[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 513, H.R. 931, H.R. 2250, H.R.
2556, H.R. 3168, AND H.R. 3176
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-606 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA,
Tom McClintock, CA Joe Neguse, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Melanie Stansbury, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Maxine Dexter, OR
Lauren Boebert, CO Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Cliff Bentz, OR Emily Randall, WA
Jen Kiggans, VA Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Sarah Elfreth, MD
Mike Collins, GA Adam Gray, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Luz Rivas, CA
Mark Amodei, NV Nydia Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI Debbie Dingell, MI
Mike Ezell, MS Darren Soto, FL
Celest Maloy, Utah Julia Brownley, CA
Addison McDowell, NC Susie Lee, NV
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
NICK BEGICH, AK, Vice Chair
YASSAMIN ANSARI, AZ, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Seth Magaziner, RI
Paul Gosar, AZ Dave Min, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Sarah Elfreth, MD
Russ Fulcher, ID Luz Rivas, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Debbie Dingell, MI
Jen Kiggans, VA Jared Huffman, CA
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Jared Golden, ME
Mike Collins, GA Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Vacancy
Mike Ezell, MS Vacancy
Jeff Crank, CO Vacancy
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
-----------
CONTENTS
-----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 20, 2025............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 2
Ansari, Hon. Yassamin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 11
Panel I:
Hunt, Hon. Wesley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 5
Begich III, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alaska............................................ 6
DelBene, Hon. Suzan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 7
Valadao, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Higgins, Hon. Clay, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 9
Downing, Hon. Troy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Cruickshank, Walter, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 17
Panel III:
Phipps, Parker, President and CEO, Signal Peak Energy,
Roundup, Montana........................................... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Supplemental document submitted for the record........... 38
Questions submitted for the record....................... 38
West, Mike, Director and State Seismologist, Alaska
Earthquake Center, Fairbanks, Alaska....................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Helton, Doug, Former Regional Operations Supervisor,
Emergency Response Division (Retired), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington............ 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Questions submitted for the record....................... 52
Kief, Cory, Director of Business Development, Crosby Tugs,
LLC, Galliano, Louisiana................................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record on
H.R. 931................................................... 79
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Statement for the Record on H.R. 2250, H.R. 3168, and H.R.
3176....................................................... 80
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
Senate, Letter........................................... 82
Submissions for the Record by Representative Ansari
CORE Act, NGO, Letter.................................... 70
Business Alliance, Letter................................ 71
Defense Support Initiatives Committee, Letter............ 72
Congress of the U.S., Letter............................. 73
Global/National/Regional Organizations, Letter........... 74
U.S. Senate, Letter...................................... 75
A Faked Kidnapping and Cocaine: A Montana Mine's Descent
Into Chaos, New York Times, Article.................... 76
Statement Roundup, Report................................ 77
Submissions for the Record by Representative Elfreth
DOD Mission Compatibility Planning Assessment: BOEM 2017-
2022, Report........................................... 24
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Report................ 26
Submissions for the Record by Representative Begich
Letter to the House of Natural Resources................. 67
Submissions for the Record by Representative Higgins
Americans for Prosperity, Letter......................... 10
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Staff, Rob
MacGregor--([email protected]), Will King--
([email protected].
gov), and Lonnie Smith--(Lonnie.Smith@ mail.house.gov) x5-9297
Date: Monday, May 19, 2025
Subject: Legislative Hearing on 6 bills
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will hold a
legislative hearing on H.R. 513 (Rep. Higgins), ``Offshore Lands
Authorities Act of 2025''; H.R. 931 (Rep. Downing), To allow certain
Federal minerals to be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining
Plan Modification, and for other purposes; H.R. 2250 (Rep. DelBene),
``National LandPreparedness Act Reauthorization Act of 2025''; H.R.
2556 (Rep. Hunt) ``Comprehensive Offshore Resource Enhancement Act of
2025'' or the ``CORE Act of 2025''; H.R. 3168 (Rep. Valadao),
``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of
2025''; and H.R. 3176 (Rep. Begich), To amend the John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to reauthorize the
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, on Tuesday, May
20, 2025, at 2 p.m. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Jacob Greenberg
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 2025, if their
Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
H.R. 513 will nullify previous offshore energy withdrawals
and limit the duration and size of future offshore energy
withdrawals to bolster U.S. energy dominance, increase GDP,
reduce trade deficits, and help balance the federal budget.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) resource
assessment process is outdated and susceptible to political
interference. H.R. 2556 will modernize these assessments
and ensure more accurate data collection for offshore oil
and gas production, enhancing U.S. energy security and
economic stability and reducing reliance on imports.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) under the Biden administration purposefully delayed
the permitting process for the Bull Mountains Mine in
Montana for over two years. H.R. 931 will right this wrong
and allow for responsible coal production in Montana,
reducing energy costs for American families and providing
much-needed revenue to states and the federal government.
Natural Hazards such as lands, earthquakes, and volcanoes
cost the government upwards of $20 billion per
year.1 H.R. 2250, H.R. 3168, and H.R. 3176
reauthorize the National Landslide Hazards Reduction
Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,
and the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring
System, which aim to reduce the cost incurred by the
government and save lives by providing early warnings to
communities.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I (Members of Congress):
To Be Announced
Panel II (Administration):
Dr. Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC [H.R. 513 & H.R. 2556]
Panel III:
Mr. Cory Kief, Director of Business Development, Crosby
Tugs, LLC, Galliano, LA [H.R. 513 & H.R. 2556]
Mr. Parker Phipps, CEO, Signal Peak Energy, Roundup, MT
[H.R. 931]
Dr. Mike West, Director and State Seismologist, Alaska
Earthquake Center, Fairbanks, AK [H.R. 2250, H.R. 3168,
H.R. 3176]
Mr. Doug Helton, former Regional Operations Supervisor,
Emergency Response Division, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA [H.R. 513 & H.R.
2556] (Minority Witness)
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 513 (Rep. Higgins), ``Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025''
The Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 seeks to nullify
specific Presidential withdrawals of offshore lands made under Section
12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).2 The
bill would also amend OCSLA to limit future Presidential withdrawals.
By restoring access to these lands for oil and gas leasing, the bill
aims to enhance energy security, support economic growth, and ensure
Congressional oversight of offshore resource management.
On January 6, 2025, in the waning days of the last administration,
President Biden recklessly issued a Presidential Memoranda withdrawing
approximately 625 million acres of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands
in the Gulf of America and the Atlantic, Pacific, and Alaska planning
areas from oil and gas leasing, citing environmental and climate
concerns.3 On January 20, 2025, President Trump revoked
these withdrawals, restoring leasing eligibility.4
H.R. 513, introduced by Rep. Higgins on January 16, 2025, not only
nullifies the most egregious existing OCS withdrawals but also limits
future withdrawals to 150,000 acres per action, 500,000 acres
cumulatively without Congressional approval, and ensures that each
withdrawal only lasts 20 years in duration. The bill also mandates
geological, economic, and security assessments before promulgating a
withdrawal, requires withdrawals to be submitted for Congressional
review with an expedited disapproval process, and ensures alignment
with approved Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Programs, enhancing energy
security and oversight.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 931 (Rep. Downing), To allow certain Federal minerals to be
mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan
Modification.
Signal Peak Energy (SPE) currently operates the only underground
coal mine in Montana: the Bull Mountain Mine.5 Despite
reserves that can last over 50 years,6 the mine will soon
run out of recoverable reserves as SPE cannot access federal coal
tracts that run in a checkerboard pattern across the area.7
SPE has been seeking OSMRE's approval to mine 1,835 acres of federal
coal since 2013. OSMRE previously approved a mining plan modification
along with an environmental assessment in 2015 and 2018 that would
allow access to this acreage but both efforts were vacated by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana in 2017 8 and
2023, respectively.9 Specifically in the 2023 decision,
Judge Donald W. Molloy vacated the mine modification and remanded the
matter to the Department of the Interior to prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS).10 Despite receiving this decision in
February of 2023, OSMRE waited six months before issuing a notice of
intent to prepare the required EIS.11 In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act deadlines, OSMRE is required to
complete the EIS two years after the date the agency determines that an
EIS is necessary,12 which in this case was February 2025.
Not shockingly, the OSMRE under the Biden administration dragged its
feet and missed this deadline.
H.R. 931 would remedy this issue by requiring the Secretary of the
Interior to approve the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification,
allowing the mine and its 300 workers to continue
operations.13 Under the bill, all Federal coal reserves
leased under Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988 would be permitted to be
mined by the Secretary of the Interior. This bill is supported by the
entire Montana delegation in the House and the Senate and mirrors a
companion bill introduced by Senator Daines, S. 362. This mine plays a
crucial role in the economy of Musselshell County by generating over
$90 million annually in state, local, and federal taxes.14
At a time when we need more energy, not less, this mine and its vast
reserves must be authorized to continue operations.
H.R. 2250 (Rep. DelBene), ``National Landslide Preparedness Act
Reauthorization Act of 2025''
Landslides are a major geologic hazard in every state, causing
between $1 and $2 billion in damages and more than 25 casualties
annually.15 The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
established the Landslide Hazards Program (LHP) in the 1970s to
research the Earth's geologic structure and draw scientific conclusions
about landslides and ground failures.16 The states utilize
this research to prepare for and properly respond to these disasters.
The National Landslides Preparedness Act (NLPA) was passed in the
House of Representatives in the 116th Congress and was signed into law
on January 5, 2021.17 The NLPA established the National
Landslide Hazards Reduction Program (NLHRP) and the 3D Elevation
Program (3DEP), authorizing both programs from 2021 to 2024. The
programs allow USGS to gather data to enable states and communities to
reduce loss in the event of a landslide. The Director of the USGS leads
implementation of the NLHRP and coordinates with states, territories,
and Indian tribes to coordinate data collection and share
information.18 The NLPA also charges the USGS with mapping
and researching landslide hazards, responding to landslides, and
coordinating with state, local, territorial, and tribal entities to
reduce landslide risks.19 The goal of 3DEP is to establish
high-quality topographic elevation data of the entire U.S., enabling
better understanding of landslides and why they occur.20
USGS uses Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology when mapping
the Earth.21 By the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022, the USGS
had elevation data gathered via LIDAR for 90 percent of the U.S.
22 3DEP allows the USGS to gather new topography data and
study how landslides shift the landscape from one year to the next.
This allows USGS and the states to develop plans and procedures in the
event of a landslide to minimize losses.
Landslides have affected numerous communities across the U.S. In
2018, Alaska experienced a devastating series of 43 landslides after a
7.1-magnitude earthquake hit just north of Anchorage.23 This
disaster caused $76 million in damage, but fortunately, there were no
fatalities.24 Heavy rainfall is the most common cause of
landslides, particularly rainfall on burned, steeply sloped terrain
(e.g., a post-wildfire debris flow).25 H.R. 2250
reauthorizes NLHRP at $35 million, which represents an increased
authorization of $10 million per year until FY 2030, over the current
$25 million levels. It also authorizes 3DEP through FY 2030 at the
current authorization of appropriations level of $40 million per
year.26
H.R. 2556 (Rep. Hunt), ``Comprehensive Offshore Resource Enhancement
Act of 2025'' or the ``CORE Act of 2025''
The OCS is critical in the United States' energy strategy,
providing substantial oil and natural gas resources that contribute to
national energy security, economic stability, and coastal resiliency
goals. BOEM periodically conducts resource assessments of the OCS and
regularly prepares 5-year leasing plans as mandated by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05) 27 and OCSLA.28
These assessments, which include Undiscovered Technically Recoverable
Resources (UTRR) and Undiscovered Economically Recoverable Resources
(UERR), are crucial for informed decision-making and contribute to 5-
year program planning and development.29 UTRR and UERR are
critical components of BOEM's comprehensive inventory and analysis of
oil and natural gas resources in the OCS. Undiscovered oil and gas
resources in the OCS have the potential to significantly boost the U.S.
economy while maintaining the U.S. edge in producing cleaner
hydrocarbons than the rest of the world. For example, energy production
occurring in the Gulf of America is 46% less carbon-intensive when
displacing global production in countries like Russia, China, and
Iran.30
Bilateral maritime boundary treaties, such as the 1990 US-Soviet
Union (now Russia) Maritime Boundary Agreement and the 2000 US-Mexico
Maritime Boundary Agreement, include provisions on sovereign rights
over natural resources.31 These agreements ensure that
neither country can claim resources in the other's territory. The 2000
US-Mexico Agreement also addresses transboundary hydrocarbon
reservoirs, establishing a framework for equitable and efficient
development of such resources.32 Looking to the north,
ongoing disputes with Canada over jurisdictional rights to OCS areas,
particularly in the Beaufort Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and Gulf of Maine,
underscore the critical need to first delineate maritime boundaries to
establish ownership before even considering potential transboundary
resource development.33 34
The CORE Act addresses the critical need for enhanced assessment of
transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs by requiring BOEM to leverage
existing seismic data to resolve boundary disputes, examine unresolved
boundaries for decision-maker clarity, and assess joint production
feasibility. It also forces BOEM to assess activity by Cuba, Mexico,
Canada, the Bahamas, and Russia to ensure compliance with transboundary
agreements to determine whether U.S. revenue is protected from
exploitation of cross-border reservoirs with our neighbors.
BOEM's current resource assessment process faces challenges in data
acquisition, technological integration, and environmental impact
considerations. Additionally, the two most recent analyses by BOEM
skewed greatly in their findings. In 2016, BOEM reported UTRR totaled
91 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 328 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of gas,
and 149 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).35 By 2021,
these figures had dropped to 68 BBO, 229 TCF of gas, and 109
BOE.36 The resulting decrease was not due to production,
discoveries, seepage, or any rational cause. The CORE Act would amend
EPAct05 to ensure that resource assessments include the latest data and
methodologies for accurate and reliable estimates and would
specifically detail what BOEM should consider in each assessment.
By improving BOEM's data acquisition methods, this bill will prompt
an increase in domestic oil production, which will bring greater energy
security, more affordable energy prices, a lower national trade
deficit, and increased revenue passed to states for vital coastal
restoration and infrastructure projects. Additionally, the bill would
mandate an economic analysis to assess the potential for job creation
from OCS development across exploration, production, refining, and
logistics. The bill also commissions an evaluation on how development
of OCS resources could supply fuel and materials for the Department of
Defense and U.S. allies, and an analysis of how preventing realization
of offshore energy receipts (bonuses, rents, and royalties) from
producing these undiscovered resources could impact funding for states
and coastal political subdivisions under federal laws that support
costal protection, conservation and cultural preservation. Lastly,
Section 3 of the bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish
a comparative analysis of offshore oil and gas practices among major
producing countries 1 year after enactment and every 10 years
thereafter, comparing U.S. leasing practices to those of other offshore
producing countries to assess our competitiveness.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a legislative
hearing on the CORE Act on July 23, 2024.37 Provisions that
have changed in the current version include the addition of the
Transboundary hydrocarbon analysis, U.S.-Canada collaborative boundary
delineation instructions, changes to agency roles from Secretary of
Defense to Secretary of State, addition of non-energy mineral resource
analyses, and comparative analysis of other offshore producing
countries' practices to those of the United States.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 3168 (Rep. Valadao), ``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program Reauthorization Act of 2025''
The USGS is in charge of monitoring and reporting earthquakes,
assessing damage, and researching their causes and
effects.38 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) 39 is aimed at gaining a better understanding of
earthquakes while also reducing risks in the United
States.40 NEHRP is a joint agency effort led by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), with help from the USGS,
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).41 These agencies work together to
conduct science, but they also have individual goals for mitigating
damage from earthquakes.
NEHRP was first authorized in 1977 42 with the goal of
managing the impacts of earthquakes on life, property, and the
economy.43 The program was designed to achieve this goal
through a large, coordinated effort between the community of earthquake
professionals in academia, businesses, government agencies, and codes
and standards organizations that develop earthquake building
codes.44 NEHRP has been reauthorized several times, and most
recently in 2018.45 This reauthorization in 2018 established
the first operational earthquake early warning system in the United
States aptly named ShakeAlert.46
Currently, ShakeAlert operates in California, Oregon, and
Washington and aims to provide alerts to people who are in the affected
areas of an earthquake.47 This application, run by the USGS,
can save thousands of lives and millions of dollars by alerting an
individual's phone or other electronic device, notifying them that an
earthquake has been detected. The application has successfully been
integrated into several industries across the West Coast, specifically
on the Metrolink in Southern California 48 It has been
integrated into Metrolink's Positive Train Control systems to
automatically slow or stop trains when an alert is
received.49
H.R. 3168 reauthorizes NEHRP through FY 2030.
H.R. 3176 (Rep. Begich), To amend the John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to reauthorize the
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System.
The United States currently has about 170 young volcanoes, and
roughly half of those pose a threat due to their proximity to
communities and the intensity of their eruptions.50 Many of
these volcanoes are not adequately monitored, and others have no
monitoring equipment.51
The National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System (NVEWS)
52 was established in 2019 through the John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act.53 This program
was new in 2019 and falls under the Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) which
has existed since 1980 and is also administered by USGS.54
Congress authorized appropriations of $55 million for NVEWS from FY
2019 through FY 2023. In FY 2022, Congress appropriated an additional
$2.2 million for NVEWS implementation and $1.8 million for the Mount
Rainier lahar detection system out of the $33.3 million appropriated to
the VHP.55 The authorization for NVEWS expired at the end of
FY 2023, but its programs have continued to operate as a part of VHP.
The USGS operates many volcano observatories across the country,
the hubs of which are located in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and
Washington.56 These observatories electronically monitor and
research volcanoes while remaining far enough away from the danger of
an eruption. These observatories are outfitted with seismometers, GPS
receivers, and gas sniffers to track seismicity or detect volcanic gas
in the surrounding area.57
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The goal of NVEWS is to monitor the most active and hazardous
volcanoes to give ample time to evacuate the communities in the
surrounding area of the volcano.58 Hawaii is the most at
risk state as the islands themselves are active volcanoes, so the
nearby cities must be prepared for potential eruptions. Additionally,
Alaska has the most volcanoes in its borders of any state at over 130
volcanoes and volcanic fields, and more than 50 have been active in the
last 300 years.59
H.R. 3176 reauthorizes NVEWS through FY 2030.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS
H.R. 513 (Rep. Higgins), ``Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025''
Section 2: Nullification of Specific Withdrawals:
Revokes eight Presidential memoranda and executive
orders from 2014 to 2025 that withdrew offshore lands from
mineral leasing, including areas in the Arctic, Atlantic,
Gulf of America, and Pacific.
Section 3: Limitation of authority of the President to withdraw
unleased offshore lands.
Withdrawal Restrictions (Section 12(a)(2)):
Limits withdrawals to 150,000 acres per action, non-
contiguous with other withdrawals, and caps the duration of
each withdrawal at 20 years. A President's cumulative
withdrawals are restricted to 500,000 acres without
Congressional approval. These constraints aim to prevent
broad, indefinite restrictions on offshore energy
development while balancing executive flexibility.
Mandatory Assessments (Section 12(a)(3)):
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
mineral resource assessments within five years before a
withdrawal, alongside economic, energy, and national
security evaluations. Assessments must also quantify
revenue losses to federal and state entities. These
requirements ensure data-driven decisions, highlighting the
impacts of withdrawals on the American economy.
Congressional Disapproval Mechanism (Section 12(a)(4)):
Establishes a joint resolution process for Congress to
disapprove withdrawals, with expedited Senate procedures.
Disapproved withdrawals lose effect, and substantially
similar withdrawals are barred without legislation. This
empowers Congress to check executive overreach and maintain
access to offshore resources.
Judicial Review (Section 12(a)(4)(G)):
Prohibits judicial review of actions under the
disapproval process, shielding Congressional decisions from
legal challenges and ensuring swift resolution of disputes
over withdrawals.
Alignment with Leasing Programs (Section 12(a)(5)):
Prohibits withdrawals that conflict with approved 5-
year oil and gas leasing programs under Section 18 of
OCSLA. This ensures consistency with established energy
development plans, minimizing disruptions to leasing
schedules.
H.R. 931 (Rep. Downing), To allow certain Federal minerals to be mined
consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification
Authorizes all Federal coal reserves in Montana leased
under Lease MTM 97988 to be mined in accordance with the
Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification.
H.R. 2250 (Rep. DelBene), ``National Landslide Preparedness Act
Reauthorization Act of 2025''
Reauthorizes NLHRP through FY 2030. Increases the previous
authorization level by $10 million from $25 million to $35
million per year.
Reauthorizes 3DEP through FY 2030. Maintains the previous
authorization level of $40 million per year.
H.R. 2556 (Rep. Hunt), ``Comprehensive Offshore Resource Enhancement
Act of 2025'' or the ``CORE Act of 2025''
SEC. 2. Assessment of Offshore Resources
Transboundary Hydrocarbon Report (Section 2(b)):
Requires the Secretaries of Energy, Interior, and
State to submit a report within 18 months on transboundary
hydrocarbon reservoirs. The report will identify
reservoirs, analyze legal frameworks, evaluate economic and
geopolitical implications, and recommend cooperative
mechanisms with neighboring countries.
Standardized Resource Inventories (Section 2(c)):
Amends 42 U.S.C. Sec. 15912 to mandate the Secretary
of the Interior, in consultation with other agencies, to
conduct offshore resource inventories every five years in
the OCS. Inventories assess undiscovered resources,
economic impacts, national security, and revenue effects of
land withdrawals. This ensures regular, comprehensive data
to guide leasing and policy decisions.
Model Updates and Assessments (Section 2(c)):
Requires the Secretary to assess and update resource
inventory models every 10 years, starting within one year
of enactment, in consultation with industry experts.
SEC. 3. Comparative Analysis of Offshore Practices
Global Offshore Production Analysis:
Mandates a comparative analysis every 10 years of
offshore oil and gas practices in major producing
countries. The analysis covers leasing acres, auction
frequency, production volumes, and resource estimates,
using USGS data and advanced technologies. This informs
U.S. policy by benchmarking against global competitors,
enhancing competitiveness and energy diversification.
H.R. 3168 (Rep. Valadao), ``National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program Reauthorization Act of 2025''
Reauthorizes NEHRP through FY 2030. Maintains the previous
authorization level of $83.4 million per year.
H.R. 3176 (Rep. Begich), To amend the John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to reauthorize the
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System
Reauthorizes NVEWS through FY 2030. Maintains the previous
authorization level of $55 million over 5 years..
V. COST
A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
is not available.
VI. ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION
Unknown.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 513
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_119hr513ih.pdf
H.R. 2250
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_119hr2556ih.pdf
H.R. 2556
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_119hr2556ih.pdf
H.R. 3168
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_h.r._3168.pdf
H.R. 3176
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_119hr3176ih.pdf
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 513, OFFSHORE LANDS AUTHORITIES ACT OF
2025; H.R. 931, TO ALLOW CERTAIN FEDERAL MINERALS TO BE MINED
CONSISTENT WITH THE BULL MOUNTAINS MINING PLAN MODIFICATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2250, NATIONAL LANDSLIDE PREPAREDNESS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025; H.R. 2556, COMPREHENSIVE OFFSHORE RESOURCE
EVALUATION ACT OF 2025, OR THE CORE ACT OF 2025; H.R. 3168, NATIONAL
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025; AND
H.R. 3176, TO AMEND THE JOHN D. DINGELL, JR. CONSERVATION, MANAGEMENT,
AND RECREATION ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL VOLCANO EARLY WARNING
AND MONITORING SYSTEM
----------
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stauber, Hunt, Hageman, Ezell,
Begich, Hurd, Westerman; Ansari, Elfreth, and Rivas.
