    [Senate Hearing 118-335]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-335

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                         FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                         INTERIOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                  MAY 2, 2024
                                   __________

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                                   -------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    55-897                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                         David Brooks, General Counsel
                             Charlie Shull, Counsel
                  Justin J. Memmott, Republican Staff Director
               Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
            John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Haaland, Hon. Deb, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior;
      accompanied by Acting Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis and
      DOI Budget Director Denise Flanagan............................     7

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Chart comparing the number of new oil and gas leases and
          acres leased in the Obama and Biden Administrations........     6
    Haaland, Hon. Deb:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................    10
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    59
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Sullivan, Hon. Dan:
        Letter addressed to Secretary Haaland, dated May 2, 2024.....   120

                         THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                         FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                         INTERIOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
    III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        This morning the Committee will discuss the President's
    proposed Fiscal Year 2025 budget for the Department of the
    Interior. I would like to welcome Secretary Haaland, Acting
    Deputy Secretary Daniel-Davis, and Interior Budget Director
    Denise Flanagan back to the Committee, and I want to thank you,
    all three, for joining us today.
        To set the scene, the Administration is requesting $18
    billion for the Interior Department for Fiscal Year 2025. That
    is a $935 million, or five percent increase over Fiscal Year
    2024 enacted appropriations. And I think it is important to
    note for context that Congress has also provided the Department
    almost $50 billion in addition to annual appropriations in the
    last three years through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
    the Inflation Reduction Act. I look forward to discussing how
    the Department is implementing those laws and using this
    historic funding, in addition to hearing the justifications for
    the increase over Fiscal Year 2024 enacted levels.
        Now, it has been a year to the day since you were last
    before the Committee for the Fiscal Year 2024 budget hearing.
    There have been some highs, from renewing the Compacts of Free
    Association, which we finally accomplished as part of the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act passed in March, to achieving
    record-level energy production. I am also supportive of efforts
    by Interior to work collaboratively with the states to
    distribute billions of dollars of federal funds Congress
    provided for the Abandoned Mine Lands Program and the Orphaned
    Well Program. States like West Virginia have done the heavy
    lifting for decades to power our nation to greatness and still
    bear the scars of these sacrifices. That is why funding to
    remove orphaned infrastructure and reclaim abandoned mine lands
    in order to make these communities better and safer places to
    live is so vital, and I look forward to continuing to working
    with you to ensure there are no obstacles to distributing these
    funds going forward.
        I am also pleased to see the budget allocates just over $1
    billion for Land and Water Conservation Fund federal and state
    programs as provided by the Great American Outdoors Act. The
    LWCF has helped acquire and protect inholdings in our national
    parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands to
    provide important hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
    opportunities to the nation. I also note your budget includes
    just over $1.6 billion in funding for deferred maintenance
    projects at the National Park Service and other departmental
    bureaus, reflecting the final year of funding from the Great
    American Outdoors Act. With $9.5 billion in funding over the
    five years of the program, I look forward to getting a better
    understanding of the progress made in reducing the agency's
    deferred maintenance backlog and the Department's plans for
    moving forward after the funding expires at the end of this
    year.
        But with that, there have unfortunately been too many lows,
    as well, with the Interior Department and broader
    Administration picking favorites when it comes to energy,
    leading to many instances where U.S. investment has been
    discouraged. Getting this Administration to celebrate the
    abundant resources our country has been blessed with--whether
    that be oil, gas, coal, or minerals--that we can produce
    cleaner and safer than anywhere else in the world, and that we
    and our friends around the world rely on, should be an easy
    lift. But the radical climate advisors in the White House have
    put election-year politics ahead of a thoughtful and achievable
    long-term strategy for the country. Thinking back to a year
    ago, Secretary Haaland, we were waiting for the overdue
    offshore oil and gas five-year plan, which has since been
    finalized with only three potential lease sales over five
    years. And as far as we have been able to tell, the Department
    isn't actually doing the necessary work for that first sale to
    take place. Meanwhile, this Administration, just like they did
    with Venezuela, has avoided enforcing sanctions on Iranian oil,
    apparently to try to keep the prices down. It is just
    ridiculous to allow Iran to evade sanctions and use its oil
    profits to fund its terrorist proxies, like Hamas, when we are
    restricting our own production here.
        This paltry lease schedule is not just bad for oil and gas
    production, it's bad for wind as well. You have recently
    announced the new five-year offshore wind leasing schedule with
    up to 12 potential lease sales through 2028. But let me remind
    you all that the Inflation Reduction Act only allows--and I
    repeat--only allows Interior to issue offshore wind leases if
    it has held a substantial oil and gas lease sale in the prior
    year. Even if the three oil and gas lease sales in this new oil
    and gas plan went forward, it would mean years of gaps where no
    wind leases can be issued. It does not make any sense at all.
    Despite the IRA requirements to hold offshore lease sales, the
    Department has tried to undermine the law at every turn. First,
    the Department reduced interest in a lease sale at the Cook
    Inlet in Alaska by increasing royalties and rents. Then, the
    Administration entered into a sue-and-settle agreement with
    environmental groups that, at the last possible minute, removed
    acreage and added highly restrictive requirements to Lease Sale
    261 in the Gulf of Mexico. Not only do these decisions make us
    less energy secure, which of course was noted in the internal
    Department memos on the Alaska Lease Sale, they also don't help
    reduce emissions or overall demand for these types of energy.
        According to the Energy Information Administration's
    projections, which I know are used by the Interior Department
    for its modeling, the United States will remain a net exporter
    for petroleum products through 2050, and global demand for oil
    and gas will continue to grow. And when it comes to production
    from federal waters, the Department's own environmental
    analyses show there will be less global emissions by holding
    more offshore oil and gas lease sales. Here in the U.S., we
    have some of the strictest standards in the world. So energy
    produced in America displaces dirtier production elsewhere in
    the world. Unfortunately, the story around efforts to onshore
    our critical mineral supply chain is no better. For example, in
    the past few weeks, the Interior Department also announced a
    final Environmental Impact Statement, effectively canceling the
    Ambler Road in Alaska--a road necessary for producing critical
    minerals in the United States. Also, Congress directed the
    Interior Department in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to
    provide Congress with a report on improving and expediting the
    permitting around our domestic critical minerals supply chain.
    But the report we received, which was many, many months late,
    clearly failed to meet the requirements set by Congress, and
    barely contained any concrete recommendations to actually
    accelerate mine permitting.
        You don't need to take my word for it. Interior's own
    Inspector General recently found the Department failed to meet
    Congress's direction, and instructed Interior to provide the
    additional legally required information. So I look forward to
    hearing DOI's progress correcting that report, and how Interior
    is deploying its existing resources and current tools to help
    tackle the significant permitting issues that we are facing.
    Unfortunately, the only explanation that makes sense to me is
    that the Administration would prefer to continue to rely on
    Chinese-controlled critical mineral supply chains than allow
    for the domestic production of these critical minerals needed
    for their electric vehicles, for batteries, for satellites, and
    the list goes on and on. At the end of the day, global demand
    for oil, gas, and minerals will continue to grow, and we
    probably wouldn't like who fills the void in our absence. But
    that is really what we are in for by continuing to give into
    the NIMBY-ism of the far left--not in my backyard--as we have
    all heard for years and years.
        Secretary Haaland, when it comes to traditional energy and
    mineral programs that are so crucial to our energy and national
    security, I must say that for the last few years it has felt
    like we are repeating the same conversation over and over
    again. I'm tired--and I know other members of this Committee
    are tired--tired of asking again and again when will we see
    progress on an action required by the law and being told
    ``soon'' or ``we are working on it.'' Even worse, I am tired of
    hearing ``I will get back to you on that'' when we just
    received a few short weeks ago your responses to the Questions
    for the Record from last year's budget hearing. We need and
    deserve better and more timely answers than that, especially
    given the importance of so much of what the Department of the
    Interior does and what we expect. So I am hoping that we can
    have a productive discussion today and actually get some
    detailed answers.
        Now I am going to recognize my friend, Senator Barrasso,
    for his opening remarks.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    agree with so much of what you just said there in your remarks
    about the Secretary and her appearance today, and the
    unresponsiveness and illegality of the actions of this
    Department and really abusing the way that the Department ought
    to be following the law, because they are not. So thanks so
    much for your strong statement, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
    holding today's hearing and having the Secretary here, because
    the Department of the Interior has a profound impact on the
    people of my home State of Wyoming. And that is because almost
    half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government,
    nearly 70 percent of the minerals under that land is owned by
    the Federal Government, and the Secretary's decisions affect
    people's livelihoods, affect people's family budgets, and even
    the quality of public education in our state. And that is why I
    find Secretary Haaland's record so troubling.
        Yesterday--just yesterday--during a Congressional hearing
    in the House of Representatives, Wyoming Representative Harriet
    Hageman asked the Secretary if she ``had heard of the Rock
    Springs Resource Management Plan.'' The Secretary testified,
    ``no.'' Well, the people of Wyoming know what it is. It is this
    Department's disastrous proposal to block access to 3.7 million
    acres of public lands in Southwest Wyoming. It would severely
    restrict energy and mineral development, restrict grazing, and
    restrict recreation activities on those lands. It would affect
    nearly a quarter of the state's population. These lands are the
    economic lifeblood of local communities. They supply jobs. They
    provide tax dollars. They keep hospitals open. They fund our
    public schools. Thousands of people in Wyoming have written to
    the Department opposing this fiasco. The Secretary testified
    yesterday that she had never heard of it. The governor, the
    state legislature, county commissioners, and local communities
    all strongly oppose this plan coming out of this Department of
    the Interior. And it is deeply troubling that Secretary
    Haaland, as of yesterday, was not even aware of one of her
    Department's major actions affecting my state.
        What is even more disturbing is how many of Secretary
    Haaland's decisions are lawless. Take, for example, her refusal
    to follow the Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires the
    Secretary to hold quarterly lease sales in each state with oil
    and gas resources. That is one lease sale in each state with
    oil and gas every three months. Yet, during the first ten
    quarters of Secretary Haaland's tenure, she held only two lease
    sales. Since then, the Department has had three more. But the
    Secretary has made no effort whatsoever to reinstate the eight
    missing lease sales, and we are now starting to see the damage
    in store for us. So from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2021, the
    Department leased an average of over 2.3 million acres each
    year. In 2022 and 2023, under Secretary Haaland, the Department
    leased an average of 83,000 acres per year. From 2.3 million to
    83,000, that is a 96 percent drop in the amount of acreage
    leased. Likewise, in Fiscal Years 2001 to 2021, the Department
    issued an average of 2,000 leases a year. The last two years,
    the Department--132. Again, a 93 percent drop in the number of
    leases issued. Let's just compare President Biden to President
    Obama. There has been a 93 percent drop in the amount of
    acreage leased, 90 percent drop in the number of lease issues
    between Obama and Biden. This is a horrible record, Mr.
