    [Senate Hearing 119-067]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-067

                    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,
                      AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                      FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4754/S. 2431

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2026, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                        Environmental Protection Agency
                           Department of the Interior
                          United States Forest Service

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-267 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chair
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington,  Vice
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                   Chair
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
                                         JON OSSOFF, Georgia

                      Elizabeth McDonnell, Staff Director
                      Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
                                    Agencies

                     LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Ranking Member

    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    JOHN HOVEN, North Dakota             MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia

                               Professional Staff

                                 Daniel Mencher
                                  Derek Gondek
                                   Dave Roth

                         Melissa Zimmerman  (Minority)
                              Ryan Hunt (Minority)
                            Rishi Sahgal  (Minority)
                          Anthony Sedillo  (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                   Teddy Coes

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    hearings

                            Wednesday, May 14, 2025

                                                                       Page

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................     1

                            Wednesday, May 21, 2025

    Department of the Interior.......................................    59

                            Wednesday, June 11, 2025

    United States Forest Service.....................................   109

              Statements and Letters of Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                  ----------

                                  back matter

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   149

    Subject Index:

        Department of Interior.......................................   151

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Capito, Hoeven, Fischer,
    Rounds, Merkley, Murray, Van Hollen, Baldwin, and Ossoff.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF HON. LEE ZELDIN, ADMINISTRATOR