Also present: Representative Downing, Higgins, Valadao;
DelBene, and Pallone.
Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements and
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Pallone, be allowed to participate in today's hearing; the
gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene, be allowed to
participate in today's hearing; the gentleman from California,
Mr. Valadao, be allowed to participate in today's hearing; the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, be allowed to
participate in today's hearing; and the gentleman from Montana,
Mr. Downing, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss
these important pieces of legislation. The bills we have before
us today address a range of topics, including the Biden
administration's lackluster energy policies that continue to
harm our Nation's energy security, as well as the United States
Geological Survey's Hazardous Missions Area.
H.R. 931, introduced by Representative Downing, would allow
certain Federal coal resources to be mined consistent with the
Bull Mountains Mining Plan modification. Currently, the leased
coal reserves in this mine are set to run out by the end of
this year unless congressional action is taken. The Biden
administration blatantly violated the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, by failing to promptly start the
environmental review process required under the law. Whether
they did so purposefully no longer matters, as Congress must
act to right this wrong and prevent an economic situation in
the surrounding rural communities.
We also have three pieces of legislation to authorize three
different hazards programs at the USGS. The bills include H.R.
2250 from Representative DelBene; H.R. 3168 from Representative
Valadao; and H.R. 3176 from Representative Begich. These bills
would authorize important programs that help save lives and
protect our communities, including the National Landslide
Hazard Reduction Program, or NLHRP; the 3D Elevation Program,
or 3DEP; the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or
NEHRP; and the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring
System, NVEWS. NLHRP and 3DEP play vital roles in mitigating
the effects of natural hazards caused by landslides. NEHRP
established the ShakeAlert application, which provides
earthquake early warnings to Americans living and working on
the West Coast of the United States. NVEWS monitors and warns
communities near and around volcanoes when volcanic activity is
imminent.
Representative Higgins's H.R. 513 limits the ability of the
Federal Government to lock up offshore oil and gas development
which is critical not only for our energy security but also our
strategic national security. This bill addresses a similar
issue to what my constituents have experienced.
I cannot express my disappointment in the Biden
administration's decision to withdraw over 225,000 acres in my
home State of Minnesota, restricting access to the Duluth
Complex, which is the largest untapped copper nickel find in
the world.
Similarly, in the waning days of his administration,
President Biden announced a withdrawal of over 625 million
acres on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Biden
administration's offshore energy lockups, along with their
onshore mineral withdrawals, have cost Americans thousands of
good-paying, often union jobs that are economic drivers in our
respective local communities. These misguided actions threaten
our long-term energy security and only serve to placate radical
environmentalists who wish to divert energy and mining
production overseas.
H.R. 513 nullifies 8 expansive withdrawals from the Arctic
to the Gulf unlocking roughly 40 million barrels of oil and
over 175 trillion cubic feet of gas in these areas, according
to BOEM. Additionally, the bill would cap future withdrawals at
150,000 acres, limit withdrawals to 20 years, and mandate
economic and resource assessments be completed before a
withdrawal may take place.
The last piece is especially important because when
Secretary Haaland banned 225,000 acres of mining in the Duluth
Complex and the Superior National Forest in northeastern
Minnesota, in a Senate hearing, when asked, her comments were,
``I did not think there were critical minerals in there.''
Ladies and gentleman, it's the biggest untapped copper nickel
find in the world, and she signed off to ban, did not even know
what was in that complex. By requiring an economic and resource
assessment prior to withdrawal, future secretaries and future
administrations will know exactly what kind of minerals and
energy resources they are locking up and exactly how their
lockups will hurt the American people and our economy.
Lastly, Representative Hunt's bill, H.R. 2556, or the CORE
Act, would enhance offshore resource assessments with precise
resource mapping. By strengthening the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management assessments, the CORE Act reduces uncertainty,
bolsters U.S. leasing competitiveness, and will deliver
benefits to taxpayers and coastal communities. Together, these
bills shatter arbitrary barriers restoring America's offshore
energy supremacy.
And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these
bills.
Mr. Stauber. And I will now yield to the Ranking Member for
her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. YASSAMIN ANSARI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Ms. Ansari. Good afternoon, everyone. It is nice to see
you, Chair Stauber. I wanted to start off, thank you, with a
special thank you to Dr. Walter Cruickshank for being here
today.
I understand that you are nearing retirement after a four-
decade-plus-long career in public service at the Department of
the Interior, and we are very grateful for your service.
We are here today to discuss six bills in the
Subcommittee's jurisdiction: two on offshore drilling, one on a
controversial coal mine, and three bipartisan United States
Geological Survey hazard program reauthorizations. Let's dive
in, starting with offshore drilling.
I will start by saying clearly: there is no energy
emergency, and we do not need to expand unfettered, unregulated
fossil fuel development. The United States is already producing
more oil and gas than any country in history, and yet energy
costs are still pinching at Americans' pocketbooks. This
phenomenon has a simple explanation: prices are high because
the oil industry does not put America first; they put profits
first.
Big oil is already sitting on nearly 2,000 unused leases in
the Gulf, covering almost 10 million acres of Federal waters,
just waiting for the price per barrel to go up before producing
so they can make more money. Yet, Republicans are giving them
even more control of your coasts and waters with H.R. 513.
This bill overturns Biden and Obama-era protections against
offshore drilling for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, for the
Arctic, and for the Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area, an area
co-managed by Tribes to protect fishing grounds and other
resources. Notably, this bill leaves intact the Trump-era
protections for the coast of North Carolina, the Southeast, and
the Eastern Gulf because Republicans know backlash from their
own party would be unbearable.
And Republicans are not stopping there. To make development
even more enticing, Republicans would have taxpayers subsidize
even more of the cost of doing business, like exploratory
testing. That is what H.R. 2556, the CORE Act, would do,
directing the Federal Government to do risky, harmful seismic
testing across all of our coasts at the taxpayer's expense.
This is on top of $15 billion in direct subsidies that we
already give to the fossil fuel industry every single year.
And meanwhile, this Administration and its friends in
Congress are firing critical agency staff while slashing
budgets to the bone. Our Federal agencies will have to make
hard decisions with their limited resources like choosing
between sending staff out to do safety inspections on oil rigs
or having them do exploratory testing on the industry's behalf.
Is this really how the American people want to spend their own
money, cutting essential safety checks so that we can pay for
big oil's exploration?
Republicans will stop at nothing to give away our public
lands and waters to the dirty fossil fuel industry just hoping
that this time the industry will be nice to us in return. That
is just what is happening in H.R. 931. This bill would
authorize the expansion of the Bull Mountains Mine, which
produces Federal coal in Montana. This mine expansion has been
shot down twice by the courts for insufficient environmental
analysis, and the company that owns the mine has only just
gotten off probation with the Department of Justice. The cherry
on top? The coal mine that this mine produces is exported. It
is not even for American energy. But we know how this ends.
These efforts will not end with lower prices, but with more
pollution, more disease, more climate chaos, and the rich
getting richer while you pay their bills.
I remind my colleagues here and the American public at home
that we do not have to stay stuck in this loop. Fossil fuels
are not our only option. Renewable energy is cheaper and just
as reliable as fossil fuels, and that is without factoring in
the extra cost of cleaning up oil spills or hospital bills for
pollution-induced asthma. We can and we must do better.
Finally, I am happy to support the three natural hazard
reauthorization bills, although I would like to remind my
colleagues across the aisle that we are actively seeing the
President go outside of his authority to kneecap nearly all of
Interior, including the USGS employees who are implementing
these essential programs.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Now I will begin our
member panel to allow bill sponsors to speak on their
legislation. I will now recognize Mr. Hunt from Texas's 38th
congressional district for his testimony on his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WESLEY HUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for joining us today.
In 2011 the Obama administration reported that 162 billion
barrels of oil equivalent were in the Outer Continental Shelf,
the OCS. And in 2016, also during the Obama administration,
BOEM reported 149 barrels of oil equivalent in the OCS. The
difference in undiscovered reserves in the OCS from 2011
through 2015 under President Obama was actually pretty normal.
Let's fast forward to 2021 and BOEM, under the Biden
administration, reported 109 billion barrels of oil equivalent
undiscovered in the OCS, the lowest reported number in decades.
One of the worst-kept secrets in Washington is that Biden's
BOEM was incredibly impartial, even aggressive at times, toward
our domestic oil and gas industry which then begs the question:
Were these 2021 BOEM numbers accurate, or were they another
attempt at harming our energy industry in the Gulf of America?
Following BOEM's reported numbers came the worst 5-year
leasing plan in our Nation's history, offering the fewest
number of offshore oil and gas leases ever. This action left us
with an oil and gas industry that is now scrambling to
reestablish itself as a global leader and meet the market's
demand. And this is why my legislation, the Comprehensive
Offshore Resource Evaluation Act, or the CORE Act, is so
important.
Oil and gas will continue to be an important part of our
energy mix, and not only today and tomorrow, but also in our
near and distant future. And if you think otherwise, you are
simply fooling yourself. Taking politics out of BOEM and giving
it guardrails is imperative to the future of our national
security and energy security.
And lastly, section 4 of the CORE Act relates to geological
and geophysical permitting and surveys which are crucial to the
exploration and development of our offshore oil and gas
resources. Accurate G&G data is essential for identifying
potential deposits, estimating their size, and understanding
their characteristics so that our offshore workers can do their
job. Improving BOEM's data acquisition methods will prompt an
increase in domestic oil production which will bring greater
energy security to our Nation, more affordable energy prices
for all of our families, and lower national trade deficits, and
increased revenue to States for vital coastal restoration and
infrastructure projects.
And just as a reminder, the Gulf of America produces the
cleanest and most efficient barrel of oil found anywhere in the
world. In fact, it is 46 percent less carbon-intensive than oil
produced in Russia, China, and Iran.
The American people deserve an honest oil and gas
assessment process. And with this bill we can deliver for all
American families.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with that I yield
back the rest of my time.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
Begich from Alaska's at-large congressional district for his
testimony on his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK BEGICH III, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak on H.R. 3176, my bill to reauthorize the
National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, or NVEWS.
As the representative for Alaska, where over 50 active
volcanoes define our landscape and daily risk profile, this
legislation is not just timely, it is also essential. Alaska is
home to the vast majority of the Nation's active volcanoes.
These aren't remote curiosities. Many sit beneath international
air routes and near major population centers.
Mount Spurr, located just 80 miles from Anchorage, is
currently in a state of volcanic unrest. It remains at a yellow
alert level as of today due to elevated seismicity, gas
emissions, and ground deformation. While the short-term
eruption risk has slightly decreased since March, an event
similar to those in 1953 or 1992 remains a very real
possibility. This is not a theoretical threat in Alaska. This
is happening now. And if Mount Spurr erupts, ashfall could shut
down aviation, damage critical infrastructure, and pose a
public health emergency.
H.R. 3176 is a straightforward, 5-year reauthorization that
maintains current funding levels. It provides continuity for
the U.S. Geological Survey and its partners to keep operating
and upgrading our volcano monitoring networks. It prioritizes
instrumentation at high-threat volcanoes, ensures rapid data
transmission, and supports real-time coordination with State
agencies and emergency responders, all of which are especially
critical in remote, high-risk States like Alaska.
Volcanic hazards are not hypothetical. They are active and
present. Mount Spurr's activity today underscores the need for
preparedness over complacency. Early warnings save lives,
protect property, and reduce the cost of emergency response. In
Alaska, where terrain, distance, and weather already complicate
disaster logistics, this system gives us a fighting chance.
The National Volcano Early Warning System has always had
bipartisan backing. This reauthorization is a pragmatic,
measured step that k a proven system running without
expanding scope or increasing appropriations.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that
communities living in the shadow of volcanoes, especially in
Alaska, have the tools they need to stay safe.
Mr. Begich. And with that I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. DelBene from
Washington's 1st congressional district for her testimony on
her bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZAN DELBENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the Ranking Member for holding this important hearing and
inviting me to provide testimony on my legislation to
reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness Act.
Landslides kill 20 to 50 people and cause between $2 and $4
billion in damage each year. And unfortunately, this is a
reality that people back in my district know all too well.
Eleven years ago, on March 22, 2014, Washington experienced one
of our Nation's worst natural disasters. In a matter of
seconds, the side of a mountain, a tragic, massive landslide
near Oso, Washington killed 43 people, destroyed an entire
neighborhood of over 40 homes, and severely damaged public
infrastructure and private property. That day forever changed
the people of Oso, Darrington, Arlington, the Stillaguamish and
Sauk-Suiattle Tribes, and they are still living with its scars
today.
I went to Oso immediately after the disaster to support the
community and families who had lost loved ones and their homes.
Our first responders were the true heroes that day, and they
worked countless days and nights trying to save lives and
recover loved ones. These were some of the most heartbreaking
days of my time in office.
Following that tragedy, in 2016, I introduced the National
Landslide Preparedness Act. As the Oso landslide demonstrated,
simply sending aid after a tragic natural disaster is not
enough. We need to invest in programs and research efforts to
prevent future natural disasters from becoming national
tragedies. I worked tirelessly to get the National Landslide
Preparedness Act signed into law in 2021, with the support of
many of you in this room today.
This law established a National Landslide Hazards Reduction
Program through the United States Geological Survey to better
identify and understand landslide risks, protect communities,
save lives and property, and help improve emergency
preparedness. It also authorized the 3D Elevation Program,
which in the past few years has made incredible strides to
update and coordinate the collection of enhanced, high-
resolution, topographical data across the country.
In addition to helping communities plan for and respond to
natural hazards, this data is being used to improve public
safety, national security, infrastructure, agriculture, and
natural resource management. Through this law, we made
significant progress in landslide science, allowing communities
to be better prepared for when landslides do occur. And it
couldn't come soon enough. In recent years we have seen
dramatic increases in extreme weather events. We need to do
everything in our power to make sure that communities across
the country continue to have the tools at their disposal to be
prepared.
The programs authorized by the National Landslide
Preparedness Act expired in September of last year. I was
encouraged that the House passed the legislation last Congress,
but we know that nothing really changes until this bill makes
it to the President's desk. I introduced the reauthorization
bill along with Representatives Schrier, Gluesenkamp Perez,
Newhouse, and most of the Washington delegation to reauthorize
these programs through 2030. This bill has bipartisan and
bicameral support. Senators Cantwell and Murkowski will be
leading the effort in the Senate.
Every State across the country faces landslide risks, which
is why we must reauthorize these critical programs. Thank you
again for the opportunity to speak on the need to reauthorize
the National Landslide Preparedness Act.
Ms. DelBene. And I yield back.
Mr. Ezell [presiding]. We thank the gentlewoman for her
testimony. I now recognize Mr. David Valadao from California's
22nd congressional district for his testimony on his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VALADAO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, and I want to thank the Chairman
Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari for having me. I am here
today in support of my bill, H.R. 3168, the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025.
Every year California faces hundreds of earthquakes, and
more than 70 percent of our State's population lives within 30
miles of a fault line. My district in Central Valley is
surrounded by faults. The San Andreas to the west, the Garlock
to the south, the Sierra Nevada faults to the east create
extreme risk for those living in and around the valley.
Ensuring my constituents in California's 22nd congressional
district are protected from extreme natural disasters, is one
of my top priorities, and this bill is a great first step.
While earthquakes might cause billions of dollars in damage
to infrastructure, the real cost is in the lives lost in these
catastrophes. Investing in critical warning detection systems
like the ShakeAlert and providing researchers with the tools
needed to make scientific break-throughs in earthquake damage
mitigation is crucial to ensuring people are, as safe as
possible.
This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program through Fiscal Year 2030
to provide resources for the development, research, and
implementation of lifesaving earthquake risk reduction and
safety technology.
I am proud to lead this legislation with my California
colleague, Jim Costa, and I want to thank Chairman Stauber and
his staff for their work on this important bill.
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has saved
thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and I look forward
to working with this Committee and our colleagues on the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee to fully reauthorize
this critical program. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I now
recognize Mr. Clay Higgins from Louisiana's 3rd congressional
district for his testimony on this bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAY HIGGINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
Ranking Member for allowing me an opportunity to waive on to
today's Subcommittee hearing.
The production of reliable, transportable, and affordable
energy product is a cornerstone of economic prosperity, and it
is a topic that my bill seeks to address, H.R. 513, the
Offshore Lands Authorities Act.
America has a responsibility to lead the world in the
effort of energy production, and nowhere is the production of
oil and gas energy product cleaner than here in the United
States. Private industry innovations, not heavy-handed
government mandates have allowed the United States to become a
global leader in emissions reduction.
However, my colleagues across the aisle have for decades
sought to align the Federal Government against the oil and gas
and petrochemical industries. In the final days of his
administration, Joe Biden furthered that agenda with the
withdrawal of over 625 million acres of Federal waters from
leasing and potential development. Closing those offshore lands
to energy producers does not change the demand for reliable
energy product, nor does it reduce overall production of oil
and gas on a global scale. What the Biden drilling ban does is
shift energy production to foreign producers, raises energy
costs for American families, and threatens jobs and economic
growth domestically. When President Biden closed 625 million
acres on the Outer Continental shelf to American producers,
there was zero acres closed in Russia and China.
The Federal Government should be a partner to America's
energy industry, not a predator. That is why I introduced H.R.
513, the Offshore Lands Authorities Act, with Congressman Hunt,
who serves on this Subcommittee, and many other conservatives.
Our bill repeals the Biden drilling ban and helps codify the
action President Trump took on day one to unleash America's
potential to produce clean, abundant, and affordable energy.
The Offshore Lands Authorities Act also establishes
guardrails to provide predictability and consistency in future
leasing. The bill safeguards America's role as a leader in
energy production, enacts boundaries on any future land
withdrawal, and increases congressional oversight on decisions
made through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Continued energy exploration and development of offshore
lands requires stability in the leasing process. Radical
pendulum swings driven by political disdain for the oil and gas
industry or support, that swing threatens America's energy and
economic security because it reduces consistency and
reliability in leasing. Congress should take action to protect
responsible energy production, restore production in American
policies, and safeguard access to lease Federal lands and
waters. Our legislation accomplishes this goal, and I encourage
my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 513, the Offshore Land
Authorities Act.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
introduce a letter from Americans for Prosperity in support of
my bill.
Mr. Ezell. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD017.pdf
------
Mr. Higgins. I yield, sir, thank you.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. the Chair now recognizes
the full Committee Chairman, Mr. Bruce Westerman, for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
for holding this hearing and for shepherding these important
bills forward, and Representative Stauber's leadership on that.
You know, U.S. peak energy demand is now projected to grow
by as much as 128 gigawatts through 2029, which is a fivefold
increase from earlier forecasts. Now more than ever, long-term
American energy dominance is essential to our economic and our
national security. To meet this skyrocketing energy demand we
must increase energy production everywhere, including on our
Federal lands and waters.
While the Federal Government owns 61 percent of America's
onshore and 99 percent of America's offshore mineral estate,
only 25 percent of domestic oil and 11 percent of domestic
natural gas come from Federal lands and waters. Responsibly
utilizing these resources is critical to America's social and
economic future.
H.R. 2556, the CORE Act of 2025, introduced by
Representative Hunt, would help address these concerns by
transforming how we map America's offshore energy wealth. The
CORE Act mandates state-of-the-art tools such as artificial
intelligence, quantum computing, and seismic surveys to locate
and assess oil, gas, and minerals like polymetallic nodules and
ferromanganese crust.
The bill also requires offshore resource inventories every
5 years, evaluating jobs, global market impacts, and withdrawal
effects while fostering collaboration with neighbors like
Canada, studying shared reservoirs, and settling border
disputes diplomatically. This analysis will sharpen our
competitive edge and ensure U.S. leasing practices are
attractive and are attracting investment, not sending producers
overseas.
H.R. 513, introduced by Representative Higgins from
Louisiana, would also support long-term energy dependence by
lifting overly expansive offshore withdrawals, ensuring access
to offshore resources for future generations. H.R. 513 would
also set common-sense limits on the size and duration of any
future offshore withdrawals, guarding against unilateral
decisions that weaken America's energy future.
Together, these bills empower America with clear-eyed
strategic energy policies for a resilient, thriving future.
Representative Downing's H.R. 931 would finally allow
access to Federal coal reserves at the Bull Mountain Mine in
Montana. The Bull Mountain Mine in Roundup, Montana, has been
mired in litigation and procedural hurdles for over a decade.
This is a perfect case study of how our permitting processes
are failing everyday Americans, and why we need permitting
reform along with judicial reform, and we need that badly.
Congressional action must now be taken due to major judicial
and administrative delays that have jeopardized this mine and
the livelihoods of over 300 hard-working people in Montana.
The three other bills before us today would reauthorize
several critical programs in the United States Geological
Survey's Hazard missions area.
Representative DelBene's H.R. 2250 would reauthorize the
National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program and the 3D
Elevation Program, which allows USGS to gather data that
enables States and communities to reduce damages in the event
of a landslide.
H.R. 3168, introduced by Representative Valadao, would
reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program,
which aims to manage the impacts of earthquakes on life,
property, and the economy by providing critical data for
building codes and supporting an earthquake early warning
system.
H.R. 3176, introduced by Representative Begich, would
reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring
System, through which the USGS monitors the most active and
hazardous volcanoes to give ample time to evacuate nearby
communities.
It is impossible to prevent a landslide, an earthquake, or
a volcanic eruption, so the best course of action is to prepare
the community in the event of a disaster and send early
warnings to those in the affected area to give them precious
time to react before disaster strikes. These programs have
already demonstrated the ability to save lives through advanced
building codes being developed by Federal agencies, and the
USGS has proven it can mitigate the economic impact from these
through advances in early warning and monitoring systems.
I look forward to hearing the remainder of the testimony
from our witnesses.
Mr. Westerman. And I yield back.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr.
Troy Downing from Montana's 2nd congressional district for his
testimony on his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TROY DOWNING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Downing. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in
support of H.R. 931. This is legislation I introduced to
protect Montana jobs and preserve one of the most important
economic anchors in my district, the Bull Mountains Mine. This
is not a theoretical problem. This is a real crisis unfolding
in real time for over 250 workers and their families in
Musselshell and Yellowstone County. Without action from
Congress, Montana's only underground coal mine could be forced
to shut down by the end of the year.
The Bull Mountains Mine is a major contributor to Montana's
economy and local tax base. Its operations support hundreds of
high-paying jobs, and the revenue it generates helps fund our
schools, county governments, and infrastructure. In recent
years it has contributed tens of millions of dollars in tax
revenue and invested significantly in local services and
scholarships. This is a home-grown operation that supports the
long-term well-being of the community around it.
Right now, the longwall mine is up against a wall, not
because of a market failure or a drop in demand, but because of
a bureaucratic bottleneck. The company has been seeking Federal
clearance to continue mining in AM3, amendment three, which
contains a mix of Federal, State, and private coal. This land
pattern is complicated, but the issue is simple. Because the
Federal coal lies along State and private tracks in a
checkerboard pattern, access to one is dependent on access to
the others. When access to the Federal coal is blocked, the
rest becomes inaccessible as well.