    Chairman, undermining the economy of the United States.
        [Displayed chart follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. What does it all mean? Well, first, it
    means that today's oil and gas production has nothing to do
    with President Biden. It means that oil and gas production on
    federal lands that is happening today has nothing to do with
    Biden. It is headed for a fall. It means that if Secretary
    Haaland's decisions are allowed to stand, the people of the
    West are going to suffer in the years to come. The Secretary's
    lawless actions are not just limited to her failure to follow
    the Mineral Leasing Act. She has also failed to follow a host
    of other laws.
        Last month was a good example. Within the span of two days,
    Secretary Haaland issued three decisions that have made a
    mockery of Congress and the law. First, the Secretary issued
    the so-called Public Lands Rule. This rule turns the multiple-
    use mandate, which has been a decades-old, bedrock principle of
    federal land management, turns it on its head. It equates the
    non-use of land with productive use of the land. It's going to
    allow activists to stop grazing, to stop energy and mineral
    production, to stop timber harvesting, and to stop recreation
    on the very lands where Congress directed these activities to
    take place. One day later, the Secretary prohibited oil and
    natural gas production in the National Petroleum Reserve in
    Alaska. This is an area that Congress has established with the
    express purpose of producing oil. It is why it's called the
    National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, right there in the name.
    This area is central to our nation's long-term energy security
    and the Secretary is locking up half of it. Then, the Secretary
    announced plans to block access to the Ambler Mining District.
    This is a large mineral deposit on the state and native lands
    in Alaska. It is a rich source of copper, as you talked about
    Mr. Chairman--cobalt, zinc, other minerals. Federal law
    guarantees access to these lands, yet this Secretary is doing
    what she wants in spite of the law. She's doing what she wants
    in spite of the fact that President Biden is driving up demand
    for these very same minerals.
        Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve much better than
    we are getting from this Secretary and from this
    Administration. They deserve leaders who will uphold and honor
    the laws enacted by Congress, not take every opportunity to
    subvert them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Madam Secretary, you may to go on with your statement.

         STATEMENT OF HON. DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY, U.S. DE-
          PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;  ACCOMPANIED BY  ACTING
          DEPUTY SECRETARY LAURA DANIEL-DAVIS AND DOI BUDG-
          ET DIRECTOR DENISE FLANAGAN

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

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Haaland. Now we will
    start our questioning, and I am going to start with Senator
    Wyden since he has a very important meeting to go to.
        Senator Wyden. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair, and good to see
    you, Madam Secretary. I have enjoyed working with you since we
    were working across the House and the Senate.
        There are a couple of issues that are particularly
    important in the West, and I think you all are aware that we
    were going to get into these briefly this morning. As you know,
    for a lot of folks in the West, DC might as well be Mars for
    kind of all the connection. And so, what we are trying to do is
    shorten the distance, and your folks have been very
    constructive with us on two very important natural wonders that
    our rural communities care a great deal about. One of them is
    Crater Lake and one of them is Owyhee. With respect to Crater
    Lake, in December, I learned of very alarming issues with a
    private concessionaire at Crater Lake National Park. It was
    clear that NPS staff were working tirelessly to prevent the
    contractor issues from damaging irreplaceable park resources.
    And I wrote to the National Park Service, outlining in a very
    lengthy letter about all these issues, and asking for a swift
    effort on the part of the Department to address the problem. So
    I want to start by thanking you for the Department's immediate
    action that set an example, really a land speed record almost
    for responding to a really important issue in the West. And it
    ultimately resulted in the transfer of the contract to a new
    concessionaire. And as I say, you know, getting this done in a
    matter of months, essentially, at the end of the year is
    something much appreciated.
        Now, I understand you have safeguards in place to prevent
    the issue from recurring. And my first question, and I have
    only two, is are you confident that visitors to Crater Lake
    National Park and the park itself are now being better served
    by the concessionaire?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you so much for the very
    kind comment. The NPS, as you know, works closely with
    concessionaires in our parks to ensure that they are providing
    the appropriate services for the visiting public. We know that
    visitation has exploded over the last several years and we are
    working hard to meet those demands. I understand that in very
    rare circumstances, our concessionaires do not meet the terms
    of their obligations and that the NPS must take immediate
    action to remedy that. So I appreciate the opportunity to help
    you get the solution to this issue.
        Senator Wyden. And I thank you for it. And your last
    comment is particularly relevant because working with the
    Department, which your folks have indicated we can continue to
    do, allows you to have a preventive kind of effort, which
    ensures we don't get in this situation again.
        My other question involves the Owyhee in Malheur County.
    Much of this rural landscape is managed by BLM and supports the
    local economy. I mean, ranching is a way of life there, as is
    hunting and fishing, and outdoor recreation, and management of
    these lands has been a long-running source of frustration, as
    you know. I have been working very closely now with the local
    ranchers, at their request. I mean, they had been watching the
    years of gridlock, and a few years ago they all came in and
    basically said, would you take this on? And I smiled at them,
    and I said, I think you are asking because you believe I am the
    only one crazy enough to be willing to jump into the middle of
    this battle. And I said, we have just got to get it done. And
    the ranchers deserve an enormous amount of credit for working
    with the tribes and the stakeholders. And Senator Merkley and I
    have teamed up on legislation called the Malheur County
    Empowerment for the Owyhee Act that really makes it clear that
    we can champion these local concerns and do it in a way that
    fits with sensible environmental policy. It provides Interior
    with new management direction and tools to meet tribal needs
    and it improves flexibility for livestock grazing, which is
    absolutely important for land health.
        And as we all know as Westerners, nothing brings these
    discussions to a close faster than having everybody go into
    battle over grazing. And we have brought people together on
    this issue, and the consultation with all of you has been very,
    very helpful. So my question is, Madam Secretary, do you
    foresee any problem with Interior's ability to implement the
    legislation, if passed, especially with BLM having recently
    finalized its Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan for the
    area? We believe we have got the ducks in a row and are in good
    shape, but we would be very glad to have your comments with
    respect to this on the record as well.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. And of course, we
    appreciate the work that you have done on this legislation and
    support, as it aligns with the Administration's conservation
    goals. Thank you so much for all of that. We actually don't
    foresee any issues. And I can assure you that BLM will follow
    the law as enacted and consistent with other applicable
    authorities.
        Senator Wyden. My time is up. I just want to thank you for
    this effort. You know, back east, people call the Owyhee
    Oregon's version of the Grand Canyon. We call it home. And
    these local ranchers and tribes and stakeholders really are
    pretty amazed that we have gotten to this point, and I think
    it's because there has been a lot of goodwill between the
    Department and Sarah Bittleman and our team that has been
    working on it. We look forward to continuing that and we thank
    you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
        And now to Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Haaland, in 2023, the United States produced a
    record amount of crude oil and natural gas. Is that a good
    thing or a bad thing?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I believe that President Biden
    is----
        Senator Barrasso. Good thing or bad thing that we produced
    a record amount of crude oil and natural gas?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I agree that we have a record
    amount of production on federal lands and----
        Senator Barrasso. No, not on federal. Is it a good thing or
    a bad thing? It's a simple question.
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I think that energy independence
    for our country is a good thing.
        Senator Barrasso. Because two weeks ago, Secretary of
    Energy Granholm told the Committee it's a good thing. So you
    agree with her?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I think that energy production
    on our public lands is at an all-time high. We are grateful
    that we have been able to produce energy, specifically, also,
    our work on clean energy----
        Senator Barrasso. It doesn't seem like you are helping so
    much, because of what we have talked about in my opening
    statement. So the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan would,
    among other things that you proposed, prohibit oil and natural
    gas exploration on more than two million acres. It would ban
    trona production on over two million acres. It would severely
    restrict all surface uses of 1.6 million acres. The governor,
    congressional delegation, state legislature, county
    commissioners in Wyoming, local communities, all strongly
    oppose this plan by your Department. I just want to know how
    can the Department be a good partner to Wyoming if it ignores
    the opposition from the people who are most affected by this
    plan?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Senator, and
    I do also appreciate your opening statement, and want you to
    know that I apologize. This project has also been referred to
    as Sweetwater, and so that is what I have been calling it. We
    appreciate that your Governor put together a constructive task
    force. We are taking those recommendations as well as all the
    public comments we get very seriously, as we always do. We
    expect that the task force, as well as the many people who took
    the time to weigh-in on the draft plan, will see their comments
    reflected in a final plan that best balances--as I have always
    promised to manage our public lands with a balance--the many
    important uses in the Rock Springs or Sweetwater area, such as
    grazing, trona mining, recreation, and wildlife migration.
        Senator Barrasso. Because this proposed plan is a stake in
    the heart of the Wyoming economy. The Department needs to
    listen more to the people of Wyoming. I would appreciate all of
    your efforts in that area.
        I want to go to, also, the Bureau of Land Management--they
    had another rule called the Public Lands Rule. That is going to
    turn decades of multiple-use mandate on its head. You just said
    you are for a lot of these things, but that rule is not. It's
    going to allow third parties to lease public lands to block the
    productive use of the land. These lands--we're not talking
    about national parks, we're not talking about wildlife refuges,
    we're not talking about wilderness. These are lands that
    Congress has specifically made available for grazing, as you
    mentioned, for energy, for mineral production, for recreation.
    I mean, the three big parts of the Wyoming economy--
    agriculture, energy, tourism--so I don't know how non-use of
    land qualifies as the productive use of land. Could you explain
    that to me?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Senator. And since
    I have been in this Committee, during my confirmation hearings,
    I have promised to manage our public lands in a balance, and
    that is what this rule seeks to do. It makes conservation on
    par with BLM's other uses in our multi-use mandate--recreation
    and grazing, consistent with BLM's multiple-use and sustained-
    yield mission. It enables the BLM to manage public lands to
    maintain their health and function for years to come because we
    believe we have an obligation to future generations for those
    public lands.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, it does sound like, when I read
    through this Public Lands Rule, you would be happy if all the
    land went away, if people rented it all, protect all, and then
    just put it all as non-use. So I think that what you are saying
    is not at all true in terms of what the intent of the law is to
    allow multiple use for productive use of the land.
        And on one other area, the Bureau of Land Management has
    yet to issue leases to the winning bidders of its December 2020
    onshore oil and gas leases. These were paid for. $7 million
    went to the Treasury. The government took the money. The law
    says the leases must be issued in 60 days. When do you plan to
    issue these leases to the winning bidders who paid for the
    leases back three years ago?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. I want to assure you
    that BLM is following the law. We are holding regular onshore
    lease sales.