                  opening statement of senator lisa murkowski

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning. The committee will come to
    order.
        I would like to welcome Administrator Zeldin to the
    committee here this morning. I think it is important,
    auspicious, that as we begin our budget hearings, we begin the
    oversight through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee with
    the EPA. An area of interest, I think, for all of us as we
    think about how we ensure that Americans, from Alaska, to
    Oregon, to New York, to all the places in between, have the
    benefits of clean air, clean water for all of us. So thank you,
    Administrator, for being here to discuss the fiscal year 2026
    Budget Request.
        We recognize that what we have seen is ``skinny'', as we
    refer to it around here. Each year, the subcommittee holds a
    hearing to examine the EPA budget requests. Some years the
    budget is the focus of the hearing, and others it is Agency
    actions that draw the majority of the questions. I think it is
    probably safe to assume that this year it is going to be a
    mixture of both of these.
        And again, we have just seen the skinny outline of fiscal
    year 2026. We have yet to see the full details of the
    President's Budget Request. But I have to just sum my comments
    at the outset in saying that looking at some of these proposed
    cuts, I am looking at them and questioning whether they are
    serious cuts. I find many of them problematic. And so I am just
    going to be open and honest with my words here this morning.
    And we will have good dialogue, constructive dialogue, in this
    committee.
        So again, while we are waiting for additional details, I
    want to spend my time this morning talking about the vision for
    the EPA, and Administrator, how you plan to use your position
    to continue to better provide clean air, water, and land for
    Americans from Alaska, to Florida, from California, to Maine,
    and how a budget like the one that you have proposed could
    support that mission.
        Under the Biden administration, I had some very serious
    concerns about the regulatory overreach of the Agency. I
    expressed them often. I also shared the concerns that I felt
    were overzealous enforcement actions coming out of the Agency
    that went contrary to the needs of Alaskans. We were able to
    figure out how to find common ground in certain areas to make
    progress on some things that were certainly good for Alaska.
        I mentioned to you contaminated lands, residential wood
    stove, testing and certification. We still have a long, long
    way to go on PM 2.5. I think we know that. PFAS 301(h) waivers,
    we have got work to do. I think we know that.
        So now we are in a new administration, new administrator,
    and perhaps a different direction here. I do appreciate many of
    the actions and the initiatives that we have had a chance to
    discuss. Certainly, support the willingness to work with the
    Army Corps of Engineers to review the WOTUS Rule, your
    reconsideration of Clean Power Plan 2.0, the Vehicle Emissions
    Rules, and then, of course, a renewed focus on permitting,
    something I would think that all of us can come together on.
        But my concern this morning, and what you will hear from me
    and I think many others, is the approach that has been taken
    with regards to freezing funds, canceling grants, and then the
    reorganization of the Agency. I am looking at it not only
    through the lens of Alaskans, but really all Americans, who,
    regardless of how you feel about the EPA, we benefit from its
    data-driven decisionmaking, the remediation efforts, and the
    mission to protect human health and the environment.
        And I respect, I give a lot of leeway for an incoming
    administration's prerogative to implement changes in support of
    the policies and priorities, but it also has to be done with
    clear articulation of the goals against which such changes will
    be measured. So it is problematic when, as a committee, we are
    asking questions and we don't receive basic data that would be
    helpful, would be good guidance for us.
        And So when we see implementation of significant changes
    without working or seriously communicating with us, your
    partners in Congress, it just makes it harder for us to do the
    job of supporting your mission. We are on the same side here,
    and so we want to work with you in so many of these areas.
        I think we all can agree that there are inefficiencies and
    redundancies to be found throughout the Federal Government.