Due to Federal court ruling, the mine is currently barred
from producing Federal coal in amendment three until an updated
environmental impact statement is completed. Now, this process
was supposed to be done by now, but it is behind schedule, and
the clock is ticking. If the mine cannot access this coal soon,
the operation will have to shut down. That means families in
Roundup, Billings, and nearby towns will lose their paychecks.
It means school districts will lose a key source of revenue,
and it means Montana will lose its only underground coal mine.
H.R. 931 offers a narrowly tailored solution. The bill
allows mining on a limited section of Federal land to keep the
mine running while the Federal review process continues. It
does not roll back environmental protections or shortcut
oversight. The mine remains subject to State and Federal
regulations, and every ton of coal will be mined under the same
safety and environmental standards already in place.
This bill is about saving jobs and protecting a community
that has done everything by the book. The mine has gone through
years of environmental reviews, spent millions to meet
regulatory requirements, and made every good faith effort to
stay in compliance with Federal law. What it needs now is a
clear path to keep operating while the Federal Government
finishes its paperwork.
Now, the stakes are high. Mining in the AM3 lease area has
already been disrupted. Private coal seams are nearly
exhausted, workers are being idled, and there is no backup plan
if the mine closes. The region cannot afford to lose this
economic driver, and the workers cannot afford to be left
waiting on yet another delay.
H.R. 931 has broad local support. It is backed by State
leaders and community members who understand just how important
this mine is to our part of the country. They know this
legislation is the only way to keep the mine operational in the
short term. This is a simple solution to a solvable problem.
I urge the Committee to act swiftly to advance this bill.
Let's make sure these workers stay on the job, their families
stay in their homes, and their communities stay strong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields back. I thank the gentleman
for his testimony. We will now move to our second panel, which
is comprised of one witness.
Let me remind the witness that, under Committee rules, they
must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press talk, the talk button
on the microphone.
We are using timing lights. In my previous life, I
explained the red light system to a lot of people driving
across south Mississippi, but today it will be just a little
different. So, when using these lights, you will begin with the
turn to green. When you have 1 minute remaining the light will
turn yellow. At the end of the 5 minutes the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
Dr. Cruickshank, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Cruickshank. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ansari, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Comprehensive Offshore
Resource Evaluation Act and the Offshore Islands Authorities
Act of 2025. The Department has also submitted statements for
the record on the other bills you are considering today.
From his first day in office, President Trump has
prioritized a revitalization of domestic energy production to
stimulate economic growth and strengthen our national security.
His executive order, Unleashing American Energy, reaffirms the
national interest in maximizing the use of affordable, reliable
domestic energy resources. The order establishes a clear policy
directive to promote energy exploration and production on
Federal lands and waters, including the Outer Continental
Shelf, to meet the needs of the American people and solidify
U.S. global energy leadership for generations to come.
As the Federal OCS steward, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management plays a central role in implementing this policy.
Our mission is to manage the development of the Nation's
offshore energy and mineral resources in an economically and
environmentally responsible manner.
Offshore energy development is a vital component of U.S.
national security, and a critical driver of American
prosperity. Offshore activities support hundreds of thousands
of jobs and provide a significant share of U.S. energy
production. Last month, at the direction of Secretary of the
Interior Doug Burgum, BOEM issued a request for information and
comments, the first step in the development of the 11th
National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The request for
interest marks the beginning of a multi-year process that
involves robust public engagement and multiple rounds of
detailed analysis for the Secretary to consider while rendering
his final program decision.
While we remain committed to completing the three Gulf of
America lease sales outlined in the current national OCS
program, we are moving forward with developing a new schedule
that aligns with the President's directive to maximize the use
of OCS energy resources. BOEM conducts a national assessment of
undiscovered, technically recoverable resources and
undiscovered economically recoverable resources every 5 years.
This assessment informs energy policy, including development of
the national OCS program, and contributes to the comprehensive
inventory reports submitted to Congress. BOEM's most recent
assessment, completed in 2021, estimated mean, undiscovered,
technically recoverable volumes of almost 69 billion barrels of
oil and 229 trillion cubic feet of natural gas across the
entire Outer Continental Shelf. Preparations for the 2026
assessment are underway, incorporating the latest geologic,
geophysical, and economic data to ensure accuracy and
transparency.
The CORE Act of 2025 aims to strengthen U.S. national
energy security by modernizing, excuse me, by mandating
standardized, recurring assessment and mapping of offshore
energy resources. It calls for the modernization and
coordination of exploration methodologies, and supports the
development of data-driven policies that promote safe,
efficient, and responsible resource development.
BOEM welcomes the objectives of the CORE Act and recognizes
the value of enhanced interagency coordination and improved
transparency in offshore resource evaluation. BOEM would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and the
bill's sponsor on technical aspects of the bill.
The Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 seeks to restore
access to approximately 625 million acres that prior executive
action had withdrawn from energy development.
As drafted, the Act would nullify certain OCS withdrawals
put in place by former Presidents Obama and Biden, and
subsequently rescinded by President Trump. The Act also places
limitations on future withdrawals by placing limits on how much
acreage a president can withdraw, limiting the time frame of
future withdrawals to no more than 20 years, and ensuring that
such decisions are grounded in thorough geological, economic,
and national security assessments.
BOEM strongly supports overturning the OCS administrative
withdrawals that unnecessarily impede American energy
development and generally supports the intent of the Offshore
Lands Authorities Act to establish a more predictable framework
for offshore resource management to enhance regulatory
certainty, encourage investment, and promote long-term planning
in offshore energy development.
As BOEM carries out its mission, we remain committed to
meeting the high standards of this administration and Congress.
Expanding offshore energy capabilities is vital to providing
affordable energy for American consumers, creating high-paying
jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign adversaries.
On a personal note, I have lost count of the number of
times I have sat at this table over the years, but this will
likely be my last. It has always been an honor to appear before
this Subcommittee and to work with its staff, and I am
sincerely grateful for the support the Subcommittee has
provided to our various programs to ensure that the Nation's
energy and mineral resources are responsibly managed to the
benefit of the American people.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cruickshank follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Walter D. Cruickshank, Acting Director,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss H.R. 2556, Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation (CORE)
Act of 2025, and H.R. 513, Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025.
From his first day in office, President Trump has prioritized the
revitalization of domestic energy production to stimulate economic
growth and strengthen our national security. His Executive Order 14154,
Unleashing American Energy, reaffirms the national interest in
maximizing the use of affordable, reliable domestic energy resources.
The order establishes a clear policy directive: to promote energy
exploration and production on federal lands and waters, including the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), to meet the needs of the American people
and solidify U.S. global energy leadership for generations to come.
As the federal OCS steward, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) plays a central role in implementing this policy. Our mission is
to manage the development of the Nation's offshore energy and mineral
resources in an economically and environmentally responsible manner. We
achieve this through leasing and plan approval programs for offshore
oil, gas, and marine minerals, ensuring that resource development is
balanced with environmental stewardship and public engagement.
By expanding access to OCS energy resources, BOEM supports the
Administration's goal of strengthening domestic energy security,
creating high-quality jobs, and bolstering American energy
independence.
Offshore Oil and Gas Development
Offshore energy development is a vital component of U.S. national
security and a critical driver of American prosperity. Offshore
activities support hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide a
significant share of U.S. energy production.
Last month, at the direction of Secretary of the Interior Doug
Burgum, BOEM issued a Request for Information and Comments (an RFI),
the first step in the development of the 11th National OCS Oil and Gas
Leasing Program. The RFI marks the beginning of a multi-year process
that involves robust public engagement and multiple rounds of detailed
analysis for the Secretary to consider when rendering his final Program
decision.
While we remain committed to completing the three Gulf of America
lease sales outlined in the current 2024-2029 National OCS Program, we
are moving forward with developing a new schedule that aligns with the
President's directive to maximize the use of OCS energy resources.
As of May 1, 2025, BOEM manages over 2,200 active offshore oil and
gas leases, covering approximately 12 million acres. In Fiscal Year
2024, these leases generated $7 billion in revenue, produced
approximately 667.5 million barrels of oil and 700 billion cubic feet
of natural gas, accounting for 14% of domestic oil production and 2% of
natural gas production--predominantly from the Gulf of America.
National Resource Assessments
BOEM conducts a formal National Assessment of Undiscovered
Technically Recoverable Resources (UTRR) and Undiscovered Economically
Recoverable Resources (UERR) every five years. This assessment informs
energy policy and contributes to the comprehensive inventory reports
submitted to Congress.
UTRR estimates reflect undiscovered volumes of oil and gas that
could be produced using conventional technologies, while UERR
represents the subset considered economically viable under current
market and technological conditions.
BOEM's most recent assessment, completed in 2021, estimated a mean
UTRR volume of 68.79 billion barrels of oil and 229.03 trillion cubic
feet of gas across the entire OCS. Preparations for the 2026 assessment
are already underway, incorporating the latest geologic, geophysical,
and economic data to ensure accuracy and transparency.
Earlier this year, BOEM announced a significant increase in
discovered oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of America OCS. BOEM's
updated assessment evaluated over 140 oil and gas fields, identifying
18 new discoveries and analyzing more than 37,000 reservoirs across
1,336 fields in the Gulf. This comprehensive review added 1.30 billion
barrels of oil equivalent since 2021, bringing the total discovered
reserve estimate to 7.04 billion barrels of oil equivalent. This
includes 5.77 billion barrels of oil and 7.15 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas--a 22.6% increase in remaining recoverable reserves.
CORE Act of 2025
The Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act of 2025 aims to
strengthen U.S. national energy security by mandating a standardized
recurring assessment and mapping of offshore energy resources. It calls
for the modernization and coordination of exploration methodologies and
supports the development of data-driven policies that promote safe,
efficient, and responsible resource development.
BOEM welcomes the objectives of the CORE Act and recognizes the
value of enhanced interagency coordination and improved transparency in
offshore resource evaluation. BOEM would welcome the opportunity to
work with the Subcommittee and sponsor on technical aspects of the
bill.
Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025
The Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 seeks to restore access
to approximately 625 million acres that prior executive actions had
withdrawn from energy development. As drafted, the Act would nullify
certain OCS withdrawals put in place by former Presidents Obama and
Biden and subsequently rescinded by President Trump. The Act also
places limitations on future withdrawals by (1) capping any individual
withdrawal at 150,000 acres; (2) limiting the timeframe of future
withdrawals to no more than 20 years; and (3) ensuring that such
decisions are grounded in thorough geological, economic, and national
security assessments. The Act would also limit each President to no
more than a cumulative 500,000 acres of total withdrawals without
obtaining Congressional approval.
BOEM strongly supports overturning the OCS administrative
withdrawals that unnecessarily impede American energy development, and
generally supports the intent of the Offshore Lands Authorities Act to
establish a more predictable framework for offshore resource management
to enhance regulatory certainty, encourage investment, and promote
long-term planning in offshore energy development.
Conclusion
As BOEM carries out its mission, we remain committed to meeting the
high standards of this Administration and Congress. Expanding offshore
energy capabilities is vital to providing affordable energy for
American consumers, creating high-paying jobs, and reducing our
dependence on foreign adversaries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Daniel Webster to Dr.
Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Walter Cruickshank did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Florida's first offshore pipeline--more than 580 miles
long, including 431 miles underwater--delivers up to 1.1 billion cubic
feet of clean-burning natural gas every day, enough to power 4.5
million homes. It was built by 2,500 workers over the course of a year
and is a major backbone of our state's energy reliability. Given that a
majority of this supply comes from offshore production in the central
and western Gulf, don't you think it's critical that we maintain
accurate and science-based assessments of those offshore resources, as
required in the CORE Act, to ensure Florida's continued access to
affordable and reliable energy?
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Sarah Elfreth to Dr.
Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Walter Cruickshank did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. The Department of Defense published a report in 2015
entitled DoD Mission Compatibility Planning Assessment: BOEM 2017-2022
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program. Has
BOEM received an updated report from the Department of Defense on
offshore leasing related to military installations? If so, please
attach a copy.
Question 2. BOEM and the Department of the Defense operate under a
Memorandum of Understanding on waters adjacent to military
installations. What is the status of the most recent MOU?
Question 3. In this current planning cycle, what is the timeline
for engagement with the Department of the Defense?
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Yassamin Ansari to Dr.
Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Walter Cruickshank did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Dr. Cruickshank, in response to my question during the
hearing for an update on how many staff at the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management have taken the buyout or early retirement offers, you
responded ``in the neighborhood of 100 people''. Could you please
provide a more detailed response on the number of people who have taken
the buyout, early retirement offers, or been fired at BOEM since the
beginning of this administration? What proportion of total BOEM staff
does that comprise? What program functions did these staff cover? Are
there plans to backfill these vacancies and if so, which ones?
Question 2. In response to my question about your engagement with
DOGE employees, you responded that your engagement was largely focused
on contracts and which contracts should be terminated and which should
be continued. Who had the final decision-making authority on contract
continuation, BOEM or DOGE? Can you provide a more detailed description
of the process for deciding which contracts to terminate, a full list
of the terminated contracts, and the provided justification for
termination?
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Jared Huffman to Dr.
Walter Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Walter Cruickshank did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. President Trump's January 20th memorandum, ``Temporary
Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore
Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing and
Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,'' (90 FR 8363) claims ``various
alleged legal deficiencies underlying the Federal Government's leasing
and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects'' and ``potential
inadequacies in various environmental reviews required by the National
Environmental Policy Act to lease or permit wind projects''. Please
identify the alleged legal deficiencies and potential inadequacies in
environmental reviews.
Question 2. The review of the offshore wind leasing and permitting
process initiated by this memorandum has been underway for over four
months with no substantive updates. How is BOEM proceeding with this
review, what is the agency considering in its review, and what is the
expected timeline for completion?
______
Mr. Ezell. Thank you sir and thank you for your service to
this country. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
assessment.
Doctor, would you mind just speaking to what the,
respectful of inquiries from across the aisle and sort of the
narrative of opening up leasing, one of the common refrains
that we address at town halls and et cetera is that, what about
the claim that some leases remain unused?
And I have to clarify regarding the inconsistency and that
the withdrawal of lands had created, and the requirement for
reliable commitment and contractually with exploration and
potential extraction, there is time and money involved here,
and it is not easy to move forward with a lease if there is no
stability in the considered areas.
And so, the investment to explore, identify, and extract
requires a stable leasing environment. And from your position,
I realize you would be limited perhaps in how you can speak to
this, but I would like you to address that, the difference
between where we were and where we are going with the stability
of offshore leasing and what it would mean to the American
energy industry and therefore to the American economy.
Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, sir, I will start by saying that the
information on leases we make available identifies the number
of leases that have been issued and the numbers that are
producing. That does not mean the non-producing leases do not
have activity on them. There is a great deal of work that goes
into bringing a lease to the point where it can produce in
terms of exploring what is underneath the seabed; understanding
what is on the seabed, as well; drilling wells to determine if
there is anything underground; and additional wells to fully
delineate any discovery. And only then beginning to design what
a development project may look like. So, it can take 5 to 10 or
more years to bring a lease into production.
And so many of the non-producing leases actually have quite
a lot of activity on them, and others are part of companies'
portfolios that would allow them to act based on new
information and new technologies as they become available.
To compare where we were to where we are, we are currently
implementing the 5-year leasing program of the previous
administration that called for three lease sales in the Gulf of
America across 5 years. The President has made it clear that he
does not believe that is a sufficient number of lease sales,
and we have started the process to develop a new schedule of
oil and gas leasing.
I cannot say at this time how many lease sales will be in
that program. That is something that will be determined over
the course of the process. But we are undergoing the process
now to put together a new schedule.
Mr. Higgins. It is a fascinating business to, when you
really study what is required by the industry to explore and
identify fields, and then to prepare for extraction, and then
extraction and transport, it takes a lot to move our energy
product from the, you know, far below the surface of the of
ocean floor to a reliable and clean and affordable and abundant
product in our homes and in our vehicles. And the stability of
the leasing environment is crucial for that journey to begin.
And I would ask you to just comment, because of your
background, you know people in the industry. And what is the
level of confidence now, since January, and with the enactment
of bills like my bill, H.R. 513, to restabilize and to secure
the leasing environment? What is the level of optimism in the
American energy industry?
Dr. Cruickshank. I believe the oil and gas industry is
optimistic. They have been very much engaged with us since
January in sharing their opinions of things they think ought to
be done, and providing their input, and really saying that they
are pleased about the direction things seem to be headed.
Mr. Higgins. I concur, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I thank you
again for allowing me to waive on, and I yield.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the Ranking Member also for inviting me to participate today.
I should say that I served on this Committee for almost 30
years, and I looked around at the name plates. I don't think
anybody was on the Committee when I started in 1988, so it is
nice to be back.
But today's hearing on H.R. 513, the Offshore Lands
Authorities Act, is of critical importance to my district at
the Jersey Shore. You see, the waters off New Jersey and all
the Atlantic states from Florida to Maine are protected from
oil and gas drilling right now. And this happened because both
Presidents Trump and Biden recognized the vital importance of
the East Coast's existing economy to the well-being of
Americans nationwide. And the Atlantic coast relies on a clean
and thriving marine environment. It is basically the foundation
for major industry and for small businesses in our State, and
the Atlantic coast beaches and bays are where we take our
families to recreate and relax. We are obviously looking
forward to Memorial Day weekend.
But the Jersey Shore's economy and way of life depends on a
clean environment, but that is not just New Jersey. In every
East Coast State residents have agreed that offshore oil and
gas development does not belong on the Atlantic coast. And we
saw what happened years ago with the BP oil spill, where the
Gulf Coast tourism was really destroyed for a long time, and
the spill actually went all the way around the Florida's East
Coast.
And at the end of his first term, President Trump used the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Authority Act to protect Florida
to North Carolina from oil and gas development. I think that
was a good thing. But one oil spill, even in North Carolina,
would destroy New Jersey's fishing and tourism industry. So,
President Biden went even further, and protected the Atlantic.
And again, this was a good thing.
The problem is that H.R. 513 revokes all the withdrawals
ordered by Presidents Biden and Obama, even though it leaves in
place the withdrawal from North Carolina to Florida that was
ordered by President Trump. And of course, I oppose it, because
right now, all of the Atlantic coast is closed to offshore oil
and gas drilling. So, I wanted to ask the director, really, two
questions.
And you can answer them together separately if you like,
sir. In the recently posted 5-year oil and gas leasing plan
documents shared with the public by BOEM, it calls for new
seismic surveys in the Atlantic. So, Dr. Cruickshank, wanted to
ask two questions.
Is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management planning to issue
permits for seismic testing for offshore oil and gas in the
Atlantic, which, of course, I oppose?
And then second, can you commit that the Bureau will not
include offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Atlantic in the
next 5-year plan?
Those are my two questions.
Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Congressman, and I have been at
this table while you were a member of the Committee, so I
remember conversing with you before.
But at the current time we have no permits before us
seeking to do seismic activity in the Atlantic. And if at any
time we receive such a permit, we would review it under our
standard practices. But there is nothing pending right now.
With respect to future lease sales, we are just starting
the process of getting public input on the development of a new
program. There is a lot of work to go before the Secretary even
proposes his first schedule of possible lease sales. And there
will be three set schedules put out before a program is
finalized. So, it is far too premature to be able to talk about
what may be in or not in the next program.
Mr. Pallone. Well, I guess what I don't understand, I am
going to ask you a third question now, is if right now the law
says there is no offshore oil and gas leasing permitted on the
Atlantic coast, why would you even entertain, if someone came
forth asking for a permit for seismic testing or to do offshore
oil and gas sales lease, why would you even entertain that,
given that the current law says that those are not allowed?
Dr. Cruickshank. Under the OCS Lands Act, when we start the
process we provide the Secretary information on every planning
area, regardless of its current legal status, so that he can do
the balancing that is called for under that act in coming up
with his proposals.
We also know that the status of any particular area can
change. Obviously, we would not hold a lease sale in an area
where the law says we cannot do so, but the Secretary has the
ability to consider the potential of areas just in case the
legal standing of areas changes over time.
Mr. Pallone. Well, my time is almost up, Mr. Chairman, but
I just want to say again that the possibility of either seismic
testing or the drilling is extremely alarming to me, and I know
to my constituents, and we would obviously oppose it.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. I now recognize myself for
5 minutes.
After the past few months, the United States is finally
seeing positive change to unleashing our country's energy
production. From the harmful Biden EOs we are overturning and
new policies coming out of the Trump administration through
today's hearing, jobs are being restored, businesses are
beginning to thrive again, and we are on track to energy
independence once again. Our Nation will no longer be dependent
on foreign adversaries for our everyday necessities.
Dr. Cruickshank, you state in your testimony that 1.3
billion barrels of oil have been added after realizing new
reserves across fields in the Gulf of America. How is it from
2021 to 2025 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, added
1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent, but from 2016 to 2021
reports issued under Biden that BOEM seems to have lost 18
billion barrels and 86 trillion cubic feet of gas?
Dr. Cruickshank. Mr. Chairman, the two numbers are a little
bit like comparing apples to oranges.
Voice. Turn your mic on.
Dr. Cruickshank. The increase of the, I am sorry, Mr.
Chairman, it is a little bit like comparing apples and oranges,
the two sets of numbers. The first numbers you were talking
about talked about the proven reserves, the amount of oil that
had actually been discovered over time, and we took a look at
the various new discoveries across the Gulf of Mexico in
particular and found that those discoveries had proven 1.3
billion barrels of oil equivalent since 2021. But that is based
on the actual drilling results and discoveries.
The other number you were talking about was an estimate of
undiscovered resources, things that had yet to be found. The
last national assessment that was done of undiscovered
resources took a look at all the latest information, and was
smaller than the one before, in part because of discoveries
that moved things from the undiscovered bucket to the
discovered bucket, but in part also because there were a lot of
disappointing exploration results in the 5 years since the
previous assessment which caused our geologists and experts to
think some of the plays may not be as prolific as they had
previously estimated.
But recognize those estimates are a snapshot in time. As we
get more information from additional drilling, as new
technologies become available that make more things technically
recoverable that may not be now, those numbers can change a
great deal. And as an example of that, I will note that when I
first started out there was nothing in more than about 400
meters of water considered technically recoverable. But we now
know that much deeper waters are the source of the majority of
production in the Gulf of America.
Mr. Ezell. In four years, you found 1.3 billion barrels of
oil equivalent from recoverable reserves. But in 5 years of
Democrat-led reports, BOEM lost 14.8 trillion barrels of oil
equivalent. Are you telling me that 14 billion barrels of oil
were produced from 2016 to 2021?
Dr. Cruickshank. No, sir. That is simply a reduction in our
estimate of what remained to be discovered on the OCS. There
were bits of it that were discovered, but more of it had to do
with the disappointing exploration results and some of the
plays, leading archeologists to estimate that they had less
potential than they previously thought.
Mr. Ezell. Did the hydrocarbon seep out of the ocean floor?
Dr. Cruickshank. There are natural s in the ocean, but
that has nothing to do with the estimates that were made.
Mr. Ezell. My main question is can political appointees
provide input in these report's findings before they are
published?
Dr. Cruickshank. Generally, no, that does not occur.
Mr. Ezell. Could a Biden administration official have said,
let's take the lowest estimate possible and make that our
number?
Dr. Cruickshank. We received no such input. Our experts put
together a range, and the number that you were quoting was the
mean of that range of estimates.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
Ms. Elfreth, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by agreeing with many of the concerns
addressed by my colleague from New Jersey, particularly as we
talk about seismic testing and offshore drilling, the
potential, very real potential, for environmental harm, based
on what we know happened in the Gulf of Mexico.