        Senator Barrasso. That's not the question. The question is,
    leases have been sold. Money has been paid. $7 million taken
    in. You are supposed to put out the lease in 60 days. They
    handed you the wrong paper to read the wrong answer. You had
    three and a half years to issue the leases. Will you commit to
    issue them in the next 30 days?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. As soon as I get
    back to my office, I will double check on this issue and make
    sure that we give you the status when we get back to our
    office.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And to follow up on that, is there any penalty in the law
    or the rule that basically, if you don't basically allow the
    leases to happen in a timely fashion, any retribution to the
    Department? Not aware of any? Maybe that is our problem.
        Okay, Secretary Haaland, as I alluded in my statement, you
    request a budget increase of $935 million, or a five percent
    increase over last year. I also see your proposed budget
    expects Interior will collect nearly $700 million less in
    bonuses, rents, and royalties because you all have chosen to
    have less lease sales and have discouraged production on public
    lands and waters. It's kind of hard to justify to the taxpayers
    why we should be using tax dollars to increase the budget for
    the Department of the Interior by $935 million when you have
    the ability to collect this and be self-sustaining, but you
    have reduced it by $700 million. So I would like to hear you
    all's concerns about that--that is a $1.6 billion swing.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Chairman. The Fiscal Year
    2024 estimate was recently updated and increased $3.3 billion
    from last year's projection. Both the Fiscal Year 2025 and
    Fiscal Year 2024 estimates reflect an overall upward revenue
    trend, and differences between 2025 and 2024 reflect lower OMB
    price assumptions for oil and gas and lower offshore bonus
    amounts for 2025.
        The Chairman. So you agree that there is going to be less
    coming in. The $700 million, you agree with, is less revenue
    coming in because of a reduction of--I think you are saying a
    reduction of the prices and the royalties you would get, or
    just the leases that we have and the money we receive from the
    leases?
        Secretary Haaland. Chairman, the estimates reflect a point
    in time. It can change quickly based on assumptions and events.
    For instance, the price of oil affects the royalties companies
    pay, and that can actually fluctuate.
        The Chairman. You would all have to agree that having less
    lease sales is going to affect that greatly. I mean, we would
    have to acknowledge that because that is just common sense.
        The other question I have, in the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act, Congress gave you a statutory deadline to issue
    final offshore carbon capture and storage regulations by
    November 2022, okay? November 2022. We are two years down the
    road. You missed that deadline and continue to delay each year.
    All the signs tell us we can't meet our climate goals without
    carbon capture and sequestration. And given the
    Administration's focus on decarbonization, this is an issue
    that should be a top priority, which we made it a top priority
    in about every piece of legislation that we had done, yet a
    draft rule has not even been published yet. So when do you
    think you will publish a proposed rule for comments, since we
    are two years behind already?
        Secretary Haaland. Chairman, thank you for the question.
    And as you can imagine, creating a new regulatory program for a
    new applied technology is creating--it's very technical and
    it's very complex. We want to make sure we are doing a good
    job. We are consulting with the industry, with other government
    agencies and countries to ensure an efficient and comprehensive
    process. We don't have an actual estimated time for this to be
    completed, but I want to assure you that we are working on it.
        The Chairman. How much CO2, in the three-year
    delay, has been left unsequestered? I mean, do you have any
    idea how much is out there that we are not sequestering that we
    could?
        Secretary Haaland. I could not answer that at the moment,
    but of course, we would be happy to give you a status update on
    where we are with this and know that our scientists----
        The Chairman. Let me make it very clear that the people
    that are producing a record amount today make us more energy
    secure than ever before. You know that we produced 38 trillion
    cubic feet of gas and 4.7 billion barrels of oil last year. We
    produced 14 billion cubic feet of LNG. We did more solar and
    more battery storage than ever before. So it's an all-in energy
    process that we have. I have just tried to make the rational
    evaluation that we are all understanding there is a transition
    coming, and we have to be part of that transition and gas and
    oil and all of this, but we have to do it cleaner and better,
    and we can. But if the Administration is fighting us on
    sequestration, then it's an oxymoron saying we can't do that
    because you are still putting out CO2 because you
    would not give us--we can't get Class VI well permits. We have
    128 pending, only two have been provided. Yet, we are willing
    to go ahead and start collecting fines on companies that are
    still producing CO2 because they can't get a permit.
    It just does not make any sense whatsoever.
        We are fighting our own selves on energy security and we
    are not going to be able to switch for the public. There is no
    way that we can switch before we have something that will do
    exactly what dispatchable fossil fuel is doing--24/7 production
    of energy. That is just common sense, too, for the superpower
    of the world, for the rest of the world's security, that we
    have energy production. Our allies are depending on it. And
    every time we displace Venezuela--I think we have gone back and
    forth on Venezuelan oil--and now, we are still turning a blind
    eye to the ghost ships coming out of Iran that use their
    profits to support Hamas and its terrorist operations around
    the world. It just does not make any sense to me, whatsoever,
    why we would be doing that when we produce it in the Gulf
    cleaner than anyone. So if we displace by producing more, it's
    good for the environment, but we are having a hard time.
        And finally, last month the BLM published a final rule that
    authorized BLM to grant restoration and mitigation leases to
    third parties, restricts development on potentially
    environmentally sensitive areas on public lands, and allows BLM
    to waive fair market value if the leases would further other
    policy priorities identified by BLM. Grazing, mining, and non-
    renewables and renewable energy stakeholders all oppose the
    proposed rule. How much public land do you expect to restrict
    from development under this new rule?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I could not tell you the
    specific amount of acreage, but I can tell you that fair market
    value will apply to the restoration and mitigation leases that
    we are moving forward.
        The Chairman. We would like to have an answer. How much do
    you think that is going to restrict and how much public land do
    you expect you will lease without charging fair market value,
    which has been historical with BLM?
        Secretary Haaland. We will take those questions back,
    Chairman, and consult with you.
        The Chairman. Okay, with that, Senator Hoeven. We are so
    glad that you are here, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Chairman, I just want to start by
    thanking you for your comments and your common sense because
    it's right-on. Right-on. And so I really appreciate those
    comments, and you know, it's not only a national imperative in
    terms of energy production for our economy and for good jobs
    and all those things, it really is, it's a national security
    issue, it's really a strategic global issue now.
        And along those lines, I want to ask you, Secretary, there
    is a resource management plan you are putting in place on North
    Dakota BLM lands. Now, in North Dakota, you have what is called
    split estate. It's a checkerboard. Ms. Daniel-Davis, you are
    familiar with this, and I appreciate that, and I appreciate
    where you have worked with us on this, so I want to thank you
    for that. But these rules that you are putting out, Secretary,
    are very problematic because, in many cases, the BLM--the
    Federal Government--will own the surface acres, but they don't
    own the mineral acres. So under your resource management plan,
    because of that, 95 percent of the federal coal lease acres are
    taken out of production because of this checkerboard, okay? And
    those are private individuals--or maybe the state that owns the
    minerals--in most cases, private individuals--and because you
    own the surface acres and you won't allow leases, you are
    disenfranchising those individuals. Imagine if you owned those
    minerals and you could lease them and be paid for them, but now
    the Federal Government won't let you, because you own the
    surface acres, you are blocking them. That is 95 percent of the
    acres on those lands that have federal coal access to federal
    coal blocked, and now, 45 percent oil and gas. So your resource
    plan is disenfranchising all the people that own those mineral
    acres where you own the surface acres. Do you think that is
    fair? Do you think that is reasonable for the Federal
    Government to do that to private individuals?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, with respect to the question, I
    appreciate that and I wonder if you wouldn't mind if I passed
    that question to the Acting Deputy Secretary?
        Senator Hoeven. Sure, yes. I mean, because the question I
    have is what are we going to do about it?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, indeed.
        Senator Hoeven. The Federal Government is unfairly
    disenfranchising its own citizens, and that is not fair, and we
    need to do something about it.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Well, I will just say, thank you,
    Senator, very much for the question, and I have appreciated the
    many conversations we have had on this and other issues. And
    with regard to the resource management plan, I am going to
    admit I am not completely steeped in the details, but I
    understand exactly what you are saying. You know, BLM is
    responsible for the surface----
        Senator Hoeven. Will you work with us on this to address
    it? This is fundamental fairness, and so I would really
    appreciate it, and if you would take the lead and work with us
    on it, I would greatly appreciate it.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you for raising it. I would be
    happy to.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And then, just to add to that, the
    Dakota Gasification project is the largest carbon capture
    project in the world now. Fifty percent of their CO2
    goes for EOR in the Weyburn Oil Fields and 35 percent now is
    just coming online. It's going to go for geologic storage,
    okay? So this is a great example. They are out there in the
    area that I am talking about. If you cut off their coal supply,
    here's this huge carbon capture project, like the Chairman was
    just talking about. Here is how we are going to provide
    baseload electricity, you know, not only for the grid, as well
    as natural gas and so forth and oil that we need, also Project
    Tundra. DOE--the Department of Energy--just awarded $350
    million for Minnkota to do the same thing with their coal-fired
    electric plant, again, stability of the grid. They need access
    to these mineral acres owned by individuals, okay? They are not
    even your acres. Okay? And so, we have got to address this.
        The second thing I want to bring up is just what the
    Chairman was talking about, the conservation lease program
    under the federal law, the Federal Lands Management Act of 1976
    requires--requires--multiple use on these federal lands. And
    once you put those easements in place on millions and millions
    of acres, that won't be multiple use. That contravenes the law,
    does it not?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, the land in question, BLM
    lands, will still be used for--they will be multipurpose still.
    The existing leases will not be jeopardized in any way. Grazing
    permits will--I mean, people will still be able to use the land
    for a multi-use purpose.
        Senator Hoeven. Not on the lands that you restrict with
    those easements. You are taking them out of multiple use in
    contravention of the law.
        Secretary Haaland. Would you mind if Laura Daniel-Davis
    worked on this?
        Senator Hoeven. Please.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, I just wanted to provide a short
    clarification. The mitigation and restoration leases will be
    time-bound, and they will be specific to activity, in the case
    of mitigation probably tied to a project proponent, and in the
    case of restoration, a specific restoration objective. So they
    are not unbounded by time and they will be specific to the work
    that is meant to be done, so I just wanted to be sure.
        Senator Hoeven. But as to those lands, they no longer will
    be multiple use.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. I think that--I don't expect that they
    would be limiting in terms of recreation. I suspect, even in
    the case of grazing leases, that they may wish to also have a
    restoration lease, potentially. So I don't think they are being
    taken out of multiple use, and certainly not for all time, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, I see I am over my time, Mr. Chair.