    Some of EPA's programs, we know, are overly burdensome. And
    again, I applaud the Administration for seeking to find ways to
    help ordinary Americans cut through red tape and make programs
    easier to access. But the seemingly indiscriminate freezing of
    EPA funding, regardless of source, has caused some significant
    anxiety from the folks that I am talking to in Alaska.
        One example is the Community Change Grants. In my state, we
    have received 150 million from this program. It is communities
    like the little Village of Kipnuk, it is the Native Village of
    Kotzebue. It took a lot of work to get to the place where they
    were able to secure the funding, and they have had their grants
    canceled by the Agency without any explanation. And so this is
    where some of the anxiety comes; it is just not knowing why.
    And it is not just in Alaska. I think members on both sides of
    the dais probably will talk about the benefits of the grants to
    their states and their communities.
        You have also proposed massive reorganizations of EPA to
    include the elimination of the Office of Atmospheric Programs
    and the Office of Research and Development, now, it is true
    that Agency is funded by our bill, will have the flexibility to
    reprogram and reorganize. We provide that flexibility because
    we know, we get it, there can be urgent and exigent
    circumstances that warrant such actions.
        However, agencies must comply with the requirements and
    provide the committees with the requisite information, whether
    it is budgetary and staffing implications, but also the
    rationale for the actions, to include why these actions are so
    urgent. And so far, EPA has not adhered to our reprogramming
    guidelines and has been largely unresponsive to the questions.
        So I would certainly expect timely and transparent
    responses and information. I would expect EPA to abide by the
    parameters that are outlined in our reprogramming guidelines.
    And I think, as a former member of Congress, you get it. You
    have been on the frustration end of things as well, so again,
    ways that we can be working together.
        Now, turning our attention to the fiscal year 2026 budget
    proposal, in Alaska we have seen on the ground examples of
    really good things being done with some of the programs that
    your budget has substantially reduced or proposed to eliminate.
        Example: the proposed reduction of the State Revolving
    Fund, reducing it from $2.8 billion down to $305 million. This
    is an 88 percent reduction. This was one of the ones, when I
    mentioned unserious proposals, this is the one that I am
    looking at, because it clearly is one of the most essential
    programs that the Agency administers. And you mentioned, as
    part of your justification for cutting this program, that the
    account has been heavily earmarked. And this is true.
        The 66 members of the Senate, including 17 Republicans,
    making it our most bipartisan account, who requested
    congressionally directed spending for the SRF accounts did so
    in connection with the states to ensure the funding was going
    to critical clean water and drinking water projects. Now, I
    would also note that in fiscal year 2025, Congress voted for
    and the President signed into law a full-year CR that keeps the
    State Review Framework (SRF) fully funded rather than reducing
    it by the amount of the CDSs.
        So I am going to close my comments here with, I don't know
    if it is a note of sympathy or just--it is an acknowledgment,
    because I get it. You are, I think, 106 days since you were
    confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator. And for an agency
    as key and as vital as yours, that is really a short time to
    get everything up and running, from enacting the
    Administration's priorities, to establishing a clear working
    relationship with us here in Congress.
        We know that you are still getting your team in place,
    because we are trying to move them through our process here,
    and it is slow. And you need those folks. You need the members
    of your team. So I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
    There is plenty of time for us to figure out what is working,
    what is not, and establish open lines of communication between
    our teams that will mutually benefit your mission and all those
    that we work for.
        So I am eager to start on that. I thank you for your
    testimony today, your willingness to answer our questions, and
    just the opportunity to be working with you.
        And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Merkley for his
    comments.