I also want to just say that neither of these two bills
would guarantee that any of the oil and gas produced from this
offshore drilling would actually benefit the energy or the
pocketbooks of my constituents.
But I want to hone in here, Mr. Cruickshank, on a very real
national security threat I view that these bills pose. First,
though, I do want to thank you for being here and thank you for
your decades-long career in public service. And I hope this
might be the last time I see you, but I thank you for, an early
congratulations on your retirement.
But during this Committee's reconciliation markup just a
few weeks ago I offered an amendment that would ensure any
offshore oil and gas leases were not offered in areas
designated by the Department of Defense as an impediment to
military readiness and national security. And it is pretty
simple why. Even if everything on a drilling site goes
according to plan, the mere presence of these rigs and the
pollution they produce could cause immediate threats to our
service members, and that is just not a risk I am willing to
take.
Mr. Cruickshank, in 2015 the Department of Defense issued a
report entitled, ``DOD Mission Compatibility Planning
Assessment in BOEM 2017 to 2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Leasing Draft Proposed Program.''
Mr. Chair, I would like to submit a copy of this report for
the record.
Mr. Ezell. Without objection.
[The report follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD016.pdf
------
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you.
In this report the DOD analyzed offshore lease blocks,
analyzed each block's role in activities critical for military
readiness and national security, and determined what, if any,
level of drilling activity can be done without impeding their
work. Mr. Cruickshank, are you familiar with the report I just
referenced?
Dr. Cruickshank. I did see it at the time. I don't remember
the details.
Ms. Elfreth. OK. Well, I am happy to dig in here. Our
military relies on obviously accessible and unimpeded waterways
to conduct military exercises and, again, if needed, defend our
country from attack. So, Mr. Cruickshank, is Interior or BOEM
implementing any of the recommendations from this report?
I know you are kind of familiar, but in the recent work
have you been matching these or implementing the
recommendations from this report into what you are working on
right now?
Dr. Cruickshank. What we do at the start of the development
of any 5-year program is we reach out to the Department of
Defense and get their input as it exists today, because from
year to year their needs change and their requirements change.
So, we will work closely with them in understanding what areas
are of concern to them.
Ms. Elfreth. Have you heard from them in this recent go-
round?
Dr. Cruickshank. No. Right now, we just have our first
round of public comment out. But before we publish any sort of
schedule, we will be getting input from them.
Ms. Elfreth. OK. Mr. Chair, just again for the record, I
have areas under consideration from BOEM's website and there is
no current mention of military defense or even input from the
Navy. Could I submit this for the record, please?
Mr. Ezell. Without objection.
[The report follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
/https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD015.pdf
------
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you.
Due to the necessary and sensitive work of military
installations, all the blocks, as I mentioned, that overlay
east and west coasts are classified by DOD in this report, are
either requiring total prohibition or very specific conditions
for those leasings. Mr. Cruickshank, does Interior or BOEM
intend to follow the recommendations from the 2015 study?
Or, if you do get new recommendations based on this current
DOD, what is the plan to follow those recommendations?
Dr. Cruickshank. We will work with the Department of
Defense to understand what the requirements are now, to
understand what areas are truly incompatible and what is going
to be, and which can be addressed through mitigation, and we
will work with them to put forward a proposal for public
consideration.
Ms. Elfreth. OK. I would like to request, Mr. Chair, that
Mr. Cruickshank keep us, this Subcommittee, involved in those
discussions as they can move forward, either in writing or in
person.
Mr. Ezell. Yes.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you very much. OK.
So again, just, this is of deep concern for all the reasons
I mentioned, but this needs to be a priority for this
administration. Again, we cannot sacrifice our national
security or our readiness for offshore drilling that, again,
poses other challenges. It is my sincere hope that the
administration will implement either the 2015 plan, which I
think is very thoroughly executed, or any updates to that plan
that, again, meet our critical need for readiness.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
Mr. Stauber [presiding]. OK, I will yield to Representative
Hurd 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Cruickshank, good afternoon. H.R. 2556 would require
BOEM to modernize its offshore resource assessments by using AI
and seismic surveys and other advanced tools not only to better
estimate energy and critical mineral resources, but also to
project the economic benefits of development like job creation
and Federal or State revenues. Outdated models risk under-
estimating resources, which could lead to less interest in
lease sales in these areas and discourage investment in the
United States.
Can you talk to us about how the CORE Act's requirement for
peer-reviewed modern analyses help quantify the full economic
value of offshore development, particularly in terms of GDP,
job creation, and billions in potential State and Federal
revenue?
Dr. Cruickshank. I believe what the peer-reviewed, the CORE
Act called for is over the geologic modeling itself in coming
up with the estimates, and that is something we are accustomed
to doing. We have gone to the Society of Petroleum Engineers
before to have their expert committees peer review our
methodologies for coming up with those resource estimates.
The models that we use then to estimate economic benefits
that may come from development of those resources are made
publicly available, usually through the development of the 5-
year program, and we receive comments from across the board on
those.
Mr. Hurd. Could this lead to more targeted and economically
strategic leasing decisions?
Dr. Cruickshank. Better information can always assist us in
making better decisions.
Mr. Hurd. OK. And in what areas, geographic or
technological, do you see the greatest potential for unlocking
resources?
Dr. Cruickshank. Well, right now, if you look at where we
have estimated the undiscovered resources to be, the majority
are in the Gulf of America or offshore Alaska.
Mr. Hurd. And can you think of any new strategies that BOEM
could use to unlock untapped offshore assets and strengthen
America's position in global markets?
Dr. Cruickshank. Generally, the main tool at our disposal
is to make areas available for the private industry to explore.
Mr. Hurd. OK. Thank you very much for your testimony today,
and congratulations on this being your final hearing.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Rivas from California's 29th district.
You are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me.
As we saw during our reconciliation markup, my Republican
colleagues and President Trump are pushing for at least 30
offshore oil and gas lease sales over the next 15 years, and 6
lease sales off the coast of Alaska. They are ripping away
sorely-needed funding to agencies like BOEM and NOAA which
provide resources and research for our local economies and
ensure our environment is protected for all. They are stripping
away the ability of judicial review and key provisions of NEPA
that give underserved communities a voice. They are even
mandating a protest filing fee if any member from these
communities has an issue with their projects.
These efforts are just some of many meant to dirty our
water, pollute our air, and silence our communities. I think
about what this means for frontline environmental justice
communities like mine in the San Fernando Valley, those in the
Central Valley of California, and in Cancer Alley on the Gulf
Coast. Can you commit to ensuring comprehensive community
consultation on the oil and gas leases that BOEM will oversee.
Yes, or no?
Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, the program development process
really requires robust public participation throughout. There
are three different periods where we get public input on what
we should be looking at and what we should be analyzing, and we
take those comments very seriously.
Ms. Rivas. So, you are saying that there will continue to
be community input in environmental justice communities around
these leases, oil and gas leases.
Dr. Cruickshank. All of the public, all communities are
welcome to participate as we develop the next program.
Ms. Rivas. OK. You know, I think that, for decades, these
communities have been burdened with these hazardous industries,
with high cancer and asthma rates. I think it is very important
to continue to allow the communities to speak out and not
shorten this process in any way, or for there to be a way to
get out of it like I felt was happening during our markup in
the bill. And, you know, I just want to make sure that, you
know, we take these communities' input into consideration on
these issues.
So, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize our
Ranking Member, Representative Ansari, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
Dr. Cruickshank, I would like to ask about some extremely
concerning reports out of the Gulf about a recent major oil
spill. According to CBS news a leak was first reported as a
``well blowout,'' with witnesses later describing a geyser of
oil shooting 30 to 40 feet into the air. The same reporting
raises serious concerns about how DOGE cuts could hurt oil
spill response. We have one of these former NOAA staff members
from the Emergency Response Division here today to testify on
the next panel.
Since the beginning of this year, reporting has found that
around 2,000 employees from NOAA have been laid off or taken
early retirement, including members of the team who directly
respond to oil spills. Beyond NOAA, I am extremely concerned
with the huge numbers of staff at the Department of the
Interior who have taken the deferred resignation program, and
reports that Tyler Hassen, a former oil field services
executive and member of DOGE, is managing plans to conduct
these large-scale layoffs. These are staff that run essential
programs and services like offshore oil and gas safety
inspections and enforcement for incidents like this most recent
spill and others like the USGS Hazards Program, which we are
looking to reauthorize on a bipartisan basis here today that
protect communities from landslides, earthquakes, and
volcanoes.
Mr. Cruickshank, I want to make clear that I am grateful to
career staff like you who have served to carry out the goals of
the president, regardless of who that president may be. You
carried out the objectives of President Biden, and now you are
carrying out the work and objectives of President Trump. With
that in mind, I would like to ask a few questions.
In addition to your role as Acting Director of the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, you served as Acting Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management from February 28 to
April 10. In this role, in addition to BOEM, you oversaw the
Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, and, importantly, the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Dr. Cruickshank, did you
engage with any DOGE employees during your time as Assistant
Secretary or in your current role as Acting Director of BOEM,
and can you briefly describe your engagement?
Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, my engagement was largely in terms of
representing BOEM in talking with them. And during the period
that you mentioned, the focus was really on contracts at that
point, and what contracts should be terminated, and which ones
should be continued.
Ms. Ansari. And can you please provide us with an update on
how many staff at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have
taken buyout or early retirement offers?
Dr. Cruickshank. We don't have a final number on that yet,
but it is in the neighborhood of 100 people.
Ms. Ansari. And how many employees took the buyout, early
retirement, or were fired at the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement while you oversaw the department from
February 28 to April 10?
Dr. Cruickshank. I do not know the numbers for BSEE. Those
numbers really would have been revealed after I was no longer
Acting Assistant Secretary.
Ms. Ansari. OK. And Dr. Cruickshank, can you confirm that
no staff responsible for essential services like offshore
safety and enforcement will be laid off as part of the agency's
reduction in force?
Dr. Cruickshank. I have not seen the workplace efficiency
plan as yet. As you know, there is a temporary restraining
order that has kept that from being circulated within the
department. So, I don't know what is in that, but I know that
the department has as a priority making sure that operations
offshore are done safely, and making sure there is an adequate
workforce to be able to do that.
Ms. Ansari. Dr. Cruickshank, I just want to say I really
appreciate your career service, and I appreciate each of the
career employees who have taken early retirement or the buyout
or who have been unfairly fired. I understand, Dr. Cruickshank,
that you are an institutionalist, and are probably personally
just as alarmed as I am that 24-year-old DOGE employees are
gutting your department. We should all be alarmed by what this
administration is doing to undercut Federal service, and there
will be a time when we have to rebuild BOEM after this, and it
will be significantly harder because you are not there.
I also, you know, across both sides of the aisle I think we
can all agree that electricity demand is growing. According to
a recent S&P global report, U.S. electricity and demand is
expected to surge up to 50 percent by 2040 due to the growth of
data centers, new manufacturing, and electric trends.
Regardless of how you feel about any one kind of energy
production or another, offshore wind, which your department
oversees, will be one of the fastest ways to meet this demand.
Really, but there are multiple other projects in limbo,
projects that have invested significantly in the U.S. and have
meaningful energy generation potential. Why would we slow down
these domestic energy projects if the U.S. cannot afford to
wait for energy security?
Dr. Cruickshank. So, I think that our task is both to try
and move forward with energy development, but also to do so in
an environmentally responsible way. That is what our statutes
call for. And it is the responsibility of the Secretary of the
Interior to take a look at his programs. And if he sees
information that suggests that some things may be out of line
with what the laws call for, that it is OK to take a pause and
take a look and make sure that everything is as it should be
before letting them continue.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. All right. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cruickshank, I think you had mentioned that this is
your last hearing. I am actually privileged to be the last
person to have a conversation with you officially.
First off, I do want to recognize your professional career
as a, 40-plus years in the Interior. I will tell you that you
came to one of the committees, and I was asking you some
questions, and I had done my homework. You supported what
President Trump was doing, 45, and then supporting what
President Biden wanted done. They were philosophically
different. And when I asked you why you, why change, and you
said you were just following the leadership from the elected
people, what the elected president wanted. It actually shocked
me in a good way, that you weren't putting your own opinions,
you were following what you were asked to do in a professional
and a safe manner.
And I think, as you leave your 40 years, I think there is
many, many people not only in Congress but the people that you
have worked with, you have left something and you instilled in
something that is so valuable as an employee, a professional
employee within our government and Interior and your knowledge,
and I just want to say thank you for what you did. And I wish
you the best in retirement. You, of course, being questioned so
many times by Members of Congress, you have earned it. And so,
I will end up with just some of my questions here.
The section 12(a) OCSLA was never intended to permanently
lock away offshore resources, yet presidential withdrawals have
attempted indefinite bans on hundreds of millions of acres and
regions containing known oil and gas resources without regard
for future needs or technology. H.R. 513 would limit the size
and duration of withdrawals and require economic energy and
security impact assessments before a future withdrawal moves
forward.
In your view, how could permanent closures impact future
generations in terms of lost revenue, energy security, and
technological opportunities?
Dr. Cruickshank. Well, you know, depending on what areas
are put aside and the reasons they are put aside for, clearly
if you are permanently withdrawing high resource potential
areas from leasing and development, then you are foregoing a
lot of potential investment, a lot of potential income.
Mr. Stauber. For the future.
Dr. Cruickshank. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. And do you believe requiring an updated
resource assessment before withdrawal as the bill proposes
better balances conservation with future access?
Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, I think that mandating what has
generally been the practice where we provide a lot of
information on what we know about an area is important for
making sound decisions.
Mr. Stauber. I can't stress enough how important I believe
this part of the legislation is, the requirement for an
economic and resource assessment to be completed prior to a
withdrawal. If an administration is going to take s to
institute withdrawal, the American people deserve to have a
full understanding of its impact.
And in my opening statement, I mentioned that the former
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Haaland, had no idea when
she banned mining in 225,000 acres of the biggest untapped
copper nickel find in the world in the district that I am
privileged to represent, Minnesota's 8th congressional
district, the Duluth Complex, in a Senate hearing, she said she
had no idea there were critical minerals in there. I think it
was so irresponsible for her to do that when we need those
critical minerals. Again, the biggest untapped copper nickel
find in the world, the Duluth Complex in northeastern
Minnesota.
We need those critical minerals. We can lead the world not
only in oil and gas extraction, but critical minerals and so
much more, and I am really looking forward to having this piece
of legislation not only pass this Committee, but get signed
into law. It is good for the American people, and it is good
stewardship of our oceans and our lands.
So, with that, Mr. Cruickshank, I am done questioning. I
will give you, this normally doesn't happen, but I will give
you 30 seconds to wrap up, maybe a minute to wrap up your
career.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
opportunity. And I appreciate the kind words that you and
others of the Committee have had. It is, 40 years is a long
time to be working in one building, but it is, I believe in the
mission of the department, I believe in the mission of BOEM,
all parts of that mission. And it has really been a pleasure
for me to work with this Subcommittee over the years to try and
make sure that we continue to improve upon what we do. So, I
appreciate all the support that the Subcommittee has given us
over those years. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Well said. Thank you.
If there are no further questions, we will now move on to,
no, I have got to find where I am here. OK. If there are no
further questions, we will now move on to the third panel. I
would like to thank the witness for his valuable testimony.
You are now dismissed. While the clerk resets our witness
table, I will remind the witness that under Committee rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphones.
As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before the member questioning.
[Pause.]
Mr. Stauber. Our first witness is Mr. Parker Phipps, and he
is the President and CEO of Signal Peak Energy. And he is
stationed in Roundup, Montana.
Mr. Phipps, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PARKER PHIPPS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SIGNAL PEAK
ENERGY, ROUNDUP, MONTANA
Mr. Phipps. Good afternoon, Chairman Stauber and members of
the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 931, the Bull Mountains
Mining Plan Modification bill.
I also want to thank Representative Downing for introducing
H.R. 931. We are excited to have him as the Congressman for the
people of eastern Montana.
I would also like to thank my wife, who joined me for her
first trip to Washington, D.C.
I am the CEO of Signal Peak Energy, the operator of the
Bull Mountains mine outside of Roundup, Montana. The Bull
Mountains mine contains a very high BTU, low sulfur coal, and
coal mining has occurred in the Bull Mountains for nearly 150
years. The Bull Mountains Mine is an underground coal mine
which utilizes modern longwall mining techniques.
Like much of the western U.S., the surface and subsurface
of the Bull Mountains is a combination of Federal, private, and
State ownership. Signal Peak applied to lease 2,700 acres of
Federal coal in 2008 and, after completion of an environmental
assessment, entered into a lease with the United States in 2011
to develop the Federal coal. Under the lease we pay an 8
percent royalty, with half of the Federal royalty going to the
State of Montana. In 2022, the last year Signal Peak was
allowed to mine Federal coal, we paid $31 million in Federal
royalties. In 2023, we paid more than $93 million in State and
local taxes in Montana.
We currently employ 250 hard-working Montanans spread out
over 17 rural towns.
Mining at the Bull Mountains mine is under a State-approved
permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. Montana has the delegated authority to administer the
Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Because we
mine federally owned coal, our mine plan is reviewed by the
Office of Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior. As
noted in my written testimony, Signal Peak has spent over 13
years seeking approval to mine this leased coal. During that
time OSM has completed three environmental assessments while
Signal Peak continued producing coal from private, State, and
at times Federal reserves.
Litigation has been continuous for over a decade since
Signal Peak began mining coal in 2015. Over the years, the
courts have found fault with just two aspects of the thorough
environmental review, and until 2023 Signal Peak was able to
continue to mine Federal coal as OSM worked to fix the NEPA
analysis.
That all changed in February 2023, when the court again
remanded the EA back to OSM for the fourth time, but this time
the court prohibited Signal Peak from mining any Federal coal
until OSM completed yet another NEPA analysis. OSM told the
court in December 2022 that its fourth NEPA analysis on the
Signal Peak mine plan would be an environmental impact
statement. OSM's initial schedule had the issuance of the final
EIS by July 2024.
Unfortunately, OSM has missed its own deadlines and kept
delaying the process. They have demanded extra studies that
neither the court nor Montana DEQ found necessary. Signal Peak
has spent over 3 million in the last 2 years, and is still
waiting for our EIS. The delay in finalizing the EIS has
created a serious problem for the mine.
Signal Peak relies on longwall mining because the coal is a
mix of Federal, State, and private ownership, being unable to
access the Federal portions effectively blocks mining in the
AM-3 permit area.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Phipps. Initially, when we thought the EIS would be
complete last summer, Signal Peak modified our mine plan.
First, as shown on the map, we mined the start of two longwall
panels, panels 10 and 11. You will note that these longwall
panels are a quarter mile wide, and as soon as we bumped into
Federal coal, we stopped mining.
Second, as shown on the far right and the top left of the
map, we worked with the State to get approval to mine two areas
of private coal at the edge of our mine. Our efforts, which
have cost over $70 million in additional operating expenses,
have allowed our employees to continue working. However,
without some type of authorization to resume mining in the main
area of the mine, those efforts won't be enough and we will
begin winding down our operations in the coming months. That is
where H.R. 931 comes into play.
As shown by the orange-hashed areas on the map, H.R. 931
would allow Signal Peak to return to the main area of the mine,
and mine specific Federal coal until OSM completes the EIS.
This mining would proceed according to the current mine plan
approved by Montana DEQ and previously by OSM. H.R. 931 would
allow us to mine a small portion of the leased Federal coal to
keep our mine open. If H.R. 931 is enacted, Signal Peak will
have sufficient coal for the next 18 months of production to
provide our workforce with the certainty needed to continue
this complex mining process.
Thank you for your time today and interest in the Bull
Mountains mine. I am more than happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phipps follows:]
Prepared Statement of Parker Phipps, President & CEO,
Signal Peak Energy LLC
Good afternoon, Chairman Stauber and distinguished members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 931, the
Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification bill introduced by
Representative Downing and Representative Zinke. As President and CEO
of Signal Peak Energy, I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 931.
Background
Signal Peak Energy (SPE) owns and operates the Bull Mountains No. 1
Mine (``Mine''), the only underground coal mine in the State of Montana
located approximately 15 miles southeast of Roundup, Montana in
Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties, Montana. Coal mining began in the
Bull Mountains in the early 1880s and has proceeded, relatively
continuously, in various parts of the Bull Mountains since then.
The Mine uses long-wall mining and continuous mining techniques to
safely and efficiently extract coal from the Mammoth coal seam.
Continuous mining techniques are used to prepare access for long-wall
mining. Long-wall mining shears coal from the face of rectangular
panels approximately 1250 feet wide, advancing from one end to the
other of the planned panel. Coal produced from the Mine is sold on the
open international market. Since 2015, SPE has mined a checkerboard of
private, state and federal coal and has produced over 70 million tons
of high-BTU coal.
The Bull Mountains Mine plays a crucial role in the economy of
southcentral Montana. It currently employs over 250 workers (down from
a peak of 320 workers in 2024). In 2023, SPE paid over $93 million in
local and state taxes with $34 million of this total going to
kindergarten through grade 12 public education. In 2022, the last full
year in which SPE was allowed to mine federal coal, it paid $31.1
million in federal royalties of which $15.6 million went to the State
of Montana.
In addition to its economic contributions, Signal Peak Energy is
also engrained into the fabric of the community. SPE has provided
approximately $400,000 each year to the Signal Peak Community
Foundation to support local nonprofits, with contributions totaling
over $4.5 million over the last 15 years. These funds have been used to
purchase fire trucks and emergency vehicles in Roundup; construct
baseball fields; renovate the Old Central School to house the Senior
Center; and operate a food bank and a thrift store for Roundup's most
vulnerable residents.
SPE has also established a million-dollar endowment that provides
scholarships for graduates of Musselshell County high schools to pursue
post-secondary education: a $10,000 annual scholarship for a student
pursuing an engineering degree, a $5,000 scholarship for a student in
trade school, and a $1,000 scholarship for any secondary education.
These scholarships are invaluable to educating the next generation who,
the community hopes, will choose to stay and raise their families in
Musselshell County. Most recently, in 2024 SPE provided a $6 million
grant to the Yellowstone Ice Foundation to construct a state-of-the-art
ice arena in Billings.
Litigation
In 2008, Signal Peak applied to lease approximately 2,679.9 acres
of federal coal at Bull Mountains. In 2011, after the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy
Act, SPE entered into a coal lease with the United States. This
environmental review and coal lease were challenged by environmental
groups and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
2018.
In 2012, Signal Peak applied to mine coal in an area of the Mine
referred to as AM-3. Like most of eastern Montana, the coal in AM-3 is
a mix of federal, state, and private coal oriented in a checkerboard
pattern that is impossible to safely and economically mine without
access to all the coal. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) approved AM-3 in 2013. The Office of Surface Mining and
Reclamation Enforcement (OSMRE) within the Department of the Interior
(DOI) then prepared an Environmental Assessment on the mining of
federal coal in AM-3. In 2015, the Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management approved the mine plan modification allowing the
mining of the federal coal in AM-3. Mining commenced shortly thereafter
and continued through federal, private, and State coal under the
checkerboard mineral ownership until the sudden vacatur order in
February 2023, as noted below.