    This is one that will end up in litigation, clearly, based on
    the law.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thanks.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Secretary, in 2022, Congress finally passed the STOP Act,
    and I know you are very familiar with this law, but for my
    colleagues, it made it illegal to export stolen tribal cultural
    patrimony and sell it overseas. That law authorized $3 million
    for the Interior Department to coordinate with State, with
    Department of Homeland Security, with Department of Justice, to
    put a stop to these illegal exports of stolen cultural items.
    Your budget request includes zero dollars to implement that
    law. Why on Earth is there no funding in this budget for STOP
    Act implementation?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Senator, and
    the 2025 budget advances implementation of the revised NAGPRA
    rule and the STOP Act, $7 million across DOI to implement the
    NAGPRA rule, $4 million in DOI Bureaus to support their
    compliance, and $3 million in the National Park Service for
    grants and assistance in repatriation of remains and
    collections.
        Senator Heinrich. That is very important work at the
    National Park Service, but it doesn't substitute for the
    coordination with DOJ and DHS. I think this should be a higher
    priority for the Department and for the Administration.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, if I could just say, we will
    look forward to working with you to move that forward, and I
    appreciate your support of Indian tribes.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to move on to NAWCA, that is the
    North American Wetlands Conservation Act. In my view, it's the
    single most successful public-private conservation partnership
    in the United States. It has historically been funded, I think
    last year, at $49 million. In this budget it receives a $16
    million cut, from $49 million down to $33 million. Why is this
    singled out for such a large cut in this budget?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Senator. And
    of course, our budget includes some tough choices. It would be
    great if we had unlimited amounts to put toward these important
    efforts. We took reductions in several very good and important
    grant and payment programs like this conservation act.
        Senator Heinrich. But you have a five-percent increase
    overall, and this program, which is wildly successful, has a 33
    percent cut.
        Secretary Haaland. I would just say that it reflects top
    priority to fund ongoing operations and the services Interior
    directly provides to the public as well as reflecting that the
    program receives both mandatory and annual funding each year
    and a $22 million increase in mandatory funding available for
    NAGPRA in Fiscal Year 2025.
        Senator Heinrich. Let's move on to the Great American
    Outdoors Act. I was proud to join my colleagues on this
    Committee to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    and provide those five years of extra funding to address the
    deferred maintenance backlog. And I think it's important that
    we get this infrastructure funding to work as quickly as
    possible. So for the Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Bureau
    of Land Management, for the Park Service, what percentage of
    funds from the early years of Great American Outdoors--that
    would be like Fiscal Year 2021, Fiscal Year 2022--are actually
    under contract at this point?
        Secretary Haaland. Fiscal Year 2021--if it's okay, I will
    have Denise answer it. I have a chart here, but she is the
    budget person and has put all these numbers together.
        Senator Heinrich. Denise, do you want to address that?
        Ms. Flanagan. Sir, I would be happy to do that. Fiscal Year
    2021 projects are 82 percent obligated, and if I did the break
    up for you, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 95 percent
    obligated, the National Park Service is 85 percent obligated,
    and of course, they have the vast amount of funding under them.
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Ms. Flanagan. The Bureau of Land Management is 70 percent
    funded and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is 34 percent funded.
        In Fiscal Year 2022, the Department is 54 percent funded.
        Senator Heinrich. Why is the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
    number so low?
        Ms. Flanagan. The Bureau of Indian Affairs program, they
    work with tribes and other organizations and they are doing
    schools and other things----
        Senator Heinrich. Yes. Well, that is actually----
        Ms. Flanagan. Those are multi-year projects----
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Ms. Flanagan. And they need to work and go through that
    process.
        Senator Heinrich. So, for example, in 2020 Congress
    appropriated funding to install HVAC systems for dormitories at
    the Navajo Preparatory Academy, and they are still not
    installed. And so, I am just wondering why the Bureau is
    getting this work done at such a lower rate than the other
    agencies.
        Ms. Flanagan. All right. So if you wouldn't mind, what I
    would just say is that at Indian Affairs, I mean, they do
    recognize some of their improvements are needed to their
    deferred maintenance programs and their processes, but of
    course, what we don't want to do is slow down the progress to
    modernize their schools. And so----
        Senator Heinrich. Absolutely.
        Ms. Flanagan [continuing]. Their actions are underway, of
    course, including those in response to the Inspector General
    report that you are doing. And they are continuing to implement
    their critical school facility improvement and repairs for
    other school replacement programs.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I think we really need to focus on
    that because it's not an isolated situation at Navajo
    Preparatory Academy. If you look at the Crystal Boarding School
    on the Navajo Nation, it has been on the priority list for a
    new school building since 2016. The current timeline for
    completion is 2027. So I would love to see the Bureau
    implementing these projects at the same rate as the BLM, at the
    same rate as the Park Service, as the Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        Ms. Flanagan. Sure.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, I think you know that at these hearings I
    usually take my time to ask questions, but this morning I am
    probably going to be talking more than asking questions,
    because quite honestly, I have got a lot to say, and I think
    you know it's not good feelings. Right now, the State of Alaska
    is looking at what is coming out of the Department of the
    Interior and they are not seeing a single thing that Alaskans
    are asking of Interior that is actually advancing. It seems
    like every single decision coming out of the Department is
    working against Alaskans.
        It was a pretty tough week, just a couple weeks ago now. In
    one day--in one day--the Department closes off 13 million acres
    of our petroleum reserve. In the same day, you rejected the
    Ambler Access project. And the heartburn here--I mean, it's
    more than heartburn--the danger here is this is a project that
    is literally guaranteed by federal law and you basically have
    rejected that and closed that off. You released a major land
    plan where it took Interior ten full years to fail to meet the
    direction of a law that I wrote 20 years ago. It was to lift
    the PLO--public land ordinance--in Alaska, but it took no time
    at all to close off millions more acres in the State of Alaska.
    And again, the kicker on all of this is you did it all on the
    same day--one day--one day. We have actually come to dread
    Fridays in Alaska because that is when we see the stuff coming
    out of Washington, DC that is burying Alaska and our economy.
    These decisions are now piled on top of dozens of others, from
    your conservation rule, to the cancellation of the leases in
    the 10-02 area, to the looming kneecapping of the oil and gas
    program in the area that you are mandated to carry out.
        You know, there is a lot of history in Alaska. You know
    much of it, but when signing ANILCA, President Carter promised
    the deal was 100 percent of Alaska's offshore and 95 percent of
    our onshore would be open to responsible development. President
    Biden voted for that law. He voted for ANILCA, but his
    Administration, led by your Department, has broken its promises
    to Alaskans again and again and again. And we have kept our
    side of the bargain here. We have been working to do just that.
    Our environmental record is second to none. We will put it up
    against anyone out there, but now it's effectively being held
    against us because Interior's decisions are punishing us for
    decades of responsible development. And ironically, it
    undermines the President's own policies. He is talking about
    all that he wants to do to advance the renewables and EVs.
    Well, they all require critical minerals. Well, where are we
    going to get the critical minerals? We have opportunities in
    Alaska, and a road to those minerals could have been--hopefully
    one day will be--a way that we are accessing that.
        But in addition to all of this, you are setting a precedent
    for future Administrations to ignore the law. We pass things in
    Congress, we put the laws in place, and the Administration does
    whatever they please. And it's doing nothing to protect the
    environment because we know that our projects are going to have
    small footprints. We put in place the strongest safeguards in
    the world here. You have heard it before, but the headline is
    true, this Administration is sanctioning Alaska. We are
    sanctioning Alaska while we are boosting foreign resources. And
    you don't pay attention, you overlook the pollution, the human
    rights abuses, the regimes that it enables, from Russia and
    Iran. And in the meantime, you have a President that seems to
    think that Willow is enough to sustain an entire state. The
    Administration here has effectively reduced Alaska to nothing
    more than a debit card to pay off national environmental groups
    in an election year. And I know that that's tough, but we can't
    look at it any other way. There is no valid reason. There is no
    good excuse for Interior's decisions. The Department needs to
    follow the law. They need to follow the law, they need to
    consult with all Alaska natives--all Alaska natives--and
    frankly, I think, clean house at the BLM.
        I want you to give this some thought because we are going
    to have an opportunity next week at Interior Appropriations for
    me to ask more questions--to ask questions--but I want you to
    think about this. What justifies this? What justifies this
    singling out of one state, of one state alone? To treat Alaska
    in this way and in this manner where you are effectively not
    only locking up the resources, you are going against our
    statehood compact, you are going against the laws that we have
    passed and against policies that seemingly, as an
    Administration, you should support. It seems like we are the
    giving tree, with more and more being taken from us every year,
    but we don't know that there is that much more to give. So
    again, I will look forward to the opportunity in the Interior
    Committee, or the Subcommittee, to ask these questions. You
    probably won't be looking forward to it as much as I will, but
    I think Alaskans deserve some answers.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all
    of you for being here today, but also for your service.
        Madam Secretary, there is still resonance--people are still
    talking about your visits to Colorado. I just wanted to make
    sure you understand, and I am sure it's not easy to be going
    all over the country because I hear you are going to
    everybody's states. For a while there, I thought Colorado was
    special, but you are getting everywhere and people really
    appreciate it. It makes a big difference for people trying to,
    you know, create a relationship with the government.
        I want to talk a little bit about the Colorado River Basin,
    of course, a big part of the communities all along the river in
    all the lower and upper basin states. We have had some snow the
    last couple years, but the levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead
    are roughly the same levels now that they were two years ago.
    And I think we have made a lot of progress in the last few
    years, and I think while conditions have improved, we have
    still got a lot of work to do. I just want to take your pulse
    and see how optimistic you felt on the progress we have made.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question,
    Senator, and yes, we have always enjoyed our opportunities to
    be in Colorado. So thank you for always welcoming us.
        As you know, the Colorado River Basin is incredibly
    important. It provides water for more than 40 million
    Americans, seven states, 30 tribes, and we are actually very
    proud of the fact that our team has worked diligently to make
    sure that everybody is at the table. It is really the first
    time that Indian tribes have had an opportunity to be at the
    table and have a real voice in these negotiations. And I do
    want to say that it has been an unprecedented level of
    collaboration and partnership with those entities, and Mexico,
    I will say. We have made significant investments to conserve
    water and modernize critical infrastructure and we have laid
    the foundation to ensure that future guidelines and strategies
    will be sufficiently robust and adaptive to withstand the
    uncertainty of climate change. We are grateful for the moisture
    we have gotten. We know how precious that is in the West. It
    doesn't mean that it will last from one year to the next, but
    we are grateful for Congress's support and the work that we
    have been able to do there.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yeah, we appreciate all the effort,
    and as you know, Camille Touton is a remarkable public servant
    and has just done--I am not sure the woman sleeps, you should
    worry about her health.
