made towards the 30x30 goals so far?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, at the BLM, we are working hard
to support the vision of the America the Beautiful that the
President has laid out for supporting locally-led conservation,
for protecting the health of our natural resources, and
engaging with communities across the country.
Mr. Westerman. Do you make a distinction between
conservation and preservation?
Mr. Wykowski. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Westerman. What is that distinction?
Mr. Wykowski. It depends on the context, but certainly
there are a variety of definitions we use to help govern our
land management in different situations.
Mr. Westerman. I have seen preservation cloaked as
conservation many times, and I have a real problem with that.
It has been over 3 years since President Biden took office.
When will DOI provide a report on the metrics being used to
measure progress and exactly how much land and water has been
locked up in the 30x30 Initiative?
Mr. Wykowski. I don't have an answer for you today on that,
Congressman, but I would be happy to take a question back for
the record and get you an answer from the Department.
Mr. Westerman. If you could do that, and I am out of time,
but I will submit some more questions for the record.
I appreciate you coming over today, and I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Do you want a second round?
Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just
wanted to say the rookie in me came out. I should have
acknowledged that you were the Chairman of the Full Committee,
and I didn't.
We are going to entertain a second round of questioning, if
you would like. The Chair is going to recognize the gentlewoman
from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, again for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you for that opportunity. I have
so many questions for the BLM.
Forty-eight percent of the surface estate in the state of
Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, and about 65
percent of our mineral estate is owned by the Federal
Government. So, when those resources are mismanaged, it has an
enormous impact on my state and the citizens of my state.
And when you have programs such as the 30x30, what you now
call America the Beautiful, which I would vehemently disagree
with because I don't believe that that is ultimately what will
happen with those efforts, I think you will see what we have
been seeing over the last several years, which is the
continuing of catastrophic forest fires for failure to properly
manage our National Forest Service lands. Removing grazing from
our BLM lands is going to have very serious impacts not only on
the economy throughout the state of Wyoming, but it will impact
the quality of those lands and the grasses, as well.
So, I am going to talk to you specifically about some of
the things that the BLM has been doing in the state of Wyoming.
In mid-August of this last year, the BLM Rock Springs Field
Office introduced their draft Resource Management Plan for
revision for the Rock Springs Planning Area, which makes up 3.6
million acres of land in the state of Wyoming. In total, under
the preferred alternative, about 2.5 million acres would be off
the table for consideration for new rights-of-way, and about
1.6 million acres would have been denied any type of access for
grazing, oil and gas development, trona, those sorts of things.
By the way, Wyoming is the largest trona producer in the
nation, the largest coal producer in the nation, and one of the
largest oil and gas producers in the nation. So, these issues
are extremely important to us.
That would have been an increase of more than 480 percent
in acreage off limits to important things like power lines,
pipelines, and maintaining roads. And this proposal would also
heavily restrict trona mining, as well as oil and natural gas
development, which are key contributors to our economy.
We learned from a former BLM employee that this proposed
alternative took a very short time to develop. It was
alternative B, and he said all of their efforts and the $8
million that they spent on this effort was actually focused on
developing alternative D, as in dog, compared to alternative B,
as in boy. In his words, he said, in coming up with
alternatives B and C, B basically denying access, management,
and use to the vast majority of these lands, ``We sat down and
in 1 week they developed them together.'' So, over the years
they spent years developing alternative D and about a week on B
and C. Yet, because of this Administration, alternative B was
the one that was chosen by the BLM.
And having been someone who has dealt with NEPA for decades
now, NEPA requires you to take a hard look at the alternatives
and the decision that is going to be made. Would you agree with
me that spending years on alternative D, as compared to 1 week
on alternative B, demonstrates that the BLM never did take a
hard look at alternative B before deciding that that was the
plan that they were going to go forward with?
Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I am not aware of these
assertions by a former BLM employee, but certainly agree that
NEPA requires us to take that hard look, and we will do that
across all land management planning efforts, including the Rock
Springs RMP.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, would you agree spending years on
something would be considered a hard look, and spending a week
on something probably wouldn't qualify?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congresswoman, I am not aware of the
assertions by this former employee, so I would hesitate to
speculate, but I am certain that on the Rock Springs RMP we did
take that hard look that NEPA requires, in compliance with the
law.
Ms. Hageman. OK. And really, in large part you are avoiding
my question because you recognize that spending a week on
alternative B isn't most likely going to pass court muster,
especially when the $8 million in the years were spent on
studying alternative D.
So, I just want to make sure that the BLM truly understands
the implications of what happens when decisions are coming out
of Washington, DC rather than the local offices, and rather
than in conjunction with the state and the stakeholders that
actually know how to manage the resources in Wyoming. It is
extremely damaging when you have an environmental agenda coming
out of DC that folks don't understand how to manage those
resources, what it can do to not only a state like Wyoming, but
actually the country as a whole.