                       statement of senator jeff merkley

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski, and
    congratulations on being Chair again. You were Chair from 2015
    through 2020, so you are well seasoned in that role. One of the
    things I really appreciate about the Appropriations Committee,
    and this subcommittee in particular, is the bipartisan
    collaboration. Eleven of our twelve appropriation bills went
    out with, well, massive bipartisan support, most of them
    unanimously, including the Interior Bill over several years.
    And we look forward to, hoping to replicate that again.
        I just want to see the work that we do in this committee
    get taken up on the Senate floor, worked with the House, and
    have that whole bipartisan spirit result in a bill that lands
    in the Oval Office.
        Administrator Zeldin, welcome. This is the ordinary
    business of Congress that we conduct every year. But this year
    is not ordinary. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the
    power of the purse to Congress. And under the U.S.
    Constitution, the President and Executive Branch leaders, like
    yourself, are required to carry out those spending laws, even
    if you disagree with them.
        As former Appropriations Chair Robert Byrd said, ``The
    legislative control of the purse is a central pillar''. The
    central pillar upon which the Constitutional temple of checks
    and balances and separation of powers rests. And if that pillar
    is shaken, the temple will fall. It is central to the liberty,
    the fundamental liberty, of the American people.
        But this administration, the Trump administration, is
    striving to topple that central pillar of liberty by seizing
    the power of the purse. President Trump and OMB Director
    Russell Vought are pursuing a deliberate strategy of
    impoundments in which they ignore appropriation laws passed by
    Congress, laws not just passed by Congress but signed by
    Presidents, and withhold funding intended for specific agencies
    and programs.
        The EPA, the organization that you lead, is one of those
    agencies. This is not the first time that a President has tried
    to impound funds for the EPA. President Nixon strived to do
    that in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch
    could not steal Congress' constitutional power of the purse. In
    other words, the Executive Branch must implement the laws
    passed, signed into law as they are written.
        That decision was reaffirmed two decades later, in 1998,
    when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not give the
    constitutional power of the purse, could not delegate it to the
    Executive Branch through a line-item veto.
        Yet under your leadership, Mr. Zeldin, EPA has illegally
    and unconstitutionally impounded about $24 billion, including
    $1.7 billion in Environmental Justice grants that help
    communities address pollution and transition to clean energy.
    Historically, we know that low-income communities and
    communities of color have suffered the most from pollution.
    That is because when people are powerful, they don't want those
    plants in their community. So they end up in communities where
    people are less powerful, where they have the least resistance.
        And so this funding provides those communities that have
    those fewer resources the opportunity to protect themselves
    from the impacts of pollution. For instance, in Oregon, a
    county was awarded $20 million for rural communities, like
    Oakridge, and Veneta, and Cottage Grove to provide shelter
    during wildfires and severe smoke events, including upgrading
    their HVAC systems and backup power. But the funding was
    impounded.
        Also impounded was funding for private capital investments
    to leverage private capital investments for solar installations
    and efficiency upgrades through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
    Fund. You may not like those programs, but you are
    constitutionally obliged to carry out the law as written, and
    you are not doing so. Illegally impounding these funds, and
    others, EPA is refusing to spend in dangerous communities by
    making it harder to address pollution and climate chaos.
        If these illegal and unconstitutional impoundments were not
    bad enough, your budget proposal makes a bad situation worse.
    It is scant on details. It denigrates science. It antagonizes
    Federal employees, and it undermines the core functions of the
    Agency. A budget is a statement of values, and your values are
    clearly to put the profits of polluters over the interests of
    the people.
        Your budget slashes EPA by 54 percent. It drains 90 percent
    of funding from the State Revolving Funds, which support
    communities in meeting standards for tap water, and protecting
    streams and rivers.
        Mr. Zeldin, I go to every county every year in Oregon and
    hold an open town hall. I meet with the community leaders
    beforehand, and almost always they are raising issues of the
    challenge of providing clean water and wastewater treatment.
    The cost in small communities per person is extraordinary, and
    these grants have been the salvation for communities as they
    seek to update infrastructure that is often half a century or
    more old.
        My state knows the benefits of SRF funding, the
    Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, used that funding to
    develop a toxics Reduction Plan to mitigate toxic pollution in
    the LaMotte River Basin, and the City of Umatilla has had to
    boil water because of water distribution failures and pressure
    loss with old infrastructure, and they are using this funding
    to modernize their clean water supply.
        Your budget also eviscerates states by eliminating $1
    billion in grants for cleanup of waterways, complying with air
    quality requirements, handling hazardous waste properly, and
    removing lead from drinking water.
        Your budget rips a quarter billion dollars out of the
    Office of Research and Development, which conducts the
    scientific research needed to inform EPA's decisions on
    questions of environmental and public safety. In my home state,
    the ORD labs in Corvallis and Newport research how chemical
    contaminants will harm communities and ecosystems along the
    Pacific Coast. We are both coming from Pacific Coast states, it
    is important to us to understand how to protect the water off
    our shores.
        Pacific Northwest fisheries are the most productive in the
    world. The upwelling of nutrients and the California Current
    combine to make them so productive, and therefore this research
    is not just critical to the environment but to the economy and
    livelihood of multiple stakeholders along our coast.
        Perhaps even more troubling, your budget takes aim against
    your own employees. The so-called Department of Government
    Efficiency, or DOGE, has already taken a wrecking ball to EPA's
    professional staff. EPA is firing and pushing out, by threat,
    thousands of staff, including scientists and technical
    specialists, whose institutional knowledge is irreplaceable.
    And new staff with nothing but stellar performance reviews.
        Without adequate staffing, environmental regulations cannot
    be enforced. Perhaps that is your goal. Without adequate
    staffing, dangerous pollutants will not be identified. Perhaps
    that is your objective. Without adequate staffing, Superfund
    sites will continue to leak toxic chemicals. Perhaps that is
    your desire. All of this is happening while EPA carries out a
    parade of reckless policy actions, tearing down bedrock
    environmental laws, even allowing industry to simply send one
    email to get waivers from pollution controls that threaten our
    health and the environment we live in.
        We need an EPA that upholds the law, and upholds the
    Constitution, that is properly funded, is strongly staffed, is
    empowered to address urgent environmental challenges of our
    time. I hope to hear today that you are changing course from
    your reckless and dangerous pursuit in your opening months. The
    American people expect and deserve nothing less.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        At this time we will turn to the Administrator. It is good
    to have you before the committee. Your first such engagement,
    so welcome. I think you will find that this Appropriations
    Subcommittee is very active, very engaged, with great inquiring
    minds. So welcome, Mr. Administrator.