        Also, I am very sober about climate change. You have heard
    of the uncertainty of climate change. I feel there is a fairly
    high degree of certainty that it is changing and it is moving
    more rapidly than we thought. Things that I, you know, I got a
    master's in earth and environmental science back in 1979, don't
    want to date myself, but back then we called it the Greenhouse
    Effect. But much of what we predicted back in the 80s and the
    90s is coming true--the wildfire, the droughts, the rising sea
    level, the extreme weather that creates hurricanes and
    tornadoes. I wonder--part of what I think, as we address this,
    we are going to have to go more rapidly and change the way we
    permit for clean energy if we are going to have any real chance
    of succeeding in this. I was excited to see that BLM announced
    last month the categorical exclusions that will enable the
    Agency to expedite the review and approval of geothermal
    exploration proposals. I was knocked over by the USGS report
    looking at the potential of geothermal and how much larger that
    potential is than I thought.
        Can you speak to how permitting reforms can fit into
    meeting our climate goals, especially if we can prioritize
    developing projects in less sensitive locations, and obviously,
    we always are going to make sure we have a platform to make
    sure the public is heard and that everyone gets a hearing.
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely, and thank you for that
    question, Senator. Of course, we need faster permitting for
    clean energy if we have any chance of addressing the climate
    crisis that we are experiencing now. Last month, I was very
    excited to see BLM announce new categorical exclusions that
    will enable the Agency to expedite the review and approval of
    those geothermal exploration proposals. We know that more is
    needed to put clean geothermal energy on the same footing as
    oil and gas, and so we are committed to permitting efficiencies
    across everything that we do. The Department of the Interior
    has a significant role to play, as we have made establishing a
    clean energy future one of our key priorities, and I think that
    is shown in the work that we have done all over the clean
    energy spectrum.
        As you know, the White House Council on Environmental
    Quality released a final rule to reform, simplify, and
    modernize the federal environmental review process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act. And so, we will continue
    working, of course, with everyone to ensure that we can move
    this forward.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Well, thank you, and we salute
    all the hard work you guys are doing. Really appreciate it.
        I yield back to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, as you recall, the last time we were here
    we had a spirited discussion about the Lava Ridge project. I
    think you are quite familiar with that. I delivered you a very
    clear message about what the people of Idaho think about this
    and the tens of thousands of people that are affected by this,
    all of whom oppose it. We have actually identified three people
    that are for it, but those three people have a financial
    interest in the project itself. Where are you on this?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator, and we are currently
    working to meet the direction included in the 2024
    appropriations bill to conduct additional consultations with
    local elected officials and stakeholders. We will report on the
    status of those consultations as required by law and we will
    not complete the final EIS until we have conducted all of those
    consultations and incorporated any of the relevant information
    into the analysis.
        Senator Risch. So you say you are in the process of that.
    Since we had that discussion last time, can you tell this
    Committee whether or not you can confirm what I told you, and
    that is the number of people in Idaho that support this you can
    count on one hand?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, in the consultations that we
    have had, there have been roughly 26 government-to-government
    consultation meetings with tribes, at least 19 meetings with
    county commissioners from Lincoln, Jerome, and Minidoka
    Counties, 14 briefings for Members of Congress and their staff,
    six meetings with local organizations, four meetings with
    grazing permittees and other members of the agricultural
    committee, and six public meetings on the draft environmental
    impact statement. We are doing our work.
        Senator Risch. That's good. Can you identify for me the
    people who support this project, because this will only take a
    few seconds for you to name the three people.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you
    mentioning that you have found three people. I----
        Senator Risch. Have you not found those three? I can give
    you their names.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. We would be happy to
    be in touch with your office regarding this issue and happy to
    have a conversation with you and your staff about who we are
    talking to and----
        Senator Risch. Sure. And that is a great list of people.
    Tell me, how many people have you found on that list that
    support this project?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I don't have a number for you
    today.
        Senator Risch. You surely have a feeling about this. Have
    you found anybody that is in favor of this?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I do truly appreciate your line
    of questioning here, and as I mentioned, we would be happy to
    be in touch with you.
        Senator Risch. No, no, no, no, no. Have you found anybody
    that said we support this project, I support this project? Have
    you found such a person or an entity?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I have some really amazing and
    dutiful career staff and----
        Senator Risch. Your staff supports this, I gather, but I am
    not looking for staff that supports this.
        Secretary Haaland. No, I understand that.
        Senator Risch. Tell me somebody who supports this project.
        Secretary Haaland. I don't have a list of people currently,
    but I am happy to get back with you.
        Senator Risch. Can you name one?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I would be happy to reach out
    to you.
        Senator Risch. You can't tell me one person today?
        Secretary Haaland. I have not actually done the
    conversations. As I mentioned, I have staff and people at the
    Department who have carried on these conversations.
        Senator Risch. Great. Can you give me a list of those
    people that support this? Will you commit to do that?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we will commit to getting in
    touch with your office about the----
        Senator Risch. No, will you commit to give me a list of
    people and/or entities who support this project? Will you
    commit to that?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I will commit to being in touch
    with your office about this project.
        Senator Risch. No, no, no.
        Secretary Haaland. We will----
        Senator Risch. Will you provide me the information I am
    asking for, and that is a list? You are required to go out and
    publicly contact people and determine who supports this and who
    opposes this. Will you give me a list of the people and
    entities who support this project?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we will have that for the
    record. We will have a list----
        Senator Risch. When will you have that for me?
        Secretary Haaland. We will, as soon as I get back to my
    office, I will----
        Senator Risch. It won't take you but minutes to put it
    together, believe me.
        Secretary Haaland. I appreciate that.
        Senator Risch. Okay.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Risch. So then the question I have for you is this:
    suppose you find what I am telling you is true, and that is
    there are tens of thousands, perhaps in the hundreds of
    thousands of Idahoans who are opposed to this and a very small
    handful of people who support this. What do you do about that?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we take all, as I mentioned in
    my previous response, we take all of those comments from all of
    the meetings with the entities that we have had, we put that
    together with other analyses such as the science and the data
    and we come to a final decision about the issue.
        Senator Risch. Will you be moved if the position is as I
    have described for you?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we always take the public
    comments into great consideration when we are considering these
    things. It means a lot to us. We know that the people on the
    ground are important, and we take their comments into deep
    consideration. Yes.
        Senator Risch. But you are not going to commit that you
    will abandon this if indeed the situation is that nobody in
    Idaho wants this?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I appreciate and recognize that
    you do not like this project----
        Senator Risch. No, no, no, not me. The people of Idaho do
    not like this project. I don't like it either, but the people
    of Idaho do not like this project, and not by one or two, but I
    am telling you, there is nobody here. You can't even name one
    person that you think is opposed to it.
        My time is up, Madam Chairman.
        Look, don't do this. Your own agency has said don't do
    this. The people of Idaho said don't do this. Don't do this.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome, Secretary Haaland.
        Before I begin with the questions, I just want to thank
    your Department for your part in having Congress finally
    approve the Compact of Free Association agreements, which took
    years to negotiate with the island nations of the Marshall
    Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. And these Compacts are critical
    to our national security, especially in the INDOPACOM AOR. The
    challenge with these compacts though was that it involves three
    departments--yours, State, and the DOD. So we can imagine all
    the moving parts, the number of Chairs and Ranking Members who
    had to agree to this, and before Senator Risch leaves, I want
    to thank him for his part. Hello. Thank you, Senator Risch. He
    was Ranking on Foreign Relations, very much a supporter of the
    Compacts, and an important part of the Compacts was the
    restoration of federal benefits to the citizens of these
    Compact nations who live in our country. These Compacts are so
    important that the citizens of these island nations are able to
    come and live in the United States without the need for visas.
    They are, as far as I know, the only group of people who are
    able to do that. But I am really thankful that the Chair of
    this Committee, the Ranking Member of this Committee, and over
    a dozen Chairs and Ranking Members in both the Senate and the
    House worked hard to get this done. So Madam Secretary, I thank
    you for your support.
        Moving on, Hawaii experienced an unprecedented degree of
    devastation from the Maui wildfires that occurred last August.
    And afterwards, our natural resource managers, like so many
    others across the country, found that there was not enough
    native plant material available to adequately revegetate the
    burned landscapes. In order to address this issue, I have been
    working on a bill that would establish a national interagency
    seed and restoration center to enhance the availability of
    native plant materials across the United States. This would
    complement your announcement in February about the National
    Seed Strategy Keystone Initiative. Can you talk a bit about the
    importance of Congress working with your Department on this
    effort to ensure that land managers all across the country have
    a consistent supply of regionally appropriate native plant
    materials?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, thank you, Senator, for your
    support on that, and you know, we battle invasive species all
    over the country, and in Hawaii it is especially important.
    Native plants are important. Promoting native plants is a
    critical way to help prevent against wildfire risk in the face
    of climate change. I know that the Department provided
    technical assistance on your draft bill to establish a national
    interagency seed and restoration center. We remain committed to
    working with you on this important issue. So I remain saddened
    by what happened in Maui, and we will do everything we can to
    help.
        Senator Hirono. And of course, as we face these natural
    disasters all across the country, I think that the restoration
    of native plant material is one approach to preventing these
    kinds of devastations.
        I know that addressing the missing and murdered native
    peoples is--especially, of course, the women and girls--is an
    important issue for you, and is it still an issue that you are
    addressing, and can you talk a little bit about the progress
    that is being made to prevent these kinds of--what is happening
    to native women and girls? And you probably are aware that in
    Hawaii, one-fourth of the missing children are Native Hawaiian
    women and girls. So can you update me a bit on your addressing
    this devastation?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator, and yes, we, as you
    know, we started the missing and murdered unit in 2021, and
    dedicated investigators for this issue. And so far, we have
    investigated 950 missing and murdered persons cases and solved
    or closed 595. Missing persons cases--we are staffing up the
    MMU, and it continues, as 38 of the 63 positions are now
    filled. We are still working to make sure we can fill all of
    those positions and we will continue to collect and review
    unsolved cases involving missing and murdered persons so that
    we can add other cases. But we are committed to it and
    appreciate your commitment as well.