The war on coal, the war on oil and gas, the war on
affordable energy is affecting everyone in this country. It is
why I have introduced the Energy Poverty Prevention and
Accountability Act, because I want to make sure that agencies
like the BLM are actually having to quantify the costs
associated with the decisions that they make. I think the
American people deserve that.
And I will again say I think that the BLM needs to come to
the table with the state of Wyoming and come up with a
legitimate resource management plan for not only the Rock
Springs district, but the remainder of Wyoming that BLM
controls.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Collins. All right, the Chair now recognizes himself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wykowski, I know you have answered a lot of what I am
going to ask you, because I have heard it throughout your
testimony, but I just want to go through it again just so that
I get it on my record as what we are doing.
And I have spent some time reviewing the National Strategy
to Develop Statistics for Environmental, Economic Decisions and
natural capital accounting. Since you referenced it throughout
your testimony, you are familiar with this document, the
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting, correct?
Mr. Wykowski. Although the Bureau was not directly involved
in its development, in preparation for this hearing I
familiarized myself, certainly.
Mr. Collins. You can say yes.
Mr. Wykowski. Yes.
Mr. Collins. OK.
Mr. Wykowski. Certainly.
Mr. Collins. Now, according to the strategy itself and
information from the White House, the lead authors of the
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting are the Office
of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and the Department of Commerce. Is that your
understanding, as well?
Mr. Wykowski. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. OK. So, as the sole representative over there
for the Biden administration, can you explain to me why the
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce all refused to come here today to
discuss their work and explain to the American people just what
the heck the natural capital accounting and ecosystem service
valuation is all about?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, I can say that the Department of
the Interior does its best to accommodate witness requests from
the Committee at every opportunity, and I am pleased to be here
today to talk about the work we are doing at the BLM.
Mr. Collins. Let me just ask you point blank, then. Why are
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce refusing to testify in front of
Congress on this important issue?
Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, I can only speak for the
Department of the Interior that I know the Department does its
best to accommodate witness requests from the Committee. And I
am pleased to be here today to speak about the work of BLM.
Mr. Collins. Do you think it is fair that OMB, OSTP,
Commerce, and, frankly, the White House just left you here all
alone, stranded on that island over there, just to answer
questions about a national strategy document that was authored
by other agencies? Do you think that is fair?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, again, I really can only speak
to the Department. I know that at the Department of the
Interior we do our best to accommodate witness requests from
the Committee at every opportunity.
Mr. Collins. So, do you think it is fair OMB and OSTP
authored a strategy and issued directives on how the Department
of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management should
implement the strategy, but then left you here to answer all
the questions about their strategy and the directives? Do you
think that is fair?
Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, again, I really can only speak
to the Department of the Interior's considerations for
witnesses, but----
Mr. Collins. Well, I will tell you what, I will answer it
for you. No, it is not fair. It is absolutely a shame that the
Biden administration left you here all by yourself to answer
the questions about a major national strategy that was written
by three other agencies who refuse to testify in front of
Congress here today.
And I will tell you what. We may have different views on
policies and politics, but I kind of feel bad for you sitting
over there, with the OMB, the OSTP, and the White House tossing
you out here to the wolves alone while they don't show up. And
I don't blame you if you decide to leave the Biden
administration, call me, we will help you get a job somewhere.
But let me just finish by saying this. It is absolutely
outrageous that the Office of Management and Budget, the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Commerce,
and the White House sent you here today by yourself to answer
for stuff that they have done. But it is not surprising. I
mean, it speaks volumes, and it is a complete lack of
accountability from this Administration.
And as we know from the elderly man with poor memory in the
White House all the way down, that the Biden administration
doesn't like getting questions. But we are going to keep asking
questions, and we are going to keep getting answers whether
President Biden likes it or not.
With that, I yield back, and seeing no other Members asking
questions----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I will just make one final
comment, which is that we are grateful that the Bureau of Land
Management and Department of the Interior came and joined us
here today. I think it was an educational hearing for my
colleagues who are newly being introduced to the concept of
natural capital.
I especially appreciate Mr. Westerman's comments about how
the United States is behind other nations, and needs to
standardize the way in which we do economic accounting of our
natural resources, and grateful that we have a forester in the
Majority who serves on this Committee, who understands the
value that our natural resources have as we are making
decisions. So, I think that is important.
And I do thank you, Mr. Wykowski, for coming to testify
today. I think the policies that this Administration is
continuing, which were begun decades ago by other
administrations, including conservative and Republican
administrations, are vital to the modernization of our public
lands, our natural resources, and our competitiveness
internationally. So, I appreciate your work on that.
With that, I think we are done. Thanks.