The approval of AM-3 was challenged by environmental groups and, in
2017, the Montana District Court remanded the 2015 EA back to OSMRE for
additional environmental analysis of rail transportation and greenhouse
gas emissions issues. Mining in AM-3 continued during this time.
In 2018, OSM issued a second Environmental Assessment regarding
SPE's request to mine federal coal in AM-3. The Assistant Secretary of
Land and Minerals Management again approved SPE's request to mine the
leased federal coal in AM-3.
This second approval of AM-3 was again challenged by environmental
groups. And, in 2020 (as in 2018), the Montana District Court remanded
the 2018 EA back to OSMRE for additional environmental analysis on a
single issue related to rail transportation of the coal. Mining in AM-3
continued during this time.
In 2020, OSMRE prepared a third Environmental Assessment completing
additional analysis of rail transportation. Once again, the Assistant
Secretary for Land and Minerals Management approved SPE's request to
mine the leased federal coal in AM-3.
Meanwhile, the environmental groups appealed from the limited
remand in their challenge to the 2018 Environmental Assessment to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit
overruled the Montana District Court and concluded that OSMRE had not
adequately considered the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or
explained why those impacts would not be significant, and required that
Signal Peak prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
At a remedy hearing on remand to the Montana District Court, OSMRE
informed the court that it would prepare an EIS on the AM-3 mine plan.
At the hearing, OSMRE represented that the EIS would be finished in 17
months (July 2024) and it would take three additional months to issue a
final decision (October 2024).
In February 2023, the Montana District Court ordered OSMRE to
prepare an EIS on AM-3. Significantly, unlike the Court's prior orders,
the District Court vacated the AM-3 mining plan pending completion of
the EIS. As a result, Signal Peak is prohibited from mining the leased
federal coal, which is located in a checkerboard pattern throughout the
AM-3 permit area, unless and until OSMRE completes the AM-3 EIS and the
Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management re-approves the AM-
3 mining plan.
EIS Preparation
Given the potentially devastating impacts that the unprecedented
vacatur order would have on coal production at the Bull Mountains Mine
and its workforce, SPE quickly moved to coordinate with OSMRE on the
EIS process. SPE had been mining in the AM-3 Area since 2015, and this
mining continued up to the vacatur order in February 2023. The initial
schedule prepared by OSMRE anticipated issuance of a final EIS by July
2024.
Unfortunately, in the intervening two years nothing has proceeded
according to OSMRE's schedule. An initial Notice of Intent to prepare
an EIS was not published until August 2023. OSMRE then held two public
comment periods on its decision to prepare an EIS in September 2023 and
June 2024.
OSMRE gave excuse after excuse about why more time was needed to
complete the EIS and insisted on additional studies on matters that
were not found to be deficient by the court and were not deemed
necessary by Montana DEQ. For example, a year after the EIS process had
begun, OSMRE ordered an additional study on acid mine drainage from the
Bull Mountains Mine Waste Disposal Area.
With more than a decade of sampling down-gradient water at the Bull
Mountains Mine, the Montana DEQ and SPE knew that the waste coal did
not produce acid drainage. Despite first-hand experience with the coal
waste drainage and the objection of the Montana DEQ, OSM still insisted
that the coal waste drainage study be completed. Given the economic
need to complete the Bull Mountains EIS, SPE acquiesced to OSM's
request and agreed to pay a contractor to complete the study. The
hydrology contractor's report was only completed in early 2025 and
confirmed what SPE and Montana DEQ told OSM over a year prior--the coal
waste from the Bull Mountains Mine does not produce acid drainage.
SPE has spent over $3 million in the two and a half years since the
EIS effort began to complete the EIS and get back to mining federal
coal in the Bull Mountains.
SPE Efforts to Keep the Bull Mountains Mine Open
In addition to pursuing timely completion of the EIS, SPE took
immediate actions to keep the Bull Mountains Mine operational and its
(at the time) over 300 employees working.
Initially, SPE modified its longwall operations in the AM-3 area so
that it could mine private coal with the longwall in the current
location until the longwall reached federal coal. The mining of this
private coal was completed in Q2 2024. Second, SPE worked with Montana
DEQ to secure approval to mine two areas of private coal that border
AM-3. Mining of this coal, of lower quality and found in a narrower
seam, is more than half complete and the coal will be exhausted by the
end of 2025. These efforts are shown on the attached map.
These actions, which required significant modifications of SPE's
Montana DEQ approved mine plan, cost over $70 million in additional and
unanticipated mine expenses over the last two years. However, despite
SPE's efforts, at the end of 2025, in the absence of approval from
OSMRE to mine the remaining federal coal in
AM-3, SPE will be forced to suspend operations and lay off workers,
dozens of whom are already idled because of the lack of development
work available for the continuous mining team (the miners who prepare
each new longwall panel for mining).
Need for H.R. 931
H.R. 931 is a quick, narrow fix to avoid closure of the Mine in the
coming months. Not all the federal coal in AM-3 is authorized for
mining--only the portion necessary to allow mining in the immediate
future. This legislation does not circumvent the National Environmental
Policy Act or reduce environmental review. Rather, it recognizes the
practical reality that this project has already undergone multiple
layers of review over the past decade and that SPE has made substantial
good-faith investments in compliance.
H.R. 931 authorizes the mining of 779 acres of specific federal
coal in AM-3. The identified federal coal will allow SPE to resume
mining in longwall panels 10 and 11 and development work for most of
longwall panel 12. This mining will produce 13 million tons of federal
coal. Significantly, H.R. 931 would provide access to 161 acres of
state coal and 699 acres of private coal which have been effectively
sterilized since February 2023; that is, given the checkerboard pattern
of coal ownership and SPE's use of longwall mining techniques, SPE
cannot mine this state and private coal without the ability to mine the
adjacent federal coal. The mining authorized by H.R. 931 would need to
be completed in compliance with the AM-3 mine plan and would be done
consistent with all State and federal environmental requirements.
SPE cannot mine the remaining federal coal in AM-3 until OSMRE
completes its EIS and the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management approves the AM-3 mine plan modification.
Conclusion
H.R. 931 is a practical solution to the challenges confronting SPE
and the impending closure of the Bull Mountains Mine. It would prevent
economic harm and bolster our nation's energy production. I
respectfully urge this Committee to support the bill and ensure that
Montanans who depend on the Bull Mountains Mine can continue to work,
raise families, and contribute to the strength of our nation.
Thank you for your time and this opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to your questions.
Supplemental document submitted for the record:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD020.pdf
------
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Parker Phipps, President and
CEO, Signal Peak Energy, LLC
Questions Submitted by Representative Ansari
Dear Chairman Stauber: This letter responds to the questions
submitted by Representative Ansari following my testimony at the May
20, 2025 hearing before the Committee on Natural Resources'
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on H.R. 931, the Bull
Mountains Mining Plan Modification Act.
Question 1. Has Signal Peak ever canceled or terminated a rancher's
lease? If so, please list the affected leases and justification for
cancelation or termination.
Answer. Signal Peak owns a portion of the surface property above
its Bull Mountains No. 1 Mine (``Mine''). For more than thirty years,
Signal Peak has granted surface grazing rights to third parties under
leases specifically providing that these grazing rights shall terminate
if the lessee violates the term of the lease, or if Signal Peak
required to utilize its surface property to support its mining
operations.
Signal Peak terminated one such grazing lease in 2021 when the
lessee violated the terms of the lease by engaging in unauthorized
subleasing. Later in 2021, Signal Peak notified a second lessee that it
required use of its surface property to support the expansion and
development of the Mine. Although this lessee filed a lawsuit asserting
objections to Signal Peak's exercise of these lease rights, the parties
subsequently resolved this matter amicably with Signal Peak agreeing to
purchase this lessee's adjacent surface property in its entirety. To be
clear, Signal Peak's actions to terminate both leases were undertaken
in strict accordance with the terms of these leases.
Question 2. Has Signal Peak ever asked a rancher to sign a non-
disclosure agreement? If so, how many?
Answer. Since I joined Signal Peak, the company has never asked a
rancher to execute a non-disclosure agreement. With regard to the
lawsuit referenced in section 1 above, the parties entered into a
standard settlement agreement that contained a mutual confidentiality
and non--disparagement clause. Both parties were represented by counsel
in connection with this settlement.
Question 3. Has Signal Peak or its contractors or consultants ever
modeled whether the deep aquifer has enough water to replace the water
the mine is draining from the Bull Mountains? If so, please attach or
provide a citation for said modeling.
Answer. As a threshold matter, Signal Peak's operations are not
``draining'' water from the Bull Mountains. Surface and groundwater
resources within the subsidence zone are intensely monitored before,
during, and after undermining. Signal Peak's biannual and annual
hydrology reports and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's
cumulative hydrologic impact assessments disprove this false assertion.
Signal Peak modeled the deep underburden aquifer--a designated
potential source of replacement water--in 2015. That model--together
with Signal Peak's comprehensive groundwater model--are routinely
updated and recalibrated as new data becomes available. Both models
have been scrutinized and accepted by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality.
In 2016, environmental advocacy organizations challenged the legal
and physical viability of the deep underburden aquifer to serve as a
potential source of replacement water. In 2022, the Montana Board of
Environmental Review dismissed these claims as legally and factually
baseless and admonished the environmental advocacy organizations for
misrepresenting the facts and presenting evidence out of context. In
the Matter of: Appeal Amendment Application AM3, Signal Peak Energy
LLC's Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Permit No. C1993017, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order, No. BER 2016-07 SM (BER June 16, 2022).
The Board's Final Order is enclosed as Exhibit A.
With respect to the physical availability of the deep underburden
aquifer, the Montana Board of Environmental Review specifically found
that the aquifer is ``massive'' and ``extends over a broad area
throughout the Bull Mountains'' approximately ``14 miles wide and 22
miles long.'' The Montana Board of Environmental Review concluded that
the deep underburden aquifer ``has the characteristics to serve
existing and viable designated uses'' together with all anticipated
mitigations needs.
To date, Signal Peak has not sourced replacement water from the
deep underburden aquifer and, given the very minor hydrologic impacts
realized after nearly two decades of longwall mining, does not
anticipate doing so in the future.
Question 4. Who is the first buyer or off-taker of coal mined by
Signal Peak? Does Signal Peak sell its coal to an affiliated company or
intermediary entity prior to shipping or for shipping?
Answer. Signal Peak sells coal destined for the international
market to its marketing and sales affiliate, Global Coal Sales Group,
LLC (``GCSG''). In compliance with Federal and state law, the sales
price paid by GCSG is determined based upon the netback FOB Mine price
for these international sales.
Question 5. In the hearing, you stated that Signal Peak ``currently
complies with all Federal and state laws.'' Please provide a list of
all crimes that Signal Peak Energy or its executives have been charged
with, convicted of or plead guilty to since you have begun working for
the company in February 2020.
Answer. Signal Peak complies with all Federal and state laws. Since
I joined Signal Peak in February 2020, no Federal or state criminal
charges have been asserted against Signal Peak or its executives.
On September 21, 2021, Signal Peak pled guilty to four counts of
violation of mandatory health and safety standards pursuant to 30
U.S.C. Sec. 820(d) based upon (1) the failure to secure permits for
the disposal of coal slurry in 2013 and 2015, and (2) the failure to
report two workplace accidents in 2018. This conduct occurred years
before I was hired by Signal Peak. The company paid the requisite fines
for each violation immediately at the time of sentencing, did not
object to the presentence investigation report prepared by the USPO,
and has fully complied with all terms of probation, which has now
concluded. In the plea agreement, the U.S. Attorney recommended that
the ``offense level be decreased by two levels for acceptance of
responsibility, pursuant to USSG Sec. 3E1.1(a).'' As the Government
stated at the time of sentencing, this plea agreement was influenced by
two mitigating factors: (a) Signal Peak's significant cooperation with
the U.S. Attorneys' investigations, and (b) the fact that Signal Peak's
owners had no knowledge of and were not involved in unlawful conduct.
Following my hire by Signal Peak in February 2020, the following
former Signal Peak employees pled guilty in connection with the conduct
identified above, which again pre-dated my employment with Signal Peak:
Dale Musgrave--In December 2021, Mr. Musgrave pled guilty
to conspiracy to submit false mine records regarding an
employee injury. He was sentenced to 2 years' probation and
fined $20,000.
Curtis Floyd--In January 2023, Mr. Floyd pled guilty to
conspiracy to submit false mine records regarding an
employee injury. He was sentenced to 2 years' probation and
fined $2,000.
Question 6. According to Mine Safety and Health Administration
data, the Bull Mountains mine has had 1,982 reported MSHA violations
and 159 accidents since Signal Peak Energy began operating the mine in
2008. This includes hundreds of reported MSHA violations since you
began working for Signal Peak. Please summarize the violations that
have taken place while you have been CEO and the total amount of
penalty that Signal Peak has paid in relation to those violations,
describe how Signal Peak Energy has sought to remediate or mitigate the
damages from those violations, and explain how Signal Peak Energy plans
to prevent violations in the future.
Answer. Signal Peak is proud of its safety record at the Mine.
Underground mining is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and Signal
Peak is committed to maintaining a safe workplace for its skilled
workforce. Signal Peak demands best safety practices, rigorous and
continuing training, and immediate corrective action when safety issues
arise. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (``MSHA'') inspects
Signal Peak's operations monthly, and Signal Peak strives to comply
with all applicable workplace safety regulations. Alleged violations
and associated penalties are available on the Mine Data Retrieval
System.
The number of referenced citations issued by MSHA since 2008 is not
indicative of poor safety practices by Signal Peak. To the contrary,
Signal Peak is recognized as one of the safest underground mines in the
United States. By way of illustration, in 2024 Signal Peak received 146
total citations, only 4 of which were deemed ``significant and
substantial.'' And in 2023, Signal Peak received 167 total citations,
only 5 of which were deemed ``significant and substantial.'' During my
tenure, MSHA has never determined that Signal Peak met any ``pattern of
violation'' criteria suggesting that the Mine exhibited a chronic
pattern of safety and health violations. In fact, Signal Peak has
consistently ranked among the top quartile of mines in the United
States with respect to the number of ``significant and substantial''
citations issued by MSHA.
In 2021, to ensure that the Mine consistently followed best mining
practices and strictly adhered to applicable law, Signal Peak retained
an independent expert to conduct bi-annual audits focusing on the
company's safety and environmental functions. In the most recent audit
in 2024, this expert concluded that:
Signal Peak's commitment to employee safety, environmental
compliance, record-keeping, and operational performance is
outstanding. The mining operation ranks at the peak of
underground coal industry performance in terms of its
adherence to mandatory health and safety standards.
The Mine's accident rate frequencies are better than
industry norms. Observations of the underground workings
and surface facilities demonstrate a sustained and ongoing
commitment to industry-leading operating and maintenance
standards. Documentation and site visits indicate that
Signal Peak fully complies with environmental and
permitting requirements.
I trust that the above information fully addresses the questions
submitted by Representative Ansari.
______
Mr. Ezell [presiding]. The gentleman yields. I now
recognize the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for 30 seconds
to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am especially
pleased to welcome our next witness, Mr. Mike West, who serves
as the State Seismologist for Alaska and the Director of the
Alaska Earthquake Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Mr. West is not only a nationally recognized expert in
seismic and volcanic hazards, but also an Alaskan and a
constituent. His leadership has been critical to advancing
real-time monitoring and hazard mitigation strategies in our
state, a place that experiences more earthquakes and volcanic
activity than anywhere else in the country. I am grateful for
his service and for the insight he brings today as we examine
legislation that will directly impact the safety and
preparedness of communities across Alaska and the Nation.
Welcome to Washington.
Mr. Ezell. Dr. West, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE WEST, DIRECTOR AND STATE SEISMOLOGIST, ALASKA
EARTHQUAKE CENTER, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
Dr. West. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, I
appreciate the opportunity to talk today about earthquake,
volcano, and landslide legislation. I direct the Alaska
Earthquake Center. I spent 10 years as part of the Alaska
Volcano Observatory, and my recent research focuses on
monitoring landslides. I feel well positioned for this.
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, known as
NEHRP, is one of the most successful pieces of hazards
legislation ever. Coming up on its 50th anniversary, it
coordinates the efforts of four agencies: the U.S. Geological
Survey; the National Science Foundation; FEMA; NIST. In my
opinion, this is what smart, collaborative government looks
like.
I can paraphrase the goal of NEHRP very simply: reducing
the economic impacts and the fatalities of earthquakes.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. West. Here, in the figure on the screen, this is
just one of NEHRP's many deliverables. This is the National
Seismic Hazard Map. Led by the USGS, this map shows the shaking
to be expected from future earthquakes. This is a scientific
masterpiece that reflects 50 years of the NEHRP program. This
map informs hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure
design. It drives insurance rates, building codes, land use
decisions, emergency response.
That said, the work of NEHRP is not done. Just three States
so far have the USGS's ShakeAlert system, which is capable of
providing warning before shaking even starts. Four months ago,
the USGS published a ShakeAlert plan for Alaska. There are
other states that are developing plans, as well. But it is
NEHRP legislation that will provide the national coordination
that can make ShakeAlert more broadly accessible.
Let's change gears. How about the second figure now?
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. West. The National Volcano Early Warning System,
a.k.a. NVEWS, is a similar piece of legislation. The U.S. is
home to 58 high-threat volcanoes. On occasion they put ash in
the air, they create lava flows, landslides, toxic gases. But
with the right research and monitoring, we can actually
forecast most of these. That helps prevent unnecessary
evacuations, protects infrastructure, and can reduce the costs
of responding to disasters. It also protects aviation by
detecting airborne ash that threatens planes.
The recent unrest of Mount Spurr, shown here on the screen,
in my home state is an outstanding example of volcano warning.
Just outside of Anchorage, this photo shows steam and gas from
the summit. On the bottom is a chart of earthquake activity
over the past 16 months. Together with other data, the Alaska
Volcano Observatory has used these to issue increasingly
detailed forecasts for many months now. The problem is that
most U.S. volcanoes aren't monitored like Spurr. Fully
implementing NVEWS would fix this.
Landslides. Good numbers on landslides are hard to come by.
That is something that the bill before you would actually help
address. But even 20 years ago, annual costs were estimated
above $2 billion. They affect nearly every State, anywhere that
there is steep terrain and heavy rainfall. The Oso landslide,
mentioned earlier in Washington State, killed 43 people in
2014. The California storms in 2023 triggered hundreds of
slides and billions in damage. We have some evidence that
landslides are increasing in frequency.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. West. In figure three, on the screen right now, you
will see the landslide on top in Wrangell, Alaska that killed 6
people in 2023. On the bottom is a 2024 slide in Ketchikan.
These disasters are becoming a near annual experience in my
State.
The Landslide Act empowers the USGS with State partners to
map, monitor, and respond to landslides nationwide.
So, I am thrilled that you are considering all three of
these bills together today, because they share a common set of
proven strategies. Each program tracks long-term patterns in
the Earth. How do you track long-term patterns? Well, with
long-term instrumentation and monitoring. With years of
baseline data, it becomes possible to know when a hazard is
developing or where it is most likely to occur. These programs
build formal collaborations between Federal agencies,
universities, State geological surveys, each bringing what they
do best.
So, earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, they are part of
the planet on which we live. We can't make them go away. But
the surest way to minimize their impacts, human and financial,
is to update and reauthorize the bills that affirm our national
stance. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. West follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael E. West, PhD, State Seismologist for
Alaska Research Professor, Director, Alaska Earthquake Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari, thank you for the
opportunity to speak about three bills: the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP), the National Volcano Early Warning System
(NVEWS) and the National Landslide Preparedness Act (NLPA). These
bills, and the programs they support, are interrelated. As such, I
applaud the committee for considering them together.
I have personal experience and expertise with all three bills. In
my role as State Seismologist at the Alaska Earthquake Center I direct
the earthquake monitoring efforts in Alaska. I previously spent 10
years working as part of the Alaska Volcano Observatory. And for the
past few years, much of my research time has been devoted to the
challenge of monitoring landslides in real-time. My work focuses on
Alaska--a state with a disproportionate share of the nation's geologic
hazards. I illustrate the impact of this legislation with examples from
Alaska. However, these examples are just a few among countless examples
nationwide that could be presented to motivate this legislation. I am
in daily contact with peers around the country who carry similar
responsibilities in their regions. I am certain my testimony reflects
the sentiments of the numerous practitioners nationwide. Below I
provide brief comments on each bill followed by a discussion of the
common themes across them.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEHRP is one of the most successful pieces of natural hazard
legislation in existence. It has been a model for other legislation
including the volcano and landslide bills. Created by Congress in 1977,
the NEHRP program establishes coordination across federal agencies,
state agencies, academia, and the private sector. This coordination has
led to advances in seismic monitoring, building codes, engineering
practices, and public education. It has saved lifes and saved billions
of dollars. NEHRP is an example of good government, leveraging the
strengths of different agencies instead of duplicating one another.
Under NEHRP, the National Science Foundation (NSF) brings fundamental
new insights in earthquake science and engineering. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) makes seismic monitoring possible, while also quantifying
the nation's specific earthquake hazards. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) identifies the risks and earthquake
vulnerabilities and then works with communities to mitigate these risks
before they occur. And the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) provides coordination across these efforts while
ensuring that research and lessons learned are translated into specific
codes and building practices.
Investing in seismic monitoring lowers long-term costs by guiding
smarter decisions before and after earthquakes. Reliable ground motion
data from seismic networks supports better building codes and
retrofitting standards. These reduce damage to infrastructure and cut
repair costs after a damaging earthquake. Real-time monitoring allows
engineers and emergency managers to focus resources where they are most
needed, avoiding unnecessary inspections and shutdowns. For businesses,
rapid damage assessments minimize downtime, keeping commerce moving and
reducing overall economic losses. Transportation systems, pipelines,
ports, and utilities use seismic data to assess whether it is necessary
to stop operations, and how to resume safely. During the recovery phase
of a major earthquake the detailed shaking data can help guide repairs
and replacements that are safer and more cost-effective. Every dollar
spent on seismic monitoring yields significant savings by reducing
direct damages, speeding recovery, and limiting disruptions to
businesses and public services.
A foundation of NEHRP's success has been the Advanced National
Seismic System (ANSS), a comprehensive network of seismic instruments
and data centers coordinated by the USGS in partnership with earthquake
centers in each region of the country (USGS, 2017). These centers
provide expertise on the unique seismic hazards of their areas, from
Alaska to California to the Central and Eastern U.S. The monitoring
networks they operate maintain dense sensor coverage where it is most
needed, ensuring that earthquakes are assessed quickly and ground
shaking is measured accurately. Seismic network operators understand
local geology, infrastructure, and community needs, allowing them to
provide high-quality data and targeted information to emergency
managers, engineers, and the public. This local capability feeds into
the national system, maintained by the USGS, making ANSS both
comprehensive and responsive. Without strong regional networks,
national earthquake monitoring would be slower, less accurate, and less
effective in protecting communities.
One of NEHRP's clearest deliverables is the National Seismic Hazard
Map (Petersen et al., 2023). Led by the USGS, this map shows the
expected level of ground shaking from future earthquakes. It combines
data on past earthquakes, faults, and ground motion models to estimate
the likelihood and intensity of shaking in different areas. This map is
the scientific basis for building codes, helping engineers design
structures to withstand expected earthquakes, while also helping to
avoid costly mitigation strategies where they are not needed. It guides
infrastructure planning, insurance rates, land use decisions, and
emergency response. States and cities use it to identify high-risk
areas and prepare accordingly.