        Senator Hirono. I want to commend you for your continuing
    efforts in these lines and I would assume that you are pursuing
    prosecution of the perpetrators.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        I have a few other questions for the record that I will
    submit.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Haaland. Appreciate that. Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Haaland, exactly a year ago you were before this
    Committee to testify, and I asked you about the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's 12-month status review on grizzly bears in
    the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Northern Continental
    Divide Ecosystem. We are now 15 months into what was supposed
    to be a 12-month status review, and there is no end in sight.
    Both grizzly populations are well over the objectives set by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and they continue to grow
    both in number and range. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service scientists have twice--twice--determined that the
    Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem bears have recovered and they've
    delisted them, but litigation and court rulings prevented those
    from going into effect.
        Now, we should be celebrating the fact that the grizzly
    bear has recovered rather than dragging out the delisting
    process. Montanans in grizzly bear country have been forced to
    adjust their life and to be bear-aware at all times as they
    live with the bears--where their kids play, hiking with bear
    spray, fencing gardens, fencing playgrounds at schools.
    Everything is done with grizzly bears in mind. My question is,
    what is the target number of grizzly bears in the Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide
    Ecosystem needed to meet the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    criteria for recovery?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I would have to get back to you
    with the numbers that the scientists and that the data shows,
    but I can tell you that the review----
        Senator Daines. No, just what is the recovery target? What
    is the recovery target? Not what the current populations are,
    what is the recovery target?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I don't have----
        Senator Daines. I have asked you five times since you began
    the process----
        Secretary Haaland. We will be happy to get back with you.
        Senator Daines. First, when we began the process for your
    confirmation before you even became public, I asked you, and
    you said, ``I don't know.'' I mean, if I haven't telegraphed
    the test questions to you, let me be clear, I am just asking
    what is it? So you don't know?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't have the target number.
        Senator Daines. That's another way to say I don't know.
        Secretary Haaland. But I would be happy to get back with
    you----
        Senator Daines. Okay, well, you know what? Unlike Senator
    Risch's question, you don't have to get back to me. I will tell
    you what they are, and please write these down. The Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem recovery target is 500 bears. Write that
    down. And next time I ask you the question, when you come
    before me, please have that answer for me.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Daines. The second is the Northern Continental
    Divide Ecosystem. That number is 800 bears. So 500 for Greater
    Yellowstone, 800 for the Northern Continental Divide.
        My next question--how many grizzly bears are currently
    estimated, according to FWS information, to be in the Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem and the Northern Continental Divide
    Ecosystem?
        Secretary Haaland. Are you asking me to add these two
    numbers together?
        Senator Daines. No, you wouldn't do that, because those are
    the targets.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Senator Daines. So target is the threshold we need to meet
    or exceed to get delisted. So that is the target. I am asking
    you now, how many bears are there? Let's start with the Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I have a suspicion that you
    would just tell me that number because you likely know it. If
    you would like----
        Senator Daines. So you don't--no, what I----
        Secretary Haaland. If you would like to tell me, I am
    happy--I don't have the number----
        Senator Daines. So write down target, 500 and 800, and now
    let me give you the numbers from FWS. These aren't numbers that
    my staff made up.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay.
        Senator Daines. These are the 2022 numbers, the most
    current data. It's 965 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
    It's 1,138 in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. So
    make a chart--500 is the target. Actual is 965. That is
    Yellowstone. And now, the Northern Continental Divide, the
    target is 800, and actual, according to FWS, is 1,138. So if
    the populations are greater than the recovery target would you
    conclude the grizzly bears have now recovered?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, unfortunately, I am not a
    scientist so I don't--I refrain from----
        Senator Daines. You are the Secretary of Interior.
        Secretary Haaland. Indeed----
        Senator Daines. With complete respect, you are in line of
    succession for the Presidency of the United States.
        Secretary Haaland. I appreciate that. But I am not a
    scientist.
        Senator Daines. You are the Secretary of Interior, so if
    the target is 500 and the actual number is 965, nearly twice
    the target, have we recovered?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I am happy to ask the
    scientists when I get back to the Department of the Interior. I
    am not a scientist. I don't want to speculate what the science
    would say to your----
        Senator Daines. Well, the science tells us we are well over
    the targets. And here's another question--when did the numbers
    for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the population of bears,
    exceed for the first time the recovery target of 500? What year
    was that?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I can't tell you that.
        Senator Daines. I will tell you that. It was 2002. It was
    22 years ago where the population targets first exceeded the
    recovery target--22 years. So question--will you commit to
    finalize, at least, the now-overdue status review on grizzly
    bears? It was supposed to be a 12-month review. We are now into
    15 months. Will you commit to getting that done here?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I know the reviews for Montana
    and Wyoming began in February 2023 and I believe that the Fish
    and Wildlife Service does not have a date for completion, but I
    will ask them----
        Senator Daines. So let me ask, that was--when we started in
    February, it was a 12-month review.
        Secretary Haaland. Indeed.
        Senator Daines. I can open my calendar up here and now we
    are in month 15.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Senator Daines. You are past due.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Daines. Yeah, and not only that, we are way over
    the targets. I am pleading with you to look at the science.
    Delist the bears, return the management of this incredible
    species back to the people of Montana where it belongs.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Secretary, you may be surprised, I am going to start
    with a compliment. This week the Department published draft
    wind lease areas on the East Coast, two off the shore of Maine,
    six off the coast of Massachusetts. What I want to compliment
    you on is listening to the people of Maine, listening to our
    Congressional delegation, and taking those lease areas out of
    what is called Lobster Management Area 1. That was important to
    us as we pursue our offshore wind goals, that they be done
    compatibly and responsibly with regard to our important
    fisheries. So the fact that the Department removed potential
    lease sites from Lobster Management Area 1 is a big deal in
    Maine and I want to express appreciation to the Department for
    that.
        That's the good news.
        I was one of the folks that worked very hard on the Great
    American Outdoors Act. And a key part of the Great American
    Outdoors Act was a fund to deal with deferred maintenance in
    our national parks, which was and is a very serious problem.
    Here's the problem. Your budget underfunds maintenance, so we
    are digging a hole again. I don't know if this is in the
    expectation that we are going to be able to do another Great
    American Outdoors Act or that there will be a good fairy come
    and take care of the deferred maintenance, but the maintenance
    budget is way below what it should be. A kind of rule of thumb
    for businesses is two to five percent of the asset value for
    annual maintenance. In that case, this would be a $4-5 billion
    budget. Instead, it's a $569 million budget. In other words, we
    are funding about ten percent of what should be the maintenance
    for our national parks.
        I have talked to the Office of Management and Budget about
    this. I have talked to your Department about this. I hope next
    year, when you are proposing a budget, you are going to fight
    for maintenance, for an adequate maintenance budget for the
    national parks. It does not make sense on any level to be
    continuing to defer maintenance on our gem properties across
    the country.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator King. Will you commit to aggressively fight for a
    decent maintenance budget?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we are so grateful for GAOA and
    understand how important it is. I want you to know that the
    budget does balance a continuing commitment to address the
    maintenance backlog through all sources of funding. In addition
    to the $1.3 billion from the GAOA Legacy Restoration Fund, the
    budget proposes over $993 million to prevent or eliminate
    deferred maintenance for multiple sources, including line-item
    construction, cyclic maintenance, Federal Lands Recreation
    Enhancement Act, and the Federal Lands Transportation Program.
        Senator King. Well, we will continue to discuss this. I
    believe that the fundamental maintenance budget is below where
    it should be and we are simply digging the deferred maintenance
    hole, once again, in contravention to the intent of the Great
    American Outdoors Act.
        The next issue is permitting. We are not going to be able
    to achieve a clean energy future if we can't build things,
    whether it's transmission lines, whether it's mining
    facilities, processing facilities. In other words, the
    environmental benefits we want to obtain are going to require
    going through a permitting process. The problem is, your
    Department sits astride a great deal of the time involved in
    these permitting processes by virtue of the time it takes to do
    the analysis and the impact analysis. You just talked to
    Senator Daines about a project that was due in February. It's
    not done yet. From the point of view of the environment, we
    have to do a better job. We don't have time to spend years and
    years and years and years waiting for an environmental analysis
    to permit a project that has a net environmental gain. And my
    problem is that there seems to be no sense of urgency in
    getting these studies done.
        Here's my standard for my staff: Eisenhower retook Europe
    in 11 months. Nothing should take longer than that. If
    Eisenhower can retake Europe in 11 months, you should be able
    to determine what the impact on the environment is of a
    particular project in a particular place. Please, please, work
    with your Department, work with your scientists to incur a
    sense of urgency, because this is urgent for the environment.
    That is the point I am trying to make. This isn't an anti-
    environment position. This is a pro-environment position. But
    we can never get where we need to get on clean energy as long
    as environmentally sound projects languish in a permitting hell
    at the Department of the Interior.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you for acknowledging
    that this is an important issue. The Department--we sought ways
    to improve permitting efficiency in the face of a growing
    workload that exceeds available staffing, quite frankly, and
    the Fish and Wildlife Service is streamlining its environmental
    review process and inventing on our online system ways to
    provide greater transparency and improve both the process and
    conservation outcomes. We are working at it and we feel very
    proud of the work that we have been able to do with our clean
    energy projects and appreciate the opportunity to----
        Senator King. Well, when you head back to the office send a
    one-word email to your permitting staff--Eisenhower.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman [presiding]. I slipped back in. And Madam
    Chair did a great job while I was gone.
        With that, we go to Senator Lee at this time.
        Senator Lee. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you for
    being here today.
        Secretary Haaland, I understand you have been directly
    involved with the ongoing management process for the Bears Ears
    National Monument. Now, the Bears Ears Commission, which was
    formed following President Obama's creation of the Bears Ears
    National Monument on December 28th, 2016, includes
    representatives from five different tribes. Yes or no, did you
    commit to that Commission, to the Bears Ears Commission, that
    the Commission would be able to draft an alternative that would
    be designated as the preferred alternative to the management
    plan?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you for the question, and
    I would say that that draft plan incorporates considerable
    input from the Bears Ears Commission, the State of Utah, and
    other cooperating agencies.
        Senator Lee. I understand that. I understand that, and it
    is also my understanding that you made a commitment to the
    Commission that the Commission would be able to draft an
    alternative that would be the preferred designated plan. Now,
    you and I spoke in December about the Bears Ears land exchange
    that we had been working with in good faith and put a lot of
    effort into it, really over the last three years. And after
    putting in that much effort on the end of the State of Utah, I
    was really disappointed with your decision to proceed with a
    temporary plan instead of a permanent land exchange, but is it
    any wonder why the State of Utah withdrew from that exchange?
    Well, it's because of this sort of thing, of the target
    shifting after the fact.