                      summary statement of hon. lee zeldin

        Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Merkley, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2026 Budget Request for the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's
    directive to help deliver clean air, land, and water for all
    Americans while restoring common sense, accountability, and
    cooperative Federalism to environmental policy. We are
    fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the
    environment while powering the great American comeback and
    removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American
    families and businesses for far too long.
        We hit the ground running, immediately upon President
    Trump's inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup
    in Agency history in less than 30 days after the catastrophic
    Los Angeles wildfires. We are taking bold steps to combat PFAS
    contamination and have advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund
    sites across 13 states, delisting all or parts of four sites
    from the National Priorities List.
        We have also completed 25 State Implementation Plans, 16 of
    which were backlogged from the prior administration. With this
    renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working for
    the American people. We are revising the definition of ``Waters
    of the United States'' to align with the Supreme Court decision
    in Sackett, and have issued immediate actions for Mexico to
    permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis
    that has plagued Southern California for decades. Following my
    trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly 2 years from the cleanup time
    line at the West Lake Superfund site, which has contaminated--
    which has been contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan
    Project.
        In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the
    EPA released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during
    those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each
    and every day. Together, these actions reflect the
    Administration's commitment to environmental stewardship,
    cooperative Federalism, and delivering results that make a real
    difference in people's lives.
        In lockstep with the President's agenda, EPA is also
    helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform,
    make America the AI capital of the world, and bring back
    American auto jobs. We have eliminated waste and abuse in areas
    like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, reversed unlawful
    overreach like the so-called Good Neighbor Rule, and begun
    reconsidering many overreaching rules, including the power plan
    and EV-related regulation that threatens grid reliability,
    energy affordability, and consumer choice.
        These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs, which
    act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable
    now to own a home, heat homes, operate a business, and bring
    manufacturing back to local communities.
        By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the
    President's fiscal year 2026 budget demands maximum efficiency
    from the EPA while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory
    obligations, also included in the President's proposal is an
    additional $9 million above fiscal year 2025 enacted levels to
    equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters.
        There is also a $27 million increase in funding for tribes
    to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on
    their lands. As I have stated in the past, at the Trump EPA we
    will not view the status quo as a sacred cow that is
    untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-era regulations we
    inherited to be etched in stone, and we absolutely refuse to
    waste even a penny of tax dollars.
        Under the President's leadership, and with the support of
    Congress, we will continue to deliver real results with greater
    accountability and a stronger environmental return on
    investment per dollar spent.
        I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Lee Zeldin
        Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of
    the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
        EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's directive to
    deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans--while restoring
    common sense, accountability, and cooperative federalism to
    environmental policy. We are fulfilling our core mission of protecting
    human health and the environment while Powering the Great American
    Comeback and removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American
    families and businesses for far too long.
        We hit the ground running, immediately upon President Trump's
    inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history
    in less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires. We
    are taking bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have advanced
    redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 States--delisting all, or
    parts of, four sites from the National Priorities List. We've also
    completed 25 State Implementation Plans, 16 of which were backlogged
    from the prior Administration.
        With this renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working
    for the American people. We are revising the definition of ``Waters of
    the United States'' to align with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett
    and have issued immediate action items for Mexico to permanently and
    urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis that has plagued Southern
    California for decades.
        Following my trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly 2 years from the
    cleanup timeline at the West Lake Superfund site, which has been
    contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project.
        In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the EPA
    released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during those first
    one hundred days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each and every
    day.
        Together, these actions reflect the Administration's commitment to
    environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering
    results that make a real difference in people's lives.
        In lockstep with the President's agenda, EPA is also helping to
    unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform, make America the AI
    capital of the world, and bring back American auto jobs. We've
    eliminated waste and abuse in areas like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
    Fund, reversed unlawful overreach like the so called ``Good Neighbor''
    rule, and begun reconsidering many overreaching rules including power
    plant and EV-related regulation that threaten gird reliability, energy
    affordability, and consumer choice.
        These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs--which act as
    ``invisible taxes'' on Americans--making it more affordable to own a
    car, heat homes, operate a business, and bring manufacturing back to