Mr. Collins. All right. I thank the witness for his
testimony and Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witness, and we ask you respond to these in
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
February 22. The hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Susie Feliz
Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Consistent with the Department's agreement with the Subcommittee's
staff, I am pleased to provide this Statement for the Record on behalf
of the Department of Commerce. The Department remains committed to
cooperation with our congressional partners.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Commerce (DOC)
organized and co-chaired an Interagency Policy Working Group to develop
the National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic
Decisions (``National Strategy''). The National Strategy outlines how
the U.S. Federal statistical system can better integrate economic and
environmental data, with an emphasis on environmental-economic accounts
as a means to understand nature's critical contributions to a
competitive and sustainable U.S. economy. The National Strategy
provides a roadmap for a multi-year effort to measure stocks of (and
flows of value from) natural capital assets--such as land, water,
timber, mineral resources, and other critical components of the U.S.
economy--in a way that complements and aligns with our existing
national economic accounts. The National Strategy recommends a 15-year
phased approach for Federal agencies to develop natural capital
accounts, charting a path from research-grade environmental-economic
accounts to core statistical products that would eventually be
presented alongside our core economic statistics.
The main objective of the National Strategy is to improve the
Nation's statistical infrastructure. The National Strategy does not
have specific use cases or policy goals.
At present, natural capital assets are largely absent from the
Nation's balance sheet, effectively understating U.S. national wealth
and distorting our asset position relative to countries that have
already begun integrating these assets into their economic accounts by
following the latest statistical standards. The United Nations
Statistical Commission, which governs international statistical
standards such as the System of National Accounts (SNA), approved new
statistical standards in 2012 and 2021 (System of Environmental-
Economic Accounting, or SEEA) that provide a policy-neutral, rigorous
accounting framework for developing environmental-economic statistics
that dovetail with our existing national accounts. Coordinating
international standards in this way mirrors the approach used for gross
domestic product (GDP) and other components of National accounts. As of
2021, 90 countries have already produced or have begun compiling SEEA-
based accounts. Indeed, the United States has moved to a leadership
position, including signing a Joint Statement with Australia and Canada
to exchange technical information in support of quantifying the value
of natural assets. The United States, Australia, and Canada are large
resource-rich nations that will be key players in the measurement of
natural capital assets. Ultimately, however, the United States remains
independent from other countries in how we implement our environmental-
economic statistics and reserves the right to implement differing
approaches that better serve the needs of U.S. data users.
The Administration is working within its existing authorities,
making use of the substantial expertise within Federal departments and
agencies, including by coordinating across agencies. Moreover, the
measurement of natural capital is hewing closely to SNA and SEEA
standards, which are internationally agreed upon standards, and not
trying to exaggerate or undersell the value of natural assets.
However, production of new national accounts does not occur
overnight. The development of our existing system of national economic
accounts has taken decades, given the technical, methodological, and
data collection challenges of measuring the complex and evolving U.S.
economy. Current work across the Federal statistical system is in the
initial pilot stage to assess feasibility, data availability, and
resource needs. The Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs
has been coordinating Commerce's collaboration with the White House and
technical work on the National Strategy.
Within Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will play a
leading role in the development of technical standards and compilation
of statistics that are consistent with existing economic measures such
as GDP. BEA's sister agency within Commerce, the Census Bureau, will be
a key partner for much of this work, collecting the foundational data
used to compile BEA's higher-level products. Initial research will
focus on natural capital assets and environmental activities within the
asset boundary of the SNA and SEEA's Central Framework (which is one
part of the SEEA standards). The asset boundary restricts analysis to
goods, services, and assets, whether natural or produced, from which
owners may extract economic benefit, and valuation follows market
prices. For certain environment-related activities, such as the
emission of air pollutants, current standards only provide guidance for
measurement on a physical flow basis.
Initial research within BEA has focused on Phase I and Supporting
Activities within the National Strategy. These activities include the
production of pilot tables that ``restructure'' existing input-output
data to quantify environmental activities in the U.S. economy, such as
waste and wastewater management, production of renewable energy, and
soil remediation. BEA has also produced experimental statistics on the
total value of land in the United States (residential, commercial/
industrial, and agricultural land). For reference, other countries such
as the United Kingdom and Australia have already added aggregate land
value as a separate item on their national balance sheet and currently
produce a detailed land account, among other natural capital assets.
Also, as part of Phase I work within Commerce, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will lead the development of
pilots for marine natural accounts that are within the asset boundary
of the SNA through FY 2026. Pilots were selected based on the following
criteria: (1) they support one or more sectors in the Marine Economy
Satellite Account (MESA); and (2) they are within the SNA boundary, as
required for Phase I marine accounts. The selected pilots were offshore
oil and gas exploration and production (a component of the MESA
Offshore Minerals sector), and commercial fishing (a component of the
Living Resources MESA sector).
The offshore oil and gas research phase has involved identifying
data for the development of physical accounts. Resource estimates
published by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have been
analyzed and combined into accounting tables, consistent with SEEA. The
research phase for commercial fisheries has involved the identification
of available fisheries data and selection of species to be part of the
pilot.
In addition to the marine natural capital pilots, NOAA is
participating, along with other federal agencies, in the hazards and
extreme weather natural capital accounting interagency working group.
The goal of this account will be to capture the net costs of natural
hazards to the U.S. economy.
All of these research efforts will help identify viable methods to
develop the accounts, as well as data-related and other challenges, and
potential solutions.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to submit this Statement for
the Record.
[all]