        Now, the draft management plan includes the phrase
    collaboration or coordination in reference to collaboration and
    coordination with Bears Ears no fewer than 559 times, while the
    phrase collaboration with the State of Utah is mentioned only
    once, and coordination with San Juan County, Utah is not
    mentioned at all, not a single time, even though this is home
    to the Bears Ears National Monument. And then, according to the
    draft plan, from what I understand of how things unfolded, the
    Commission was provided with over 100 meetings to offer and
    receive input. And meanwhile, as a cooperating agency, the
    State of Utah was provided only six meetings to offer input
    into the plan and two of those were listed as input-only. So
    effectively, four meetings versus 100 meetings, it's quite a
    disparity. All that Utah has asked for over the years is a
    real, actual seat at the table. And it's obvious that you have
    given the Bears Ears Commission a seat and left Utah off in the
    corner wearing a dunce cap. So it appears to me the Department
    is weighing stakeholder input disproportionately, far above any
    position where they are taking with serious or even comparable
    consideration the affected state and county.
        The Bears Ears Commission's website, for its part, states
    openly that it is funded by Resources Legacy Fund, a dark
    money, radical environmental group. However, the Bears Ears
    Commission is nowhere to be found of the fund's financial
    disclosures. It appears that this is just another example of a
    radical, far-left NGO that is seeking cover to do what it is
    doing by doing it through tribes. And sadly, you have decided
    to let the whims and the wishes of this dark money group
    effectively dictate the management of 1.4 million acres of
    federal land, land that hardworking people in my state rely on
    for their livelihood. Look, I want to be clear about something.
    It isn't too late. It isn't too late to fix this, and I ask
    that you please do so. The State of Utah, San Juan County, we
    all stand ready to assist in finding a balanced approach to
    land management, not only for Bears Ears, but across the entire
    expanse of the 67 percent of my state that is owned by the
    Federal Government, causing us to feel very much and be very
    much at the whim and at the caprice of the U.S. Department of
    the Interior. Look, we all want to work together, but as a
    state that is occupied to the degree of 67 percent by your
    Department, we first need a seat at the table.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for
    your attention to Nevada, and your staff. You have been out
    there so many times and I have to say you have some amazing
    staff on the ground there in Nevada that I have the opportunity
    to work with every day. They are committed. They are passionate
    about the issue. They really believe in the work that they are
    doing.
        I do want to talk to you about an area that I am focused on
    in Nevada and I hopefully can get your support. This is a
    statewide resource management plan on modernizing, an issue
    that we need to focus on. Last year I sent a letter supporting
    efforts by the BLM state office in Nevada at undertaking that
    statewide resource management plan to allow for a
    comprehensive, science-based approach to determine management
    for BLM lands across the whole state, and would thus be able to
    incorporate entire ecoregions, competing land use needs, and
    varied stakeholders. It is particularly important in Nevada
    because Nevada contains 48 million acres of BLM-managed lands.
    That is three-fifths of Nevada's total landmass. Currently,
    there are 12 resource management plans in effect, with some
    completed over 36 years ago. These plans are out of date. They
    are impacting BLM's multiple-use management mission across my
    state.
        However, several rules are being processed at the
    Department level that have significant impact to how our lands
    are managed in my state, including the oil and gas leasing
    rule, the solar PEIS, the public lands rule, and others. So my
    question to you is, what is the status of Nevada's statewide
    resource management plan? What steps are being taken to align
    all of these rules with our local and state planning efforts?
    And can we expect to see something relatively soon as we build
    out our clean energy across the land and our mining
    opportunities across the land as well?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. And I just--first I
    want you to know that we support wholeheartedly the RMP work of
    the Nevada BLM. Thank you for working to build the relationship
    with those folks. They do work very hard and care deeply about
    your state.
        And with respect to the rulemakings, the public lands, oil
    and gas, renewables, as well as the updated western solar plan,
    they are all complementary and will ensure consistency across
    BLM's conservation and permitting work. So I am happy to get
    with you and your staff to kind of talk about how all those
    things fit together, if that is helpful to you, but we
    appreciate the opportunities to be in Nevada and we will do
    whatever we can to make sure that things are----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, and I will take you up on
    that offer. We will have a meeting to go over the resource
    management plan to figure out how we incorporate all of these
    rules. It's not just for me, it is for so many people in the
    State of Nevada that need an understanding of what that looks
    like, including our local and state, and really, private-sector
    partners as well. So I will take you up on that.
        I want to call your attention to the pressing threats to
    Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and the Devils Hole unit
    of Death Valley National Park in Nye County, Nevada. I was just
    there. It is an absolutely spectacular area, and it is
    threatened by a proposal to drill into the sensitive
    groundwater system, which then could dry up seeps and springs
    at a core of this refuge and to the tribal community that
    cherishes this land. I am going to be sending you a letter on
    the matter shortly, but can I get your commitment to work with
    me and my constituents to make sure that the incredible
    resources in the refuge and park are protected in the future?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, absolutely. I would be happy to
    look at a proposal for review. So we will be in touch about
    that as well.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And then, I want to draw your attention to the
    contamination of the Duck Valley Reservation. The Interior
    Department, including the Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs, has promised the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck
    Valley Reservation that the Department would put resources
    behind remediating the tragic and longstanding contamination
    caused by BIA's dumping of heating oil, pesticides, and the use
    of Agent Orange on the Duck Valley Reservation. This has been
    going on for decades. We have heard that assessments need to be
    done in order to fund and remediate the issues, yet we have
    recently heard that BIA missed the timeline for the first
    milestone in an agreed-to schedule between BIA, EPA, and the
    tribes. And BIA has failed to finalize the draft assessment by
    April 12. We have also heard that BIA will not be able to meet
    the June 30 deadline to finalize the scope of the work. BIA has
    indicated that this assessment is a prerequisite to starting
    remediation, so that is why we need to get this going as soon
    as possible. So my question is, why is this taking so long, and
    can you give me answers to why BIA is missing this deadline and
    not making this a priority to remediate this land that is
    poisoning the members of the Duck Valley Reservation?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for that, Senator, and I want
    you to know that this contamination issue is extremely
    important to me, personally, and important to our Department.
    It is a priority. So I will take those comments back and I will
    get answers and I will make sure that we respond to you in a
    timely manner.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Absolutely.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here.
        Madam Secretary, I am from Louisiana. You're going to guess
    what I am going to be interested in. Is there going to be,
    plain question, will the Department of the Interior hold at
    least three lease sales in the next five years?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay. So 2024 is the first year without a
    lease sale since 1965. I am worried that Lease Sale 262 might
    slip to the end of 2025. DOI must complete several reviews and
    planning steps prior to the lease being issued. I am told it
    has hardly begun the process. So given that the Department of
    the Interior has not issued the notice of intent for Lease Sale
    262, when is the earliest by which the agency could hold the
    lease sale?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, that review is underway and I
    promise you we will get back to you. The lease you refer to is
    in our five-year plan and the law directs the process.
        Senator Cassidy. I gather that, but we are now almost
    halfway through 2024, and I am told the necessary steps prior
    to that lease sale have hardly been done. So how long does that
    process typically take to be completed?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, with your permission, I would
    pass this question to our Acting Deputy Secretary.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you,
    Senator. And I just want to reaffirm what the Secretary said,
    that the first steps are underway.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, I have gathered that.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. With regard to your timing question----
        Senator Cassidy. Yes.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. It typically takes approximately 18
    months, I think at a minimum, we would say, for our folks to do
    diligent review.
        Senator Cassidy. So again, I have been told that it has
    hardly started. And so, 18 months puts us almost into 2026. And
    you said ``at least,'' suggesting that it often goes further.
    So it looks like we might miss a lease sale in 2024 and a lease
    sale in 2025. That's how I'm gathering this answer.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Well, Senator, with respect, I would say
    that we are working diligently in the process.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay, so how does your five-year offshore
    wind leasing schedule with 12 potential offshore wind energy
    lease sales comply with the law? Because under existing statute
    there should be a sequence, and as Secretary, you cannot issue
    a lease for offshore wind unless there has been an oil and gas
    offshore lease of more than 60 million acres within the
    preceding year.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. We are confident
    that we can achieve our clean energy goals while complying with
    the IRA.
        Senator Cassidy. But will the lease sale for wind occur
    before 2026?
        Secretary Haaland. The planned OCS lease sales would meet
    IRA requirements if conducted and allow us to issue offshore
    wind leases. We will comply with the law.
        Senator Cassidy. So that means, what I am hearing is, that
    if you will not be even completing the necessary preliminary
    steps for the oil lease sale before 2026, or at best, the end
    of 2025, that there will not be a wind lease sale offshore
    until 2026.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I want to assure you that we
    will comply with the law.
        Senator Cassidy. Yeah, I found though that lawyers figure
    out what they want it to be and then they work backwards. And I
    have also found this Administration has played fast and loose
    with the law. They decide what they want to do, and they do it,
    and they say ``sue me.'' And so, if I am a little skeptical,
    it's this Administration's practice.
        So what specific lease sales are you using to allow for the
    four lease sales planned for 2024? For example, what was the
    date and the acreage of those lease sales?
        Secretary Haaland. With all due respect, Senator, I can
    pass that to our Acting Deputy Secretary as well.
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and Senator,
    we held a lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico in December 2023,
    and I honestly don't recollect the acreage. I apologize. But it
    was over 60 million, I am confident.
        Senator Cassidy. You are confident? Will you confirm that?
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. I am happy to confirm that back to you
    for the record. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Now, on carbon sequestration, Secretary, your testimony
    mentions a forthcoming rulemaking by BOEM and BSEE on offshore
    carbon sequestration. And so, given Louisiana's proximity to
    the Gulf and our new Class VI well primacy, of course, I am
    interested. When do you anticipate the rule to be proposed?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I don't have an estimate of
    when it will be completed, but we are working on it. We
    recognize that it's late. Creating a new regulatory program for
    a new technology, it's a very technical and complex----
        Senator Cassidy. But just, in my remaining time--ballpark.
    Two months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months?
        Secretary Haaland. Actually, I couldn't say, but I will go
    back to the office and find out where they are on it and we are
    happy to give you a status update to your office.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        I yield.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Haaland, do you know the group called the
    Wilderness Society?
        Secretary Haaland. I have heard of it, yes.
        Senator Hawley. And what, to your knowledge, what is this
    group?
        Secretary Haaland. It sounds like the name is explanatory.
        Senator Hawley. Well, it's--let me help you a little bit--
    it's a left-wing environmentalist pressure group. Do you know
    who funds them?
        Secretary Haaland. I do not.