I have witnessed the impact of NEHRP first hand, most notably
during the magnitude 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake in 2018 (West et al.,
2019). This earthquake was deeply impactful to the region and was
responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Thousands of
homes and buildings were damaged. But remarkably, not a single building
collapsed entirely. As a result, no one died during the earthquake.
This success can be attributed almost entirely to NEHRP. Because of
decades of research and implementation, modern seismic building codes
were in place across much of south-central Alaska, significantly
reducing structural damage despite violent shaking. Seismic hazard
models, developed through NEHRP support, had helped guide construction
practices. NEHRP investments in seismic monitoring enabled real-time
data collection and rapid post-event analyses, assisting state agencies
and emergency responders in assessing infrastructure impacts. Public
education campaigns and preparedness initiatives, championed by NEHRP
partners, ensured that schools, businesses, and residents knew how to
``Drop, Cover, and Hold On,'' reducing injuries. The Anchorage
earthquake is an example of how NEHRP's long-term, research-based
approach directly enhances community resilience and public safety.
The work of NEHRP is not done. Alaska experiences more large
earthquakes than any other state, yet it does not have access to the
ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system. ShakeAlert, and other
earthquake early warning systems, uses real-time data to provide
seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. This response time
provides people time to take protective actions and allows critical
systems to shut down safely. The ShakeAlert system was prototyped in
California, Oregon, and Washington states with the plan to roll out
these capabilities more widely once it was fully operational. The build
out in these three states is now complete. In January 2025, the USGS
published the ShakeAlert implementation plan for Alaska (Wolfe et al.,
2025). Other states are in the process of developing ShakeAlert plans
as well. NEHRP is critical to these expansions. NEHRP provides the
framework for national coordination, and authorizes the resources
needed to continue to expand the implementation of ShakeAlert. The
geophysical network built to support earthquake early warning has the
dual benefit of strengthening tsunami warning capabilities. Dense
seismic and GPS sensor coverage allows the rapid assessment of offshore
earthquakes that can generate tsunamis. Rapidly measuring the style of
faulting makes it possible to issue faster, more accurate tsunami
alerts. Investing in earthquake early warning networks creates shared
infrastructure that supports both fast ground shaking alerts and timely
tsunami warnings, protecting coastal communities from multiple hazards.
National Volcano Early Warning System
The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) reduces the risks
and costs of eruptions through a mix of early detection, monitoring,
and public communication.
The United States is home to more than 160 active volcanoes, many
of which pose serious threats to communities, infrastructure, and
critical air routes (Ewert et al., 2018). Alaska alone has over 50
volcanoes that have been active in historic times, many located along
major international flight paths. As just one example, the 1989 Redoubt
Volcano event sent ash clouds into the atmosphere, disrupting air
traffic across the Pacific and causing complete engine failure in one
commercial passenger jet. Similar risks exist in the Cascades, Hawaii,
and other volcanic regions. In Hawaii, the eruption of Kilauea in 2018
destroyed hundreds of homes and forced large-scale evacuations.
Volcanoes in Washington, such as Mount Rainier, pose significant lahar
(volcanic mudflow) risks to populations in the Puget Sound region.
Eruptions can cause varied hazards, including ashfall, lava flows,
landslides, and volcanic gases, that can affect broad areas even away
from the volcano. Monitoring helps forecast these events and provide
time to prepare.
NVEWS unifies the U.S. volcano observatories into a single,
national system. This improved efficiency is coupled with modern
instrumentation, real-time data transmission, and advanced forecasting
tools. Faster more accurate volcanic warnings reduce the risks to life
and infrastructure by giving communities and emergency managers more
time to respond. It also protects aviation by detecting ash-producing
eruptions that threaten aircraft. Early warnings minimize economic
disruption by preventing unplanned evacuations, protecting
infrastructure, and reducing the need for disaster response and
recovery. NVEWS is a cost-effective way to reduce the human and
financial impact of volcanic eruptions.
The recent unrest of Mount Spurr volcano illustrates the success of
early warning (Figure 2). Spurr is labeled by the USGS as a very high
threat volcano near Anchorage, Alaska that for many months now has been
understood to be in a state of unrest. Tiny earthquakes, ground
deformation, and gas emissions all point to patterns that are similar
to the last few Spurr eruptions. Together this information has allowed
the Alaska Volcano Observatory (the Alaska component of NVEWS) to issue
regular and well-informed eruption forecasts in recent months. When
Spurr does erupt, previous NVEWS efforts will make it possible to warn
about individual explosions and forecast ash fall.
Unlike Mt. Spurr, many high-threat volcanoes in the U.S. still lack
modern instruments and real-time monitoring. Fully implementing NVEWS
would close those gaps and provide more universal coverage. It would
allow for earlier detection of unrest at sites that currently pose
blind spots. The system would also strengthen coordination between
federal and state agencies, ensuring faster, unified responses. By
giving communities and infrastructure managers more time to act, NVEWS
reduces the cost of emergency response and recovery. Investing now
lowers the economic risk and avoids more expensive disaster impacts
later.
National Landslide Preparedness Act
Landslides pose a persistent and costly threat across the United
States. Though national loss estimates for landslides are generally
lacking, the National Landslide Preparedness Act (NLPA) helps address
this by providing better systems for tracking and assessing landslides.
Even 20 years ago, however, the annual costs were estimated to exceed
two billion dollars (Spiker and Gori, 2023). These hazards are
widespread, affecting nearly every state (Luna et al., 2025). They are
especially common in regions with steep terrain, heavy rainfall, or
wildfire burn scars--such as Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, California,
and Appalachia. The 2014 Oso landslide in Washington, which killed 43
people and destroyed dozens of homes, remains a poignant example of the
risks posed by large slope failures. More recently, intense storms in
California in 2023 triggered dozens of damaging debris flows and slope
collapses along unstable hillsides. Extreme rain events, wildfire, and
glacial retreat make slopes more vulnerable. These factors appear to be
increasing the frequency, and possibly the severity, of landslides.
Landslide hazards are geographically widespread but unevenly
monitored and poorly mapped in many parts of the country. A national
approach helps close these gaps. It also makes it possible to
standardize data and support consistent hazard assessment across state
lines. Without federal coordination, many high-risk regions--especially
rural--lack the tools to assess landslide susceptibility and lack the
ability to issue meaningful warnings. The USGS approach outlined in the
NLPA is designed to complement and strengthen state and local efforts
by providing data, technical expertise, and coordination tools that
many jurisdictions cannot develop on their own. State agencies are the
primary source of local knowledge, field data, and public outreach
networks. Federal support helps the states to implement early warning
systems, prioritize mitigation projects, and respond more effectively
to landslide events. This two-way collaboration ensures that federal
tools and science reach the communities that need it most, while
empowering states to lead the risk reduction efforts.
The National Landslide Preparedness Act empowers the U.S.
Geological Survey to coordinate a strategy to identify, map, monitor,
and respond to landslide hazards nationwide. This legislation is
particularly vital for states like Alaska, where steep terrain, heavy
precipitation, seismic activity, and thawing permafrost contribute to
heightened landslide risks. The NLPA facilitates collaboration between
federal agencies and state entities to develop detailed landslide
inventories and susceptibility maps, and to implement monitoring
systems in high-risk areas like Prince William Sound and Southeast
Alaska. By providing funding, technical expertise, and interagency
coordination, the National Landslide Preparedness Act strengthens local
capacities to mitigate landslide risks, protect communities, and
enhance public safety across Alaska and the broader United States.
The November 2023 Wrangell landslide in Southeast Alaska
exemplifies the challenge. Following days of intense rainfall, a large
slope failed, sending a massive debris flow downslope that destroyed
homes and claimed the lives of six people. Instability on other nearby
slopes prompted evacuations and emergency monitoring that demonstrated
the event was part of a broader sequence of failures across the region.
Nearly the same event occurred a year later in Ketchikan (Figure 3).
These tragedies illustrate several priorities of the NLPA. These
include the need for high-resolution hazard mapping, real-time
landslide assessment, and coordinated federal-state response
capabilities. The NLPA framework makes it possible for the U.S.
Geological Survey to partner with the Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys and the Alaska Earthquake Center to install remote
sensors, expand landslide inventories, and develop early warning tools.
By supporting these activities, the NLPA can help prevent similar
events in vulnerable communities in Alaska and elsewhere.
Just as national coordination has improved earthquake and volcano
hazard mitigation, a similar model is needed to reduce landslide losses
and protect public safety.
Themes Common to All Bills
The programs supported by these three bills share a set of proven
strategies. They rely on strong federal-state-academic partnerships,
robust instrumentation networks, and sustained observation and research
programs.
Each program captures long-term data that make it possible to
discern the geophysical and geological patterns unique to each hazard.
Years of these baseline data often make it possible to know when a
hazard is developing. Often these data enable forecasts of specific
impacts, making it possible for individuals and communities to prepare.
Each program also formalizes collaboration between federal
agencies, universities, and state geological surveys. This approach
harnesses local expertise and knowledge, while providing national
standards and economies of scale.
Investments in the monitoring networks that power these programs--
whether for earthquakes, volcanoes, or landslides--enable timely
warnings, accurate hazard assessments, and cost reduction through
mitigation efforts. Updating and reauthorizing the bills that affirm
these programs is the surest way to minimize the impact of these events
on society and the surest way to minimize the costs of recovery from
these infrequent, but often devastating, natural hazards.
______
Mr. Ezell. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Helton for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DOUG HELTON, FORMER REGIONAL OPERATIONS
SUPERVISOR, EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION (RETIRED), NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Mr. Helton. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and
Subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak
about the major risks of offshore drilling and NOAA's role in
protecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the
American people. My name is Doug Helton. Until recently I
served in NOAA's Emergency Response Division, providing
scientific and technical support during oil spill responses.
Today, I am speaking on my own behalf. After 33 years of
service, I retired alongside more than 1,000 other NOAA
employees who left amid the Trump administration's effort to
gut the agency. Together we represented 27,000 years of
experience. It is an irreplaceable loss that endangers
Americans' health, safety, and the economy.
As an oil spill expert, I am deeply concerned by this
Administration and this Committee's attempts to expand offshore
drilling. During my time at NOAA, I worked on preparedness and
response efforts up and down the country's coasts, from Maine
to the Arctic to American Samoa. I also chaired the Oil Spill
Recovery Institute, created in response to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. Given my extensive experience, deep concern about NOAA,
and recognition of the widespread public opposition to offshore
drilling, I am here today to testify in opposition to the
Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 and the CORE Act of
2025.
The Offshore Lands Authorities Act would revoke permanent
protections from oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific,
eastern Gulf, and Arctic, areas established by presidential
withdrawal, while also limiting future withdrawals. These
presidential withdrawals, including those enacted by President
Trump, didn't happen in a vacuum. They happened after decades
of sustained bipartisan opposition to offshore drilling. Nearly
400 municipalities, 2,300 Republican, Democratic, and
independent elected officials, 55,000 coastal businesses,
500,000 fishing families, national defense interests, and
Members of Congress have all formally opposed expanded offshore
drilling. The communities most impacted by this bill are
overwhelmingly against it.
Every year NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration
responds to over 150 oil and chemical spills. The simple truth
is that whenever and wherever you drill, produce, transport, or
store oil, there is risk. Expanding that footprint, as this
bill proposes, multiplies that risk just as the budget and
staffing cuts are impacting the agency's ability to respond.
The Deepwater Horizon example remains a sobering example. I
worked 16-hour days for 87 days straight until the well was
capped. The cleanup took years more. Despite a response of
45,000 people and highly specialized equipment, only a fraction
of the oil was recovered.
Even smaller spills can cause serious harm. A spill in
Tampa Bay, for instance, polluted 13 miles of beach, harming
wildlife and disrupting fishing.
Oil spills in Alaska are particularly concerning. The North
Slope is remote and difficult to access. Getting proper
equipment can take weeks. Housing the number of responders
needed would also be logistically impossible, and severe
weather and long winter darkness would create major additional
challenges.
All told, this bill's proposal to eliminate protections
across the U.S. waters will invite oil and gas development on
every coast, risking spills we can't contain, and harming
ecosystems and economies for decades.
Although not part of my area of specific expertise, I also
want to express concern about the CORE Act. This bill would
prioritize seismic testing and drilling even in sensitive
areas, seismic testing that involves repeated high-decibel
blasts that travel hundreds of miles underwater which can
seriously impact marine wildlife.
These risks are magnified by the Trump administration's
rollback of safety regulations and its dismantling of the very
Federal agencies responsible for oil spill prevention and
response. Cuts to agency budgets and staff mean fewer
inspections, weaker safeguards, and slower responses. With
hurricane season just 12 days away, these stakes could not be
higher. Expanding offshore drilling while also weakening our
Federal response capacity is a dangerous combination.
In closing, after more than three decades responding to
spills, I have seen firsthand the devastating, often
irreversible impacts to communities, ecosystems, and
livelihoods. These bills ignore the will of the American people
and unnecessarily increase the risk of catastrophic oil spills,
especially in areas lacking the capacity to respond. I
respectfully urge the Subcommittee to weigh these risks before
advancing these bills.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Helton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas (Doug) Helton
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
major risks of offshore drilling and the importance of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in protecting the
American people, coastal communities, and marine ecosystems from harm,
particularly in the context of offshore oil and gas drilling.
Background
My name is Doug Helton, and until recently, I served as the
Regional Operations Supervisor for NOAA's Emergency Response Division,
providing scientific and technical support during oil spill responses.
After 33 years of service, I retired a few weeks ago along with over
1,000 other NOAA employees driven out by the Trump administration's
efforts to gut the agency and the critical data and services it
provides for the American people. Together, we represented a loss of
27,000 years of expertise at the agency, a loss that endangers
Americans' health, safety, and economies.
As an oil spill expert, this danger is particularly troubling as
the Administration and some Members of Congress seek to expand the
footprint of offshore drilling nationwide. During my time at NOAA, I
worked on oil spills, shipwrecks, abandoned vessels, and emergency
response efforts in almost all coastal states, ranging from Maine to
American Samoa, including Deepwater Horizon. I have extensive
experience in oil spill preparedness and response, including work
across the U.S., the Arctic, and Alaska. As the NOAA and Department of
Commerce representative to the Alaska Regional Response Team, I
supported statewide and transboundary incident response. I served as a
U.S. delegate to the Arctic Council's emergency preparedness
subcommittee and worked on transboundary pollution agreements. I also
chaired the federally mandated Oil Spill Recovery Institute in Cordova,
Alaska, which was created in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Before my NOAA career, I conducted salmon research in Bristol Bay and
the Bering Sea, where I had previously worked as a commercial
fisherman.
Given my extensive experience in oil spill recovery, my deep
concern about cuts to NOAA's operations, and my recognition of the
opposition by communities to the expansion of drilling to their coasts,
I am here today to testify in opposition to the Offshore Lands
Authorities Act of 2025 and the CORE Act of 2025.
Opposition to Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025
I understand that the Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 not
only looks to revoke the permanent ocean protections for the Atlantic,
Pacific, and Eastern Gulf coasts as well as the Arctic Ocean areas that
Presidents Biden and Obama withdrew from oil and gas leasing
disposition, but also goes further to significantly limit the ability
of future presidents to withdraw areas by limiting the amount of ocean
that can be withdrawn and removing the president's ability to
permanently protect certain areas, among other provisions.
Unchecked oil and gas development in our coastal waters comes at
the expense of our ocean, public health, local businesses, fisheries,
and marine ecosystems. The permanent withdrawals of this past January
by President Biden as well as the September 2020 withdrawals by
President Trump of the waters of the Southeastern United States for 10
years (from and including the waters of North Carolina through
Florida--came in response to decades of building opposition to drilling
by coastal communities, including opposition from Members of Congress
on both sides of the aisle representing these very communities. To
date, nearly 400 municipalities and counties and over 2,300 elected
officials--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--across the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf have formally opposed the expansion of
offshore drilling to their coasts. In addition to individual citizen
voices and those of elected officials, voices from defense communities
and business coalitions representing over 55,000 coastal businesses and
500,000 fishing families along the three coasts of the Lower 48 weighed
in, calling for the previous administration to issue permanent coastal
protections. These ocean areas should remain protected. The voices of
the people who live in these coastal communities that would be
negatively impacted by this bill are overwhelming in their opposition
to drilling.
I believe that many of the millions of Americans who want their
coasts protected from drilling and spilling have memories of the
Deepwater Horizon disaster, which unfolded 15 years ago this past April
20, and which has had long-lasting effects on the Gulf, its ecosystems,
and the people who call it home. And many of those local residents who
participated in the cleanup in the gulf, like after other large spills,
reported harmful long-term health impacts.
I also remember the Deepwater Horizon spill. I was notified early
in the morning that the rig was on fire and at risk of sinking. We had
the first trajectory and oil fate model analysis within a few hours.
The first of hundreds of such forecasts. I worked 16 hour days until
the well was capped 87 days later. And the cleanup and damage
assessment continued for years after that.
But those of us whose lives have been about responding to spills
know it's the lesser-known spills as well, including those members of
this Subcommittee have never heard of or have forgotten, that can
disrupt coastal communities. I think of the Tampa Bay spill over 30
years ago, which was the result of the collision of three ships, and
which provided the foundation for today's critical emergency response
and damage assessment techniques. Despite emergency cleanup efforts,
the oil fouled 13 miles of beaches and caused injury to birds, sea
turtles, mangrove habitat, seagrasses, salt marshes, shellfish beds, as
well as closing many of the waterways to fishing and boating.
Every year, NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration responds to
over 150 oil and chemical spills in U.S. waters. Whenever and wherever
you drill, produce, transport and store oil, there is risk, and this
bill would dangerously expand those risks into new regions with limited
ability to respond, particularly as agency budgets are being cut.
I'd like to specifically bring the Subcommittee's attention to what
an oil spill in Alaska would mean if these areas were opened to oil and
gas. At NOAA, I worked extensively on designing spill response
alternatives for Alaska and was a signatory to a plan to use chemical
dispersants if a major spill occurred. Not because this technique is
favored, but rather based on the recognition that few other response
technologies could be feasible in remote, ice-prone regions of the
Arctic.
The North Slope region of Alaska is larger than many U.S. states
but home to fewer than 10,000 residents, most of whom are scattered
among dozens of isolated, small communities only accessible by air. The
area is hundreds of miles from cities like Fairbanks and Anchorage and
mobilizing the proper equipment can take weeks. Caring for the number
of responders needed would be logistically impossible in the region or
in other areas like the Bering Sea. While sea ice is diminishing in the
region, the area is still subject to severe storms, long winter
darkness, and other challenges that would severely complicate any
cleanup response.
Even in accessible areas, mechanical cleanup of any large spill is
highly unlikely. For example, during the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster,
which was only 50 miles off the Gulf Coast and near the center of the
oil and gas industry, only a fraction of the spilled oil was recovered,
despite a response of more than 45,000 people at its peak and access to
a stockpile of specialized underwater robotic vehicles, multiple
drilling ships, spill response vessels, and other equipment.
Eliminating current and future ocean protections as laid out in
Congressman Higgins' bill opens the door to oil and gas development on
every coast, risking an oil spill that we won't be able to clean up
that would cause decades of harm to coastal communities and sensitive
marine environments.
Opposition to CORE Act of 2025
While not my specific area of expertise, I want to briefly touch on
my concerns around the CORE Act of 2025. This bill would prioritize
seismic testing and exploratory drilling even in ecologically sensitive
areas, including marine sanctuaries that are currently protected.
Seismic surveys involve repeated, high-decibel blasts of air guns that
can travel hundreds of miles underwater, which can seriously impact
marine wildlife and habitats. Opening previously protected areas to
these activities introduces serious and obvious risks.
Risks of Offshore Drilling & Cuts to NOAA
In addition to the increased risk of oil spills, expanding offshore
drilling threatens billion-dollar coastal economies, including fishing,
tourism, and recreation, which together support millions of jobs.
Climate-fueled disasters are already hurting coastal communities,
driving up insurance rates, and causing property losses. Last year was
the hottest year on record, with at least 27 climate disasters costing
the United States over $182 billion. Yet, this administration is moving
to stop tracking the cost of these extreme weather disasters and
Members of this committee just voted to repeal funding for coastal
restoration and resilience in their reconciliation bill. I cannot
imagine a worse time to open our coastlines to new exploration and
drilling.
The risks to our ocean, coastal communities, and offshore workers
are magnified by the Trump administration's rollback of safety
regulations for fossil fuel projects, as well as the gutting of key
federal agencies and programs that help clean up pollution from oil
spills, like NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration. The
administration has eliminated roughly 20% of NOAA's workforce through
mass firings and early retirements, and aims to eliminate even more.
The agency's critical work is being further degraded by contract
cancellations and lapses stemming from Secretary Lutnick's freeze on
contracts over $100,000 which has left scientists unable to conduct
research.
We also know that the administration is seeking even more severe
cuts that will further hinder our ability to prevent, monitor, and
respond to future oil spills. Leaked documents and the President's FY26
budget propose a 75% reduction in funding to NOAA Research and a 27%
cut to NOAA's overall budget. These dramatic staffing and agency budget
cuts paired with safety rollbacks, mean fewer inspections, weaker spill
prevention, and slower emergency responses.
As hurricane season rapidly approaches in just 12 days, the
combination of reckless cuts and an expanded footprint for offshore
drilling would spell disaster for our safety, health, and economies.
In closing, after more than three decades of responding to oil
spills across the country, I've seen firsthand the major, and often
irreparable, damage these spills cause, especially in sensitive and
remote marine ecosystems. The Offshore Lands Authorities Act and the
CORE Act ignore the voices of millions of Americans who want to see
American coastlines protected from new drilling. They would increase
the risk of catastrophic oil spills, including in areas with limited
response capabilities, just as the very institutions we rely on to
respond are being weakened by dramatic cuts to their budgets and
workforce.
I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to consider these risks before
moving forward with these two pieces of legislation. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Doug Helton, Former Regional
Operations Supervisor, Emergency Response Division, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
Questions Submitted by Representative Huffman
Chairman Stauber and Representative Huffman: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the committee on this important issue and
I appreciate the opportunity to share additional information for the
record.
Question 1. This administration is pushing to open new areas of the
Arctic Ocean to offshore oil and gas drilling. As an expert on oil
spill response, what would an oil spill response in the Arctic actually
look like in practice? What are the unique challenges to responding to
a spill in that region, both environmental and logistical? Is full
recovery a realistic possibility?
Answer. Oil spill response is always challenging, but a response in
the Arctic would be especially so. The scale of the Alaskan North Slope
is immense, extreme weather and long winters would hinder response
efforts and the logistics are very limited. Getting equipment and
personnel on scene and housing those personnel would be a huge
challenge. The north slope region is over 2000 miles by sea from Kodiak
AK and over 1500 miles from Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
Supplies and equipment could be brought in by air but there are few
villages and a very limited road system. There are no harbors for large
ships, and the coastal bays can only be navigated by landing craft,
barges and shallow water vessels. The response would be slow and rely
on equipment already staged in the region, with crews working from
small vessels, helicopters and other small aircraft.
Response efforts would also be seasonal, with most of the effort
during the summer months. The most challenging time of year would be
during ice formation and breakup when little or no response actions
would be feasible.
Full recovery of oil is never likely during a spill. Most major
spills such as the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon oil spills
had only 5 to 10% recovered.