    local communities.
        By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the
    President's FY 2026 Budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA
    while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations. Also,
    included in the President's proposal is an additional $9 million above
    FY 2025 enacted levels to equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking
    water disasters. There is also a $27 million increase in funding for
    Tribes to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their
    lands.
        As I have stated in the past, at the Trump EPA, we will not view
    the status quo as a sacred cow that is untouchable, we will not
    consider the Biden era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone,
    and we absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars.
        Under the President's leadership, and with the support of Congress,
    we will continue to deliver real results with greater accountability
    and a stronger environmental return on investment per dollar spent. I
    look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. We will
    have five-minute rounds in order of arrival.
        And I will begin with my first five minutes. And again,
    appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss
    some of the particular issues I would like to ensure that we
    continue that very direct engagement, not only between us but
    also with our staffs. We have had a conversation about
    transparency, partnership, and responsiveness, and again, I
    think you come to this position really from a good place,
    because you have sat in our seats here, so to speak, when you
    have asked questions of an agency and you get frustrated
    because you are not able to get what you are seeking.
        So there is a lot going on within the Agency, as you have
    outlined, and as both the Ranking Member and I have outlined.
    But we need to be more informed, rather than getting updates by
    way of tweets or stories from the media. The Agency has issued
    reorganization notifications, but we are not getting the full
    picture or the answers to some of the questions that we have
    asked.
        So my direct question to you this morning is just a renewed
    commitment that the promise of transparency, partnership, and
    responsiveness is there, that we are going to be able to have
    meetings between your senior teams and our folks on the
    appropriation side so that we can help you, let me help you
    type of an approach. And that is what I am seeking from you
    this morning, Mr. Administrator.
        Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Madam Chair. And you, uniquely
    amongst 535 members of Congress have a bat phone into my
    office, which I would encourage you to use at any time. We have
    spoken since my confirmation, and when we meet, you often have
    a very long list of priorities for Alaska that you are fighting
    for, that you are passionate about. And to make sure that we
    are working through that list at every opportunity is something
    that will be a priority for our team as long as I am here, as
    administrator. And I would encourage you to reach out whenever
    you would like, and I would be available to work through
    whatever is at the top of your list that day.
        Senator Murkowski. Very good. Very good. Let me ask about
    the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water
    State Revolving Fund, I mentioned in my opening. These are
    probably the areas where, on this committee, we have more
    bipartisan support for a program, and we are looking at a
    budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we are
    all in agreement on.
        So I would ask you to share with me and the others on the
    committee why the Agency would move away from such a critical
    on-the-ground program when we are talking about access to clean
    water?
        Mr. Zeldin. Madam Chair, as you pointed out in your opening
    remarks, and as you referenced from the skinny budget that was
    released that we are here to talk about today, there has been a
    bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by
    Congress to earmark. I understand that when I came into this
    position, I inherited a lot of earmarks that many of you have
    fought for, and I want to be able to continue to work with each
    of you and your staffs.
        In some cases, we need to get the recipients to submit
    paperwork where they are on the receiving end of big earmarks
    so that we can work through this backlog as quickly as we can.
    It would be helpful to have a conversation about the SRF and
    the use of earmarks and how that has been reducing the funding
    through the years. As you all know, there is a difference when
    these skinny budgets come out whether or not something is
    funded at zero dollars, or it is funded at one dollar.
        Now, that might not seem like much to the American public
    in understanding how these conversations go in Congress. The
    SRF is not zeroed out in the skinny budget, and in fact it has
    hundreds of millions of dollars there in it. So, as we go
    forward with this process, I look forward to more conversations
    about the SRF, and I am sure members of the House and the
    Senate will be having conversations amongst yourselves as to
    what you believe to be the appropriate funding level for SRF,
    as well as the future of the program, and whether or not
    earmarks will continue to be used to reduce that balance. That
    is obviously a decision that Congress has a very important role
    to play.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we do, and we can have a separate
    discussion about earmarks. I think we both know that earmarks
    don't contribute to the top-line number. You are discussing
    here a concern that I have raised with you, that there has
    been, over the years, congressionally directed spending,
    earmarks, that have been moved through the process, authorized
    and appropriated to, and still not spent down.
        So my time has expired now. Know that on this next round I
    am going to ask for a little more discussion about that. But I
    do think that given the significance of the Clean Water State
    Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, by
    so many of us, that this is something that: Let us have a
    broader discussion about how we move forward with, what I would
    think most of us recognize, has got to be a priority within the
    EPA.
        The Ranking Member of the Full Committee has arrived.
    Ordinarily, I would defer to my Ranking Member here for his
    questions, but--okay.
        Senator Merkley. So as you can tell from my opening
    statement, I am very concerned about the issue of impoundments.
    Are you familiar with the concept?
        Mr. Zeldin. Of course, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. You understand that it involves freezing
    funds that are to be allocated by law?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I am familiar with the impoundments. I
    also understand we are having this conversation in the middle
    of the fiscal year as opposed to after the fiscal year.
        Senator Merkley. Do you understand that the Constitution of