        Senator Hawley. Well, I can help you with that too. It is
    funded, in large part, by a foreign billionaire, Hansjorg Wyss,
    who has routed his money through all manner of dark money
    groups, including the Arabella network. Hansjorg Wyss was
    investigated by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions
    because he is not a United States citizen. He sits on the
    governing council of this dark money environmentalist group.
    Has anybody in leadership at your Department met with them, the
    Wilderness Society?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I don't know this individual
    and----
        Senator Hawley. Has anybody in leadership at your
    Department met with the Wilderness Society?
        Secretary Haaland. Well, I am sure we have met with a lot
    of groups and organizations in the work that we do when we are
    discussing the environment.
        Senator Hawley. So does that mean you don't know, or you
    are not going to answer my question?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't have a full list of who everyone
    has met with----
        Senator Hawley. Okay. Well, I can help you with that as
    well. The answer is yes, your leadership has met with the
    Wilderness Society. They met with the Wilderness Society when
    that group was a plaintiff suing the Department of the Interior
    with an adverse lawsuit against you and they met with them off
    the books. I have got the emails. In July 2021, after you had
    come to office, members of the Wilderness Society, when they
    are suing the Department, write to your top deputy and ask for
    a meeting and keep it off of his calendar.
        Here it is--July 14th, 2021, ``Can we set up a meeting with
    these folks?'' July 19th, 2021, they propose how they might
    calibrate this so it does not look like they are violating any
    of the rules of the court, and remarkably, it stays completely
    off of everybody's calendars. We only know about it because
    FOIA requests were filed. And then, after they have these off-
    the-books meetings, their request is to cancel the mineral
    leasing rights in Minnesota in the Superior National Forest.
    This is a critical minerals mine. The Society wants the mine
    shut down, and after they meet off the books with your
    leadership, you do it. A few months later, you do it. You
    cancel the leases and then you withdraw 225,000 acres of
    critical mining from production and leasing shortly after that.
    Is it common practice at your Department to meet with dark
    money groups off the books and conceal it from the public?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you for the question. And
    of course, I can't answer to--if you are referring to our
    former Deputy Secretary--he's no longer at the Department.
        Senator Hawley. Who worked for you.
        Secretary Haaland. He worked for the President. He was
    appointed by the President.
        Senator Hawley. He's your Deputy Secretary. Are you the
    Secretary of the Department of the Interior? I thought that's
    why you were here. Are you the Secretary? Don't look at her,
    look at me.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Are you the Secretary?
        Secretary Haaland. I am.
        Senator Hawley. Do these people who are sitting here today,
    answering most of your questions, do they work for you?
        Secretary Haaland. They work----
        Senator Hawley. Do they report for you? You're not in
    charge?
        Secretary Haaland. They work with me.
        Senator Hawley. They work with you. So you are not in
    charge of the Department? Oh, my gosh, I thought you were in
    charge. I thought that is why you were here.
        Secretary Haaland. We work as a team.
        Senator Hawley. Oh, okay. So who is in charge then?
        Secretary Haaland. I provide the vision. I provide the
    overall direction and----
        Senator Hawley. But you're not in charge?
        Secretary Haaland. Our mission----
        Senator Hawley. Do you take responsibility for what happens
    at the Department of the Interior?
        Secretary Haaland. I take responsibility.
        Senator Hawley. You take full responsibility for what
    happens at the Department of the Interior? Good. Then why are
    your leadership meeting with dark money groups and concealing
    it from the public? Why are they doing it off the books? How
    many times has this happened?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, this is the first I am hearing
    of this. My Deputy Secretary is no longer there, and I can't
    answer to what he did when he was there----
        Senator Hawley. What did they get out of it, do you
    suppose? What do you suppose Hansjorg Wyss got out of you
    canceling the leases after they asked you to, in an off-the-
    books meeting?
        Secretary Haaland. I don't know who this individual is----
        Senator Hawley. Oh, sure, I mean, you don't know. You're
    not in charge. You're not responsible. We have a corruption
    problem in this government, Madam Secretary. And frankly, we
    have a corruption problem in your Department.
        Secretary Haaland. We don't.
        Senator Hawley. We've got foreign--we certainly do. We have
    foreign billionaires who are funding dark money groups coming
    to meet with your leadership, concealing it from the public
    while they are filing lawsuits adverse to the Department, doing
    it without the court's knowledge, doing it, you say, without
    your knowledge, and then getting exactly what they want. Now, I
    don't know how much money he made off of it. I am sure it was a
    lot. I know how he made his money. He made his money by
    poisoning people. Hansjorg Wyss--here is what his company did--
    in 2009, Synthes USA, with Wyss at its head, was charged by
    Philadelphia's U.S. Attorney with running an illegal clinical
    trial on humans. They injected them with a cement that turns to
    bone inside the human skeleton. That's the guy who's funding
    this group, who is pressuring your Department, and you are
    meeting with him off the books and giving him exactly what they
    want.
        Secretary Haaland. I did not meet with him. You are
    implying that I met with him----
        Senator Hawley. I am just trying to figure out who is in
    charge of the Interior Department. You said it isn't you. It
    sounds to me like it's the billionaires. It sounds to me like
    it's the dark money billionaires who are calling the shots at
    the Department of the Interior. And all I have to say to you,
    Madam Secretary, is that is a travesty. It is a travesty. The
    American people should be in charge, not the foreign
    billionaires. And the fact that you have let them run rampant
    is outrageous. It's outrageous.
        Secretary Haaland. Our public lands belong to every single
    American. I have said that over and over again.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Senator.
        Secretary Haaland, a couple questions. You have been in
    office for over three years now. During that time, you have
    applauded President Biden's energy policies. His policies, I
    believe, are going to dramatically drive up our nation's demand
    for cobalt, for nickel, for zinc, for other critical minerals.
    Yesterday, you testified that your Department has permitted,
    and you said, five new critical mineral mines. Do you know
    where those mines are, and can you name them for me? Just, I am
    trying to ask about whether these were expansions of existing
    mines, modifications, or actually permitting of new mines. And
    if you need to visit with your staff, and they might have the
    answers to that, because you testified to that yesterday. I am
    just trying to figure out what they were.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. I will start and I
    can pass it to the Acting Deputy Secretary.
        So yes, they were five mines producing critical minerals
    such as lithium, vanadium, and barium, and also, we recently
    took another step forward on the Rhyolite Ridge Lithium mine in
    Nevada. Laura might be able to provide more details.
        Senator Barrasso. All right, yes--new mines or expansions?
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Madam Secretary and thank you,
    Senator, for the question.
        The five are new permitted mines. I honestly only know the
    name of one. It is the vanadium mine in Nevada.
        Senator Barrasso. Can you get me----
        Ms. Daniel-Davis. So we can get you the list. We would be
    happy to.
        Senator Barrasso. And the reason I ask is because, Madam
    Secretary, you just testified to Senator Hawley about how you
    provide the vision. So what I am concerned about is, the
    experts are telling us that the world is going to need 400 new
    mines to meet the growing mineral demand for the minerals that
    you just referred to. So instead of trying to solve the
    problem, it does seem to me that the Department has actually
    been blocking access to American minerals. You blocked access
    to minerals on federal lands and blocked access to minerals on
    state lands, some on native lands. So as you are providing this
    vision, what is your solution, and I am just trying to see how
    to equate the math of the five with the 400 that are needed.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for that, Senator. And yes, of
    course, we understand that if we want to have a clean energy
    economy, that critical minerals are definitely a part of that
    in the President's energy independence vision for our country.
    I will say, I apologize, the point of your question again? I am
    so sorry.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, you testified yesterday there were
    five new mines permitted.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. At a time when we feel the world is
    saying we need 400 new mines to meet what the President is
    trying to do.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, thank you. Thank you, yes. One of
    the things that I feel very proud of, that we have done--the
    Interagency Working Group on Mining Reform. As you know, our
    Mining Law is 150 years old. This is 2024. New technologies
    have come up. The Interagency Working Group on Mining Reform
    has come out with a report. We feel that the recommendations in
    that report will help us to be more efficient and effective
    when it comes to permitting mines and moving the industry
    forward.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, because the sad reality, as you
    know, is if we are willing to rely on China and the Congo and
    Indonesia for these critical minerals, they have horrible
    records in terms of environmental standards, in terms of labor
    standards, and I just find that unacceptable. We need to get
    more permitted.
        Another area of mutual concern, I think, to both of us is
    the lack of housing for employees at our National Park Service,
    and you're going to hear that from both sides of the aisle.
    Many of the housing units for Park Service employees don't meet
    modern standards. Many of the living conditions are
    unacceptable. I understand there may not be a single solution
    to the problem. I think you need to partner with the private
    sector, at least as much as you are partnering and relying on
    Congress. Would you describe, in terms of the vision you have,
    your efforts to address the lack of suitable housing for park
    staff for the park service?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much for the question and
    for caring about where our career staff actually live. So of
    course, we are working on many new options. The budget proposes
    over $100 million from different funding sources to improve
    employee housing in parks. That includes $17 million to replace
    obsolete and deteriorated housing or to add housing capacity
    where affordable housing for purchase or rent is limited, $2
    million to continue to support private-sector leasing for
    seasonal housing, more than $60 million in 2025 LRF projects to
    rehabilitate or replace NPS housing in various national parks.
    We were also successful at working with partners. We are very
    grateful for a $40 million anonymous donation to Yellowstone
    National Park that will support housing construction. As you
    know, in some of these gateway communities, it is very
    expensive. It is where the folks who buy vacation homes can
    live, and so, we are grateful that we are putting all these
    sources together and appreciate you caring about it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        And then, my final question is that there is a wildfire
    crisis, and you are hearing this from both sides of the aisle,
    your Department has more than 50 million acres of forests that
    must be actively managed to prevent them from going up in
    smoke. This can't happen without partnering with the forest
    products sector. The Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
    Commission has called on the Department to support the forest
    products sector. Sawmills now are closing across the West and
    the threat of catastrophic wildfires continues to increase. So
    shutting down forest management and restoration activities, I
    think, is dangerous--not a viable option if we are going to get
    control of the wildfire crisis affecting the West. Secretary
    Haaland, what happens to the federal forests when they lose a
    local sawmill? And would you agree the Department needs to try
    to retain its existing private-sector partners in the timber
    industry?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you for the question. I
    recognize that this is an issue. It is also an issue for
    tribes. We visited a tribal community in Wisconsin who has a
    sawmill and actively works to manage their forests. We
    appreciate the reports that were developed in a unified
    fashion. I will take your suggestions forward to the
    Department, and we recognize that this is all-important. Fuels
    management is also an issue for these wildland fires, and our
    budget reflects the commitment to that as well.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you
    again for being here and joining us this morning.
        Members will have until the close of business tomorrow to
    submit additional questions for the record.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]