Question 2. What are the impacts of oil spills on fisheries, both
commercial and subsistence?
Answer. The North Slope and coastal Alaskan Arctic has thousands of
miles of environmentally sensitive coastline with long sand and gravel
shorelines where oil could penetrate and biologically rich habitats
such as marshes, sheltered tidal flats, and exposed tidal flats. The
North Slope supports a number of sensitive biological resources
including birds, fish and shellfish, and marine mammals. The local
communities are heavily reliant on marine resources for their
livelihood and subsistence. Because of this unique relationship with
the marine environment, much of the coast is utilized for subsistence
activities and is extremely sensitive to the impacts of marine
commerce, especially oil spills.
Commercial fishing is less common in this region, but the broader
commercial industry in Alaska could certainly be affected by a spill in
this region. Many consumers would question the wholesomeness of Alaskan
seafood in general without understanding the location in which their
products are harvested. If a spill were to happen in the Bering Sea
however impacts to the industry could be direct and enormous because
many of the largest seafood ports in the United States are in this
region.
Question 3. H.R. 513 and H.R. 2556 would facilitate offshore oil
and gas drilling in long protected areas of the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf, including the Atlantic, Pacific, 27 Alaska, and the Eastern
Gulf. While the more catastrophic potential impacts of oil spills were
discussed during the hearing, oil and gas drilling also involves
frequent smaller-scale spills. How common are small spills, and what
effects do they have on ecosystems and coastal communities?
Answer. Large oil spills like the Exxon Valdez are fortunately rare
but small spills are very common. The US Coast Guard gets around 6000
or so notifications a year annually of spills in US waters, and NOAA
typically responds to 150 to 200 of the larger more complicated
incidents. Offshore oil and gas development requires specialized
vessels, tugs, barges crew boats, and other work boats and these
annually contribute to a number of small spills. These vessels need to
be fueled and maintained and the supporting port infrastructure,
including refineries, tank farms and pipelines, all add to the risk of
small operational spills. Cumulatively these small spills can be
harmful to coastal ecosystems.
Question 4. Is there anything else you would like to add for the
record?
Answer. Much of the focus of offshore oil and gas development is on
the risks from exploration and production, but still responders also
need to be prepared for transportation related incidents. A substantial
fraction of the US crude oil production, as well as refined products,
is exported. The great circle shipping routes for the West Coast and
Alaska goes through the Aleutians to Asia.
In the near future, routes may go through the Arctic. These are
remote areas with limited marine salvage and rescue capacity. Rescue
tugs may be days or weeks away. Even a small mechanical breakdown of a
tanker may quickly escalate into a major marine casualty.
Responders need to consider the likely shipping routes and the
risks inherent in those routes.
In recent years, the U.S. has produced record amounts of oil
offshore, and this administration wants to expand that. The proposed
bills will increase production without recognition of the increased
risk of spills. And we are going in the wrong direction.
Planning and preparedness for spills big and small has been
substantially impaired with the recent cuts to NOAA budgets and
staffing. The frequency and risk of spills has not declined, but NOAA's
response team is now much smaller, with major gaps in coverage in
California, Texas, and the Great Lakes. The remaining team is now
facing contracting, hiring, budget, travel and procurement roadblocks
that are making it harder to do the work. The team that remains,
working even harder to fulfill the mission, is soon expecting to see
further reductions in force.
Key contracts are not being renewed. Sooner or later, the public
will feel this. These changes are seriously harming our national
preparedness for managing oil spills.
______
Mr. Ezell. Thank you for your testimony.
The gentleman yields. Mr. Kief, you are now recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CORY KIEF, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT,
CROSBY TUGS, LLC, GALLIANO, LOUISIANA
Mr. Kief. Chairman Stauber, Mr. Ezell, Ranking Member
Ansari, and all the Committee members in attendance today, it
is an honor and privilege to come before you today. I am here
today to share my thoughts on the recent bills to be introduced
in the 119th Congress by Congressman Higgins and Congressman
Hunt.
As I understand, these two bills would limit the executive
authority of POTUS relative to cancellation of lease sales and
better identify and evaluate what is available for development
and production of natural resources in this great Nation.
Let me start by explaining the service industry that I
represent. I am the Director of Business Development and
Governmental Affairs for Crosby Tugs, located in Galliano,
Louisiana. We provide marine towing services for the energy and
civil sectors of the U.S. Our fleet of 130 vessels navigate the
inland waters, rivers, gulfs, and oceans of this great Nation.
We operate domestically and internationally. I have 49 years of
experience in this industry and began my service as an ordinary
seaman and worked through the ranks to become an executive in
this field. I also serve in several civic capacities, as
outlined in my biography.
My comments on Congressman Higgins's bill is that limiting
the authority of POTUS to withdraw lands from leasing that are
necessary for offshore production of energy is critical. The
U.S. needs every electron, barrel of oil, foot of gas it can
harvest to meet growing energy demands.
My comments on Congressman Hunt's bill are that there are
so many regions in this Nation that are off limits which are
vital to our Nation's goal for energy independence. I do
believe that the last evaluations were done in some regions in
the 1960s, which were incomplete and outdated. I am sure that
new seismic technology today could help us better understand
just exactly what is out there. I do believe that would be good
to know.
Also, we have Canada to the north, Russia to the northwest,
Mexico and Cuba to the south, maybe actively harvesting
resources from our region that we should be harvesting.
These bills complement each other. The Offshore Lands
Authorities Act makes sure lands are available for leasing for
generations to come, and only the most sensitive areas can be
withdrawn, and must be reconsidered every 20 years in order to
be withdrawn again. No more permanent withdrawals.
The CORE Act looks at these areas and lets policymakers
like Dr. Cruickshank here from BOEM know the resource potential
so that when leasing occurs it can be directed in a strategic
way. It is as simple as that.
Without the areas to lease, operations like those of Crosby
Tugs and other vessel operators, rig workers, engineers,
service companies, and others are in jeopardy of being phased
out. Without resource assessments, the already dysfunctional
Federal Government will be left to make decisions with even
less information and outright outdated and inaccurate
information.
Although these measures are important, in no way are they
near enough to have a national energy policy that is
substantial enough to attract investment. Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member, you all may as well come to terms that the U.S.
is simply not an attractive place to invest in the energy
sector. This Nation must fix the permitting process, and we
must do it for all energy sources and all infrastructure
projects. Too much time is being wasted bickering about which
sector of energy is better than the other, too much blame about
who shut down oil and gas and who shut down renewables, when
the fact is that all sectors of energy should be brought
online. And that is what I said, all sectors of energy.
There is no place in the world that wakes up every morning
demanding less energy. All regions of the world want more and
more. There is a smart way to do it, but it seems that you
haven't figured that out yet. If you don't figure it out soon,
we will be forced to buy energy from some other places in the
world who will capitalize on our weaknesses.
Did you know that the revenue generated for the U.S.
Treasury by the sale of leases and royalties generated by the
production of oil and gas was second only to Federal income
taxes?
Millions of people depend on the energy sector for their
jobs. They are negatively affected by government overreach, as
well, all because our government can't get its act together.
Thank goodness we have a Nation who wants energy independence,
but the good people of this Nation don't have a government that
we can depend on to make that happen.
The messaging is wrong, as well. It is insane to believe
that renewables will replace fossil fuels, but we can bring
another source of energy online that will help to satisfy the
needs of energy, and we have done it in the past without
sacrificing other energy inputs.
The political machine is hurting us. The world is watching
and forming their own opinion about how great this Nation
really is. I believe these bills are a step in the right
direction to begin to get the U.S. back on track to have better
energy policies, but this Committee and the Federal Government
have much more work to do, as well. We deserve better. We are
depending on you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kief follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cory Kief
Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and all of
the committee members in attendance today. It is an honor and a
privilege to come before you today!
I am here today to share my thought on the recent bills to be
introduced in the 119th Congress by Congressman Clay Higgins (H.R. 513)
and Congressman Wesley Hunt (H.R. 2556). As I understand, these two
bills would limit the executive authority of POTUS relative to
cancellations of lease sales, and to better identify and evaluate what
is available for development and production of natural resources in
this great nation.
Let me start by explaining the Service industry that I represent. I
am the Director of Business Development and Governmental Affairs for
Crosby Tugs located in Galliano, LA. We provide marine towing services
for the energy and civil sectors of the U.S. Our fleet of 130 vessels
navigate the inland waters, rivers, gulf and oceans of this great
nation. We operate domestically and internationally. I have 49 years of
experience in this industry and began my service as an ordinary seaman
and worked through the ranks to become an executive in this field. I
also serve in several civic capacities as outlined in my biography.
My comments on Congressman Higgins' bill are that limiting the
authority of POTUS to withdraw lands from leasing, that are necessary
for offshore production of energy, is critical. The U.S. needs every
electron, barrel of oil, or foot of gas it can harvest to meet growing
energy demands.
My comments on Congressman Hunts' bill are that there are so many
regions in this nation that are off limits which are vital to our
nation's goal for energy independence. I do believe that the last
evaluations were done, in some regions, in the 1960's which are
incomplete and outdated. I'm sure that new seismic technology today
could help to better understand just exactly what is out there. I do
believe that would be good to know! Also, Canada to the North, Russia
to the Northwest, Mexico and Cuba to the south may be actively
harvesting resources from our regions that WE should be harvesting.
These bills complement each other. The Offshore Lands Authorizes
Act makes sure lands are available for leasing for generations to come
and only the most sensitive areas can be withdrawn and must be
reconsidered every 20 years in order to be withdrawn again. No more
permanent withdraws. The CORE Act looks at these areas and lets policy
makers, like Dr. Cruickshank here from BOEM, know the resource
potential, so that when leasing occurs it can be directed in a
strategic way. It's as simple as that.
Without areas to lease, operations like those of Crosby Tugs and
many other vessel operators, rig workers, engineers, service companies
and others are in jeopardy of being phased out. Without resource
assessments, the already dysfunctional federal government will be left
to make decisions with even less information, and outright outdated and
inaccurate information.
Although these measures are important, in no way are they near
enough to have a national energy policy that is substantial enough to
attract investment. Mr. Chairman and Ranking member, you all may as
well come to terms that the U.S. is simply NOT an attractive place to
invest in the energy sector. This nation must fix the permitting
processes and we must do it for all energy sources and all
infrastructure projects. Too much time is being wasted bickering about
which sector of energy is better than the other. Too much blame about
who shut down Oil and Gas, and who shut down renewables. When the fact
is that ALL sectors of energy should be brought on line. That's right .
. . I said ALL!
There is no place in the world that wakes up every morning
demanding less energy. ALL regions of the world want more, and more.
There is a smart way to do it, but it seems that you haven't figured
that out yet. If you don't figure it out soon, we will be forced to buy
energy from some other places in the world who will capitalize on our
weaknesses.
Did you know that the revenue generated for the U.S. Treasury by
the sale of leases and royalties generated by the production of Oil and
Gas was second only to Federal Income taxes? Millions of people who
depend on the energy sector for jobs. They are negatively affected by
government overreach as well, all because our government can't get its
act together. Thank goodness we have a nation who wants energy
independence, but the good people of this nation don't have a
government that we can depend on to make that happen.
As my grandmother used to say . . . Everybody wants to go to
heaven, but nobody wants to die. Everybody wants to lose weight, but
nobody wants to stop eating and start exercising.
The messaging is wrong as well. It is insane to believe that
renewables will replace fossil fuels. But we can bring another source
of energy on line that will help to satisfy the need for energy and
we've done it in the past without sacrificing other energy inputs. The
political machine is hurling us. The world is watching and forming
their own opinion about how great this nation really is.
I believe these bills are a step in the right direction to begin to
get the U.S. back on track to have better energy policies but this
committee and the federal government has more work to do as well.
We deserve better. Thank You!
______
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Kief. The Committee will now
recognize members for 5 minutes for questioning, and I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes. I will start with you, Mr.
Kief.
Is it true that the current mobile offshore drilling rig
count in the United States has drastically declined in the last
20 years, and cannot in reality support a drill, drill, drill
program?
Mr. Kief. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Ezell. Why is that? And can anything be done about it?
Mr. Kief. Well, I am going to read to you my past testimony
from 2011 that I did before the Committee on Natural Resources
when Chairman Hastings was here. ``Drilling contractors are
leaving the Gulf to go to work in other countries that have the
ability to obtain steady financial commitments. These drilling
contractors have already demonstrated they will not stay in the
U.S. waiting for the government and the operators to get their
act together and iron out the wrinkles in this new regulatory
environment. Service companies such as ours, who depend on this
system, are now facing severe economic decline due to this lack
of efficiency.''
We just can't simply get our act together to figure out how
to compete with the rest of the world. Bottom line.
Mr. Ezell. Mr. Kief, the CORE Act and Offshore Lands
Authorities Act, OLAA, are both critical bills to realize an
American energy dominance for the future, but especially
important for coastal communities. As you well know, Texas,
Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are recipients of GOMESA
funding paid directly as a percentage of offshore oil and gas
receipts. Do you think that both bills will ensure that Gulf
States realize funds for generations to come since OLAA
identifies more resources that can be produced and the other,
prevents these resources from being taken off the books?
Mr. Kief. I certainly do believe that the coastal States
are depending on that revenue that is generated from royalties
and from production. The problem that we have is constantly we
address Congress, and everybody wants to talk about production,
production, production, production. What we are missing is
exploration and development.
I built a small business by reading lease sales. And you
know what the lease sales for the last 10 years tells me? This
is not a good place. And what is in jeopardy is our revenue
that is being generated from GOMESA or GOAESA, whatever you
want to call it now.
But the point is that Louisiana has constitutionally
protected that money that we spend on coastal protection and
restoration only. I am the President of our local levee
district. We depend on that funding to build a resiliency for
our people who live along the coast.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. I want to give you another minute to
speak about the importance of GOMESA. And I understand you are
involved with public infrastructure in Louisiana, as well.
Mr. Kief. Yes, sir. I am the President of the Association
of Levee Boards for the great State of Louisiana. I'm proud of
that.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Ms. Ansari for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
I want to thank you, Mr. Phipps, for attending our hearing
today. I do believe there is some important context that is
missing from our discussion of this bill and the expansion of
your Bull Mountains mine.
First, I would like to enter into the record this New York
Times expose titled, ``A Faked Kidnaping and Cocaine: a Montana
Mine's Descent Into Chaos.''
For those who aren't familiar, this expose is written about
your coal company, Signal Peaks, and details some extremely
concerning behavior from previous executives. Mr. Phipps, yes
or no, is it true that nine executives of Signal Peak Energy
have been convicted or charged as part of a scheme involving
embezzlement, bribery, and a faked kidnaping?
Mr. Phipps. That was prior to my time, and I don't believe
it was nine.
Ms. Ansari. Say yes or no.
Mr. Phipps. That is my answer.
Ms. Ansari. All right, it is a yes. Is it true that a
former Vice President of Signal Peak pressured, bribed, and
threatened workers not to report injuries that they suffered on
the job?
Mr. Phipps. That was before my time at Signal Peak Energy.
Ms. Ansari. Is it true?
Mr. Phipps. The owners of Signal Peak Energy did the right
thing when they found out about this behavior. They
cooperated----
Ms. Ansari. It is a yes or no----
Mr. Phipps [continuing]. With authorities.
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Phipps, it is a yes-or-no question.
Mr. Phipps. This was before my time.
Ms. Ansari. All right. It is a yes. And three, is it true
that a United States attorney stated that Signal Peak's actions
demonstrate ``utter disregard for environmental and worker
health and safety standards''?
Mr. Phipps. No, Signal Peak currently complies with all
Federal and State laws.
Ms. Ansari. Is it true that a United States Attorney stated
that this happened? Yes or no.
Mr. Phipps. Prior to my time, I don't know.
Ms. Ansari. It is kind of bizarre that you don't know much
about your company prior to your time, but Signal Peak was
fined $1 million and sentenced to 3 years of probation for
violating environmental and safety regulations. This is the
kind of company that Republicans want to sell off our Federal
lands to without proper review, especially of the climate
impacts. Frankly, I think that is a disgrace and the American
people deserve better.
Mr. Helton, I want to thank you for your many years of
Federal service. Congratulations on your retirement. Thank you
for taking the time to be here today.
The bills on today's agenda are part of a significant
action to expand fossil fuel development, especially offshore
drilling, across Federal lands and waters, all under the guise
of a so-called energy emergency. But the United States, as you
know, is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. We
are producing more than any other country in history. We are
also a top exporter, which does increase our energy costs here
at home. Interestingly, all of the coal from the coal mine I
was just asking about is exported to Japan and Singapore.
Mr. Helton, if we significantly expand offshore oil and
gas, especially in places like Alaska, where is that oil most
likely to go, and what are the risks of transporting that oil
and gas, if it might, for example, head west to Asia?
Mr. Helton. Thank you for the question. I am not sure
exactly how the oil will be transported or where, but my
suspicion is that much of the oil will be exported, especially
from Alaska. There aren't the routes of transmission to get the
oil from the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea currently to the
Alaska Pipeline. And even if it gets into the pipeline system,
it is a chance that a substantial amount of that would be
heading west to Japan and Korea and other Asian locations. And
from my perspective and concern, is that there is very little
response capacity in that region.
So historically, tankers would leave Valdez and head down
to California or Washington ports. Along the way there is
plenty of assets and rescue tugs and equipment if a vessel gets
in trouble. But if a vessel heads west to the Aleutians, it is
unlikely that there is going to be a rapid response, and a
simple mechanical problem could lead to a catastrophic
incident.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much.
I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Representative Downing, you are up
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Downing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just jump
right into it, a question first for Mr. Phipps.
Can you start by explaining the long history of the Bull
Mountains mine, and how it has contributed to the region's
economy over the years?
Mr. Phipps. So, mining in the Bull Mountains has occurred
for over 150 years. Signal Peak Energy commercially developed
the property in 2008 and invested hundreds of millions of
dollars to bring rail service to the mine and big power that is
required for a commercial operation. And with that, they
brought a longwall operation to produce coal domestically for
power plants in the U.S. And as market forces changed and the
need for domestic coal dropped, Signal Peak began exporting
coal, and now 98 percent of our production is exported to Japan
and South Korea.
Mr. Downing. Thank you. Signal Peak has made significant
contributions to the community in Musselshell County and
beyond. Can you speak to what is at stake for local schools,
public services, and charitable programs if the mine were to
close?
Mr. Phipps. In addition to the extractive taxes and
royalties that we pay, we also contribute to Musselshell and
Yellowstone County. Signal Peak has a community foundation
where we donate millions of dollars to the community that can
go to anything from fire trucks to playgrounds for kids and
youth baseball. We also have an endowment where we award
scholarships to any student from Musselshell County that wants
to do secondary education. And then we have also done a large
project recently in Yellowstone County, where we have made the
largest donation to the City of Billings to construct an ice
rink for the community.
Mr. Downing. Thank you. You know, the Federal sections are
relatively small here, so why is access to this small area of
Federal coal so critical right now?
And what would happen to the mine's operations and
workforce if H.R. 931 was not enacted?
Mr. Phipps. We have enough coal reserves to remain
operational through the end of the year. Our mine is shovel-
ready, ready to deploy our longwall into this Federal coal at
the end of the year. But we also have to develop ahead of the
longwall with our continuous miner units. So, we will begin
winding operations down at the end of the year if we don't
receive approval to mine.
Mr. Downing. So, what does that mean to workforce? How many
jobs are lost? What happens there?
Mr. Phipps. It would probably be 85 percent of our
workforce.
Mr. Downing. Thanks. Some of the language was included in
the reconciliation package the Committee has advanced. So why
do you believe it is still necessary to move H.R. 931 as a
standalone bill?
Mr. Phipps. When we were in front of Judge Molloy on this
case, OSM represented to the court that they could have the EIS
completed by July 2024. We were asked if the operation could
remain open during that time, and our answer to the court was
we could remain open, however it had to be done on time. Well,
that case has since closed, and now OSM has failed to meet
their end of the deal, and we are stuck holding the bag and
have nowhere else to mine.
Mr. Downing. Thank you.
Just in closing, obviously this operation is important to
Musselshell County, it is important to Yellowstone County, it
is important to the State of Montana. It is supporting schools,
charities, families. These are high-paying jobs that are
spending money in these communities. This is incredibly
important. And my understanding is, if operations have to stop
at these Federal sections, that a lot of this coal will be
essentially sterilized and unrecoverable, at least not
economically. So, I just want to point out how important this
is to the communities that I represent and to the State of
Montana.
So, on that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Rivas from California's 29th for 5 minutes.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am glad to see the bipartisan reauthorization for the
National Landslide Preparedness Program, the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and the Volcano Early
Warning System Program, all on today's agenda. These programs
provide critical services to our constituents and help us
better understand national disasters so we can mitigate risks
and prepare in advance.
This is especially relevant for my constituents in the San
Fernando Valley of Los Angeles who are at risk of experiencing
earthquakes and landslides. Just over 30 years ago the
Northridge earthquake devastated the San Fernando Valley,
killing 58 people, injuring 9,000, and displacing 125,000
residents.
Dr. West, can you describe how the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program can help us both mitigate and respond
to disasters like the Northridge earthquake?
Dr. West. Let's try this. I can. I think the, in my
testimony I called out the four agencies that participate in
NEHRP. I think they provide a nice outline for the different
components of your question.
At the foundational research level, you have the National
Science Foundation working to advance our core understanding
of, quite honestly, how earthquakes happen. And on the
engineering side, doing the research to figure out how
buildings respond, how structures respond to different kinds of
forces.
Then you have the U.S. Geological Survey, who is kind of
the eyes on the ground of earthquakes, so tracking and
understanding what is actually happening, as I showed in my
figure, mapping out what we might expect in the future.
Then you have FEMA, who contributes not only on the
recovery side, the response and recovery side that we are all
very familiar with, but also on the mitigation side. So,
working with communities, working with cities to identify
specific future hazards and address risks and address them.
Then you have the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, who really takes a lead in coordinating those
groups, but also in translating those things into building
codes.
So all of those pieces come together, I think, to reduce
the risks from earthquakes.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you. You know, I agree with you. It is
clear that these programs do work, and it is important to
continue investing, especially in science research at NSF and
other Federal agencies. You know, in California, we have
Caltech in Southern California that is known for earthquake
research. And, you know, I have worked there years ago and met
many scientists and engineers that work in this field and, very
important, especially for Southern California that is always at
risk for earthquakes, especially in my district.
But, you know, I am concerned that staff firings across the
Federal Government because of DOGE will threaten these services
and the safety and preparedness of our communities. We are
already seeing changes to our emergency alert system, you know,
thanks to these DOGE firings at NOAA which plays a key role in
safeguarding our communities from natural disasters before and
after they strike. In fact, the National Weather Service is no
longer providing weather alerts in languages other than
English. And this is another attack from the Administration
towards non-English speakers in this country. We need everyone
in our communities to be safe and to know what to do in the
event of a natural disaster.
You know, in my district, almost 70 percent of households
report speaking a non-English language as their primary
language, and, you know, what will my constituents do in the
next earthquake or landslide, or if they don't get the
emergency alerts in a language that they read and understand?
And so, Mr. Helton, I know we have very little time, but
can you describe how DOGE's firings affect the agency's ability
to provide similar critical services?