    the United States assigns the power of the purse to Congress,
    and do you follow that understanding?
        Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. So you understand that when you impound
    funds, you are violating the law?
        Mr. Zeldin. No, Senator. We are going to follow--all
    statutory obligations, and we will abide by all laws.
        Senator Merkley. But you are not. You are impounding funds
    against the law.
        Mr. Zeldin. We absolutely disagree with you, very strongly.
        Senator Merkley. And the courts have also found it is not
    just, against the law, it is unconstitutional.
        Mr. Zeldin. If you are citing a particular district court
    judge, Senator, that is one thing, but there are a lot of
    district court judges coming up with their own interpretations
    of the law. That will go through litigation processes, but at
    EPA we follow the laws.
        Senator Merkley. So it is the Supreme Court of the United
    States that has weighed in. And do you consider the Supreme
    Court not to be a legitimate source of decisionmaking?
        Mr. Zeldin. Of course, the Supreme Court is the highest
    court in the land.
        Senator Merkley. Then why are you not following the Supreme
    Court's understanding of the Constitution and the law?
        Mr. Zeldin. We are following all laws and the Constitution,
    Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Then why have you frozen 1.7 billion in EJ
    grants illegally and unconstitutionally?
        Mr. Zeldin. They are neither illegally nor
    unconstitutionally frozen, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Are they legally frozen?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Under what authority of the law?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, Congress appropriates funding, and
    then, say, if the Biden administration is in place last year
    and they are there at the beginning of the fiscal year, they
    might apply their own administration's policy priorities. So
    they might decide to send money to, say, the State of Alaska,
    and they might include aspects of fighting for equity or
    education instead of remediation----
        Senator Merkley. But it wasn't the Biden administration
    that passed this law, it was Congress. And so this is in the
    law as written and as signed by President, and yet you are
    defying it.
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, it would be important that the premise
    of your question, I mean, we are going to have to just disagree
    as strongly as possible, whether or not anything----
        Senator Merkley. You have also frozen Greenhouse Gas
    Reduction funds, again illegally and unconstitutionally. Are
    you going to follow the constitution?
        Mr. Zeldin. Neither illegally nor unconstitutionally,
    Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Well, we now have several court decisions
    that have said you have acted, and you referred to district
    court decisions, but you don't agree with those district
    courts?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if you are referring to a district
    court decision that was then stayed by the D.C. Circuit, then I
    would also encourage you to look at the appeals process, which
    is important. And as you referenced earlier in a prior
    question, how important it is to look at the Supreme Court,
    well, then that message that you would be making to the D.C.
    district court judge is that the D.C. district court judge
    didn't have jurisdiction over that case and it belonged inside
    the Court of Federal Claims. I agree with you how important it
    is to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Merkley. So there is one district court decision
    you abided by, and that was related to the clean school buses.
    If other district courts say that this is an illegal
    impoundment, an unconstitutional impoundment, will you follow
    the findings of those district courts, or will you simply
    appeal it upwards?
        Mr. Zeldin. We will abide by all laws and the United States
    Constitution at all times.
        Senator Merkley. Well again, the administration has
    responded to some district court decisions by saying: We will
    simply appeal it. We will seek a stay in an appeal. Will you
    follow--when a district court says you have illegally impounded
    funds, will you follow that district court decision?
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, as you pointed out, Senator, the Supreme
    Court is the highest court in the land. So, if a district court
    judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the
    United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that
    district court.
        Senator Merkley. Even though the Supreme Court has
    repeatedly ruled that impoundments are unconstitutional. So
    your decision is to simply appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking
    a different decision this time around?
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, I know that we are talking about
    hypotheticals of district court decisions to come, but as far
    as the district court decision that have been made----
        Senator Merkley. It is actually, not hypothetical, because
    we already have a series of district court decisions saying
    that this is illegal and unconstitutional.
        Mr. Zeldin. As far as the district court decisions that
    have been made, it is important to note, as I stated a minute
    ago, the district court judge decision that you were
    referencing in the D.C. Circuit was instantly stayed by the
    D.C. Circuit.
        Senator Merkley. Do you understand that impounding funds
    essentially makes the appropriation power of Congress very
    difficult? We have to reach decisions about funding that is
    important to Alaska, to Oregon, but also to every region of the
    country. And if then we strike this law, we strike these
    decisions to help address environmental issues in every part of
    the country, and then the Executive comes along and says: We
    want the power of the purse. We are going to treat these laws
    as suggestions. We are going to freeze these funds for programs
    we don't like, or regions we don't like, or congressional
    districts we don't like, that completely undermines the
    dialogue and the ability of--here in Congress to produce
    bipartisan bills?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I don't know if on either side of the
    dais I have ever heard in one round of questions more premise
    of questions that I possibly disagree with. I refuse to waste a
    dollar of tax dollars, period.
        Senator Merkley. Since you are violating both the law and
    the Constitution, will you follow your oath? And if you cannot
    follow your oath, will you resign from your office?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yeah, Senator, listen, you like to preface your
    questions with declaring everything unconstitutional, illegal.
    We could not possibly disagree more strongly with what you are
    saying. What I do believe would be illegal is for me to play
    along where I am seeing unqualified recipients getting funding,
    where I see an entity like a $2 billion recipient, Power
    Forward Communities, that gets $100 of GGR funds in 2023, and
    then they get $2 billion in 2024.
        When I see self-dealing and conflicts of interest loading
    up recipients of people who are Biden officials, and Obama
    officials, and Democrat donors; when I see wording of financial
    agent agreements and account control agreements that tie the
    hands of the EPA behind its back, will I play along with that?
    No, absolutely not, because this is the----
        Senator Merkley. In which case, you should resign, because
    the President is involved in self-dealing.
        Mr. Zeldin. I should resign, because I don't want to waste
    money?
        Senator Merkley. At a level we have never seen on this.
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if I refuse to waste money, I should
    resign?
        Senator Merkley. If I would just conclude, Madam Chair,
    Madam Chair, I will just conclude by saying this issue of
    impoundments is an extraordinary challenge. The Supreme Court
    has ruled twice. The Constitution is clear. You took an oath to
    the Constitution, and it is extremely destructive of our
    legislative process for you to be engaged in this.
        Senator Murkowski. Let us move to Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Administrator, it is really good to see you today. Thank
    you for being here. Before I get to a couple questions, I
    wanted to quickly just note the support for some of your
    efforts. Earlier this month, you announced reorganizational
    efforts to strengthen the Agency. You specifically noted how
    these efforts will help to address the over 12,000 pesticide
    reviews that need to get done. Nebraska farmers rely on many of
    these crop protection tools, and we need to ensure strong
    science and risk-based reviews.
        Madam Chair, I would ask to enter into the record a letter
    from the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
    Coalition in support of the Administrator's work there.
        Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Fischer. Thank you. I would also like to quickly
    thank you, Administrator, for your deregulatory efforts,
    including reconsideration of the Clean Power Plan 2.0 Rule.
    Nebraska is an all public power state, the only one in the
    union, and our rural electric cooperative, they have raised
    significant concerns about that rule.
        So Madam Chair, I would like to also enter this supportive
    press release from the National Rural Electric Cooperative
    Association (NRECA) into the record.
        Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Fischer. Thank you. Administrator, a couple of
    months back, Secretary Rollins met with me and several of my
    colleagues about the importance of Congress passing a
    permanent, nationwide solution to allow for the year-round sale
    of E15. And I thank you. I thank you for acting on the
    emergency summertime waivers to allow for the year-round sale
    of E15 again this year. But certainly this yearly exercise, it
    needs to be done permanently.
        We need to pass a solution, a permanent solution, and not
    have your Agency have to go through this product every single
    year. The President tried to get E15 done permanently through
    regulation back in 2019, and he has maintained strong support
    for it since.
        I want people to understand the history here, Mr. Zeldin.
    We have effectively been operating under year-round E15 for the
    last 6 years, although President Trump's regulation, or through
    President Trump's regulation, and then yearly emergency
    waivers; is that correct?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. Is it true that despite President Trump's
    best efforts, if we want real certainty here for consumers,
    Congress has to act; is that correct?
        Mr. Zeldin. That is the most durable and easiest solution
    to this issue.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. And lastly, having that
    permanent, nationwide, legislative solution for the year-round
    E15 would certainly be a more efficient and effective use of
    EPA's time and resources; is that correct?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. As the Chair pointed out, I have
    been in the position a little over 100 days, and I have had
    many, many, many meetings about this topic, and a lot of
    passionate advocacy from--including you, Senator, and your
    colleagues and your constituents. If Congress was to finalize a
    long-term, durable solution, so much of that advocacy on your
    part, all of your time, can be better spent fighting for other
    priorities of your constituents.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. As you know, the last
    administration failed to issue the Renewable Volume Obligations
    that were due last November. The RVOs, they also set volumes
    that were 2023 to 2025 that were too low, and it didn't account
    for the increased soy crushing levels to support biofuel
    production, including increased crushing capacity that is going
    to be coming online in Nebraska.
        I hope that you will set blending volumes for biomass-based
    diesel that are in line with production and capacity of that
    industry. Do you have any update on the time line for when we
    can expect to see the RVOs?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. We are going through a rulemaking
    process now over the course of the next few months. We did
    inherit a blown deadline. We are looking to not only resolve
    that deadline in setting RVOs, but to also look to the future
    and to operate going forward in a way where we don't blow any
    deadlines moving forward.
        So, over the course of the next few months, there is going
    to be an opportunity for the public to weigh in during a public
    comment period before a final decision is made. We have already
    started to hear a lot of advocacy from many of your
    constituents in Nebraska fighting hard for RVOs.
        Senator Fischer. As you know, the farm economy is suffering
    right now, and farmers are worried about a number of things. In
    order to help provide more certainty I really appreciate your
    agency being on time with what needs to be done in order to
    provide them with that assurance and with certainty.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Murkowski. We will next turn to the Ranking Member
    of the Full Committee, Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski,
    Ranking Member Merkley. I look forward to working with both of
    you this year.
        Administrator Zeldin, you helm an agency that was created
    by a Republican President that is responsible for making sure
    that Americans can drink clean water, and breathe clean air and
    lead healthy lives. It seems to me the Trump administration's
    entire vision for your Agency amounts to burn it down. Now,
    burning down the EPA might be a great way to generate smog, but
    it is a terrible way to protect families' health.
        Look at the $25 billion in Federal funding you have been
    illegally freezing and canceling in my state and across the
    country. We are talking about investments in things like heat
    pumps to reduce energy costs and pollution, wildfire
    preparedness to prevent smoke exposure, or infrastructure