Mr. Helton. Yes, the cuts to NOAA are across the agency and
all the divisions. Like you mentioned, the National Weather
Service has been cut. I know in the concept, in the
relationship with the oil spill world, there is talk about
expanding drilling in the Arctic, for example, but the Weather
Service is no longer offering 24-hour weather forecasts in the
northern region of Alaska. So that is an example where those
models and data would be critical for any kind of operational
response and to model where that oil might go.
Similarly, the IOOS system, which is the International
Ocean Observing System, apparently is also slated to be
defunded, a critical data source that oil spill modelers would
use to predict where contaminants would spread and how rapidly
they would get there.
So, that is just a small snapshot. I think every part of
NOAA has seen substantial cuts.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
Representative Hageman for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Mr. Kief, what was the reaction in your State, in the Gulf
of America, and in your industry when President Biden issued an
order to withdraw the 600-plus million acres?
Mr. Kief. Well, as I mentioned before, the way we plan our
business is based on these things. Robust lease sales usually
mean that we can make good investments into growing our
businesses and things of that nature. Those things are just an
economical turn-off. I mean, now, what are we looking at? And
when we see these things, we realize that our investment is not
dead. You know, we have millions of dollars invested into
equipment and people and services. And when those things
happen, what are we supposed to do with our investment? And we
are depending on these things for us to have a viable business.
Ms. Hageman. And actually produce something that the rest
of us need, correct?
Mr. Kief. Well, as I mentioned before in my testimony, I
don't know anywhere in the world where you wake up and people
demand less energy. Everybody wants more and more and more
energy, and we should be working every day to figure out how to
produce those things in a responsible way.
Ms. Hageman. We are using more energy today than we used
yesterday, and tomorrow we will use more energy than we use
today. That is just the reality of the situation, isn't it?
Mr. Kief. My--the study that I have been doing shows that
by the year 2050 that we are going to have a demand that is
going to increase by 50 percent.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Luckily, because of the change to
President Trump's pro-energy agenda, this withdrawal that
President Biden attempted to do was reversed 14 days later, so
it was only in place for a short period of time. In that period
of time, did your industry suffer any harm as a result of the
withdrawal?
Mr. Kief. Could you repeat that again, please? I am sorry.
Ms. Hageman. Sure. Did you suffer any harm during the 14-
day withdrawal that withdrawal was in place under President
Biden?
Mr. Kief. Not really, because those impacts aren't felt
immediately.
Ms. Hageman. Well, one of the things that we hear of ten
with energy producers is the word ``certainty,'' and how
important certainty is in your industry. Why is certainty
important, Mr. Kief?
Mr. Kief. Well, because it is the only way that you can
attract investment. I mean, and it is not just with us, what we
do as a service industry with a tugboat company. These
operators in the Gulf of Mexico, they have to decide where they
are going to make capital investments if they are larger oil
companies. The smaller independents, they need to go and find
investment capital and money. And when these things happen,
they just can't get, you know, attract investment. And it is
just a wet towel on everything.
Ms. Hageman. Mr. Phipps, is certainly important for your
industry?
Mr. Phipps. Yes, it is. And----
Ms. Hageman. Why?
Mr. Phipps. Blue collar workers are attracted in all
industries. And when you work at a coal mine and there is
uncertainty on your permitting or whether or not you are going
to have a job in a year, you are being recruited to go work
elsewhere. And so, with us not being able to provide certainty
to our workforce, it has been difficult to retain top talent.
Ms. Hageman. So, one of the things that I heard earlier
today is that the so-called renewables are less expensive and
as reliable as our energy that is produced with coal, natural
gas, and uranium. And I see, Mr. Kief, that you are shaking
your head. I find it to be absolutely, utterly, and completely
100 percent absurd for anybody to make that claim, and I am
just going to give you a quick example of what I mean by that.
I was recently on the ninth floor of a power plant near
Colorado Springs, and I was looking around and I looked across
the highway I-25 and I saw a solar farm over there. And so, I
was asking the manager of the facility where I was touring, and
I said, ``What is the footprint here? About how big is this
place? It looks to me to be about 300 acres.''
And he said, ``Yes, probably about 300 acres.''
I said, ``How about across the road? How about--how big is
that solar farm? ''
And he said, ``About 1,500 acres,'' so 5 times larger.
And I said, ``What is the output? ''
And he said, ``Two hundred megawatts here.''
I said, ``How much over there? ''
He said, ``A hundred and fifty.''
I said, ``What is your efficiency here? ''
And he said, ``Eighty-two to eighty-five percent.''
I said, ``What is the efficiency over there? ''
And he said, ``Twenty-two percent.'' So when you just look
at that one metric by which the amount of land necessary per
unit of energy produced, they are not even comparable.
The other thing that is so crazy about it is when you talk
about solar. For 8 to 10 hours every day solar power has a
catastrophic failure, a catastrophic failure because the sun
goes down, right? For 8 to 10 hours every single day it can't
produce electricity. And yet we have people who attack what you
do, Mr. Kief, and what you do, Mr. Phipps, and attempt to
prevent us from being able to access these resources with the
idea that we are going to be able to replace that energy with
wind and solar. Is that at all feasible, Mr. Phipps?
Mr. Phipps. No, it is not.
Ms. Hageman. Mr. Kief?
Mr. Kief. No, it is not, but it is still important that we
bring all sources of energy online in some kind of way.
Ms. Hageman. Sure, but it is also important that we protect
the ones that we already have that are powered with our
traditional energy resources, correct?
Mr. Kief. That is correct.
Ms. Hageman. All right. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. The Chair now recognizes Representative Crank
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
joining us today.
In 2023 Congress passed the most significant permitting
reform in over 40 years through the Fiscal Responsibility Act,
the FRA. This legislation shortened review times, limited what
qualifies as a major Federal action, and it codified the One
Federal Decision framework.
A central goal of these reforms was to provide greater
certainty and greater timeliness for project applicants,
ensuring agencies arrive at decisions without unnecessary
delays. FRA clarified that the 2-year shot clock, if you will,
for completing an environmental impact statement begins when an
agency determines that an EIS is required for a proposed
Federal action. Any extension beyond that timeline must be done
``in consultation with the applicant,'' ensuring agencies don't
unilaterally drag out the process.
Mr. Phipps, despite exceeding the 2-year deadline for the
EIS, did the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement consult with Signal Peak in good faith when it
extended the EIS schedule to 2026?
Mr. Phipps. No, they did not.
Mr. Crank. In your testimony, you mentioned that OSM
undertook additional studies during the EIS process, and
despite FRA making clear that agencies are not required to
conduct such studies unless they are truly necessary. In your
view, did OSM use these additional studies as a means to delay
the issuance of the EIS?
Mr. Phipps. Yes, I believe they did.
Mr. Crank. And then finally, I want to touch on the legal
challenges. The D.C. District Court dismissed your suit, saying
that it wasn't ripe because the original 2024 deadline hadn't
passed yet, even though the agency had already amended its
timeline to 2026. Do you believe Congress should revisit this
issue in future permitting reform efforts?
Mr. Phipps. Yes, I think that would be helpful for
operators. It is like getting your mid-term report when you are
failing your class and you say, let's wait until the end of the
semester to see if I really fail, rather than changing course,
because OSM did not change course.
Mr. Crank. And then, specific to that, should project
applicants be allowed to challenge unreasonable delays before
the deadline is passed, especially when an agency publicly
revises those timelines?
Mr. Phipps. Yes, I think they should be.
Mr. Crank. OK, thank you.
Mr. West, the National Landslide Preparedness Act
additionally reauthorizes the 3D Elevation Program, also known
as 3DEP, a complete topographical map of the U.S. that is
important in not only landslide preparedness, but flood
mapping, forestry, and infrastructure planning, as well. As the
State geologist from Alaska, do you see 3DEP as playing an
essential role potentially in combination with other programs
such as Earth MRI at USGS to help identify mineral deposits?
Dr. West. Absolutely. Two different pieces there,
landslides and mineral deposits, and 3DEP has proven
tremendously valuable in landslides basically happen where we
have steep terrain, right? That is a prerequisite. And the 3DEP
program has made it possible to map vast areas and to unleash,
you know, algorithms, computer technologies to identify those
areas that are most likely and most prone to landsliding.
So, what they really do is allow you to move from kind of
one person in the field doing field investigations to covering
large areas. And the same analogy, I think, holds for mineral
exploration.
Mr. Crank. I hope I am not stealing questions from my
colleague, Mr. Begich, but do you have any, examples of that in
Alaska, where that has happened, or where you have used 3DEP?
Dr. West. You know, I am a seismologist. I can't comment on
exactly which data sets were used, but the USGS has just
recently completed a widespread survey of landslide risk around
the Prince William Sound area, which was premised very heavily
on topographic data sets. I am not in a position to know
whether or not 3DEP, which portions of that were 3DEP-informed.
I would be happy to follow up.
Mr. Crank. OK, that is fine. No, I appreciate that, and
thank you for your answers.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize
Representative Begich from the great State of Alaska for 5
minutes.
Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I
begin I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
addressed to the Chair and Ranking Member of this Committee
signed by over 460 individuals, including leading experts in
earthquake and volcano science engineers and members of the
private sector expressing support for the reauthorization of
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the
National Volcano Early Warning System.
Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD018.pdf
------
Mr. Begich. Thank you.
Dr. West, with over 50 active volcanoes in Alaska, many
directly beneath major air traffic corridors, do you believe
the Federal Government has appropriately prioritized volcanic
risk in its hazard mitigation strategy?
And as a follow-up, what role does the reauthorization of
NVEWS play in ensuring aviation safety and economic continuity
for both Alaska and the broader U.S. economy?
Dr. West. In my opinion, the previous iterations of NVEWS,
which date back, oh, I don't know, I don't remember the first
year, I want to say the early aught, actually demonstrates
Congress's recognition of the problem. There is, of course,
more work to be done. We have not completed the full build-out,
the full suite of tools that would be available under NVEWS,
but I think it would be wrong to, I certainly wouldn't want to
suggest that it is a hazard that has been ignored.
Mr. Begich. And do you believe that the NVEWS work products
help to ensure aviation safety and economic continuity?
And can you speak to that as it relates specifically to
Alaska?
Dr. West. Without a doubt is the short answer. And, you
know, the long answer is the ability to forecast where ash
might occur in the air is pivotal in identifying regions where
planes shouldn't be flying, where we might want to avoid. But
also, when eruptions occur, a lot of things happen very, very
quickly, right? All of a sudden there wasn't ash in the air,
and now there is a huge area that is. So, putting that together
with weather patterns and understanding where that ash is going
to go, I live in Fairbanks, hundreds of miles north of the
Aleutians, and we have flight routes impacted by ash. So those
products are tremendously valuable.
I might have strayed from your question.
Mr. Begich. No, that is great, and I think it is worth
mentioning just for the benefit of others and for the
Committee, Alaska has one of the busiest cargo airports in the
world. I believe we are number three right now in terms of
cargo air traffic in Anchorage. Many of the flights that
originate on the West Coast going to Asia fly directly over
Alaska on the great circle route. So, it is absolutely
important that we have this capacity, and it is a funded
capacity.
You noted that real-time monitoring not only saves lives,
but significantly reduces economic costs after disasters. In
Alaska that is especially important because of our distance
from supply chains and other emergency services. Can you speak
to how programs like the NEHRP and NVEWS, as reauthorized by
these bills, can help Alaska prepare more effectively for both
earthquakes and volcanic events, and reduce long-term
infrastructure repair costs?
Dr. West. Yes. In 2018 there was a magnitude 7.1 earthquake
essentially underneath Anchorage. It did tremendous damage.
Hundreds and hundreds of buildings experienced some damage.
There were schools that were closed permanently. However, not a
single building collapsed in its entirety. And remarkably,
there were no fatalities. That was not an accident. That was
because of construction practices over the course of decades
that were informed by the building codes which are a direct
product of NEHRP.
So, while that is a damaging event and we are never going
to make all impacts of earthquakes go away, I think that is a
remarkable success story.
Mr. Begich. I was in that earthquake. It was remarkable. It
was extraordinarily powerful because of its proximity to
Anchorage, and my house still stands. So, thank you for your
work.
And I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Stauber. Representative Ansari.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from a
coalition of 22 organizations opposing H.R. 2556, the CORE Act.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD008.pdf
------
I would also like to enter letters in support of Biden's
permanent protections against offshore drilling in the
Atlantic, Pacific, eastern Gulf, and Alaska's northern Bering
Sea. These include letters from the House, Senate, Business
Alliances for Coastal Protection, the Defense Support
Initiatives Committee, and 197 national and local non-
governmental organizations.
[The letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD007.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD009.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD010.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD011.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD013.pdf
[The article follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD012.pdf
------
Finally, I would like to enter for the record this roundup
of statements of support from Members of Congress, governors,
and State officials, local elected officials, national
organizations, and tribal organizations. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
[The statements follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD014.pdf
------
Mr. Stauber. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, along
with bipartisan reforms that were signed into law by President
Biden last Congress, agencies have 2 years to complete an
environmental impact statement from the date when an agency
determines that such an EIS is necessary for the proposed
action. Mr. Phipps, when did the department realize an EIS
would be necessary for this modification for your project?
Mr. Phipps. December 2022.
Mr. Stauber. And when was the hearing?
Mr. Phipps. The final hearing was in February 2023.
Mr. Stauber. Did the department start the EIS process on
that date?
Mr. Phipps. We started the EIS process, selected a
contractor. We were given a schedule that the EIS would be
complete by July 2024. And time and time again, every time we
met, the schedule would slip by 1 month, 2 months. Pretty soon
the schedule slipped all the way until 2026.
Mr. Stauber. Why do you think that happened?
Mr. Phipps. I believe it was intentional.
Mr. Stauber. And the law says for the Fiscal Responsibility
Act for an environmental assessment it is a 1-year shot clock.
That is law. And for an EIS it is a 2-year shot clock. That is
law. We know that the Biden administration took that as
recommendations, and it is unfortunate.
When did they start?
Mr. Phipps. So, the notice of intent was in August 2023
after months and months of delaying just to get the notice of
intent out. So, they officially started it in December 2022,
when they notified----
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Phipps [continuing]. Signal Peak and the court that an
EIS needed to be complete, but it wasn't until August 2023
where they officially did a notice of intent. But the BUILDER
Act says the earlier of the two.
Mr. Stauber. How many NEPA reviews have you completed for
this specific modification?
Mr. Phipps. This is our fourth.
Mr. Stauber. This is your fourth NEPA review for this
modification?
Mr. Phipps. That is correct.
Mr. Stauber. And how long has this process taken overall?
Mr. Phipps. The initial leasing of the coal was in 2011,
and we began mining Federal coal in 2015. And constant
litigation has been on and off, or they have been successful on
some areas but they have also been denied on others. But it has
been constant litigation for a decade.
Mr. Stauber. That is really uncalled for.
Mr. Kief, as we have discussed, Representative Higgins's
bill would limit the size and duration of offshore withdrawals
and require details of economic and resource assessments before
areas are locked away from development. For companies like
Crosby Tugs, which support offshore engineering, procurement,
construction, and installation, how would maintaining more
predictable, long-term access to offshore areas impact your
business investment decisions, workforce stability, and ability
to plan for future operations?
Mr. Kief. It is the only way to gain stability, for us to
be able to plan in an efficient manner. There is no way in the
world that we could depend on what we are seeing right now. It
is just too soft. You know, I live in south Louisiana. I am not
walking on rocky ground in Texas. We are walking in the marsh.
Mr. Stauber. Right.
Mr. Kief. And this is the same thing, you know? How can we
walk in this marsh? We can't. It is just not substantial enough
for us to be able to depend on.
Now, how would it affect us if it would be much more
stable? Well, we are a company that likes to grow and be
diverse, you know, and we just don't have it. We don't, we are
not seeing what we need to be able to do those things.
Mr. Stauber. Dr. West, turning to USGS programs, it is my
understanding that there can be often a domino effect from one
of the hazards we discussed today. Is that correct?
Dr. West. Yes, it is. Earthquakes trigger landslides,
landslides happen as a result of volcanoes. These are all
inter-related hazards. And I would have to point out tsunamis,
which are not part of our story today, but certainly with
NOAA----
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Dr. West [continuing]. Sitting next to me.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, you answered my last question, which are
how are these USGS programs interconnected? Is it safe to say
these programs build off each other, and are thus more
effective when operated together?
Dr. West. I think that is absolutely a good statement. The
individuals, the scientists who sit behind these programs and
the systems they operate are all interconnected.
Mr. Stauber. I want to thank you all for your valuable
testimony and time today.
The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Committee clerk by 5
p.m. on Friday, May 23. The hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 931, To allow certain Federal minerals to be mined consistent with
the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, and for other purposes
May 20, 2025
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the
Subcommittee, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE) is pleased to provide this Statement for the Record on H.R.
931, a bill to allow certain Federal minerals to be mined consistent
with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, and for other
purposes.
Background
The Bull Mountains Mine No. 1 (Bull Mountains Mine) is an
underground coal mine in Musselshell and Yellowstone Counties in
Montana. Bull Mountains Mine is currently mining limited portions of
non-Federal coal that is accessible without access to Federal coal
reserves. The mine has reported that without approval to mine Federal
coal, the mine will run out of coal in late--2025 and be forced to
close, necessitating layoffs of 85-90% of the approximately 250
employees.
On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order
14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, to support the
development of a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy
to meet our nation's needs. In accordance with that directive, in early
May, OSMRE began to carry out the environmental review process to
support the expansion of the Bull Mountains Mine. If approved, this
project is expected to significantly contribute to creating jobs and
economic prosperity for Americans and support the nation's energy
independence.
H.R. 931, a bill to allow certain Federal minerals to be mined
consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification,
and for other purposes
H.R. 931 would authorize Federal coal reserves leased under Federal
Coal Lease MTM 97988 to be mined in accordance with the Bull Mountains
Mining Plan Modification and would direct the Secretary of the Interior
to approve the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification within 30 days
of enactment. OSMRE supports the intent of the bill to address the
national energy emergency and would welcome the opportunity to work
with the sponsor and Subcommittee on technical changes, including
verifying the Federal land description to ensure alignment with the
full scope of the Federal coal lease and referencing the current status
of the mining plan modification.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record.
______
Statement for the Record
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 2250, National Landslide Preparedness Act Reauthorization Act of
2025; H.R. 3168, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Reauthorization Act of 2025; and H.R. 3176, to amend the John D.
Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to
reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System
May 20, 2025
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, thank you for inviting the
Department to provide this statement on three bills that reauthorize
key programs within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that help make
the United States a more hazard-ready nation.
For geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, and
volcanoes, the USGS provides timely and accurate information to
emergency managers and response officials. USGS monitoring and
geospatial data combined with multi-disciplinary expertise deliver
real-time situational awareness and long-term hazard assessments to
inform and educate at-risk communities during crises and to anticipate
and prepare for future geologic hazard events.
H.R. 2250
Landslides are a deadly and costly hazard that impact every U.S.
state and territory. The USGS is the lead Federal agency providing
actionable landslide hazard and risk information to decision makers and
the public. We also lead advances in the use of lidar to map topography
to ever higher fidelity, valuable applications of which are landslide
hazard assessments and other core public safety and commercial
applications. The National Landslide Preparedness Act (NLPA), first
signed into law by President Trump in January 2021, has accelerated
efforts to reduce Americans' exposure to landslide hazard and risk
through the National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program and 3D
Elevation Program. Under the Act, the USGS has expanded national
coverage of landslide inventories and hazard assessments; delivered
faster, more accurate debris flow early warnings to state and Federal
partners, including post-wildfire; developed emergency response
protocols for landslide disasters; and dramatically increased the
coverage of high-resolution topographic data available to support
hazard analyses across the United States. We have also established
interagency and advisory bodies to ensure efficiency and oversight
called for by the Act.
Studying landslides requires more than just lidar, and lidar is
used to study more than just landslides, but the association of the two
activities by NLPA is appropriate and effective. In addition, expanding
coordination and development of improved mapping of stream networks
from lidar will improve community risk assessments of destructive post-
wildfire debris flows.
H.R. 2250 would reauthorize NLPA through 2030. Changes to NLPA,
such as new priorities focusing on atmospheric rivers and other
hydrologic events, as well as new frameworks for regional stakeholder
participation, will improve implementation in the future. The
Department supports the intent of H.R. 2250, but would like to work
with the Sponsor to align the authorization levels to the President's
Budget.
H.R. 3168
Earthquakes represent one of our Nation's most significant and
costly natural hazards. Thirty-seven U.S. States, and all U.S.
Territories have experienced an earthquake exceeding magnitude five
over the past two centuries, and 50 percent of States have a
significant potential for future damaging shaking. The USGS and our
partner agencies, the National Science Foundation, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, have participated in the interagency National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) since its inception in
1977, following the San Fernando Earthquake in Los Angeles. NEHRP has
helped make America ``earthquake ready'' with innovative science,
extensive seismic monitoring networks, and the first earthquake early
warning system in the U.S., ShakeAlert. NEHRP exists to reduce the
losses associated with earthquake hazards, in recognition that although
earthquakes are inevitable, their consequences for people and the built
environment are not.
Under NEHRP, the USGS recently published an unprecedented 50-state
National Seismic Hazard model, describing the likelihood and potential
effects of earthquakes nationwide. The USGS also developed and deployed
the first-ever earthquake early warning system for the U.S., called
ShakeAlert, which is now live across California, Oregon, and Washington
and which has delivered potentially life-saving information on pending
shaking for dozens of earthquakes. Since its inception, ShakeAlert has
delivered real-time information on tens of thousands of earthquakes
domestically and abroad, including impact estimates and aftershock
forecasts, through some of the most heavily utilized web pages across
the Federal government, receiving tens of millions of visitors even on
days without significant earthquake activity. In collaboration with
FEMA, the USGS has recently updated estimates of annualized earthquake
losses for the nation, showing reductions in loss when measured against
increases in building value, which indicates progress in reducing
building vulnerability largely thanks to the efforts of NEHRP.
H.R. 3168 would reauthorize NEHRP through 2030 and includes several
improvements to NEHRP the USGS supports. In particular, the bill would
integrate the Chair of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory
Committee into the NEHRP oversight structure. This body is the most
important external advisory to the USGS related to earthquake science,
and codifying its role within NEHRP will strengthen the program. H.R.
3168 would also authorize future expansion of earthquake early warning
and the dissemination of aftershock forecasts after significant
earthquakes, both of which are tools the USGS and our NEHRP partners
will need to make America even safer from earthquakes. The Department
supports the intent of H.R. 3168, but would like to work with the
Sponsor to align the authorization levels to the President's Budget.
H.R. 3176
The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) authorization was
first signed into law by President Trump in 2019 to establish a unified
and integrated volcano monitoring system for the Nation to ensure
public safety from volcano hazards. The USGS has pursued this objective
by merging our volcano observatories into one interoperable Volcano
Science Center, and we have begun planning a national volcano
information center to make our data more useable and provide watch
office capabilities around the clock. Earlier this year, unrest at Mt.
Spurr west of Anchorage reminded us why volcano monitoring is crucial
to the Nation. Hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of
dollars of cargo traveling by plane can be impacted by eruptions. The
USGS volcano monitoring capabilities enabled by NVEWS are essential to
addressing gaps in coverage keeping Americans safe.
H.R. 3176 would reauthorize NVEWS through 2030. The Department
supports the bill as introduced.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20250520/118250/HHRG-
119-II06-20250520-SD019.pdf
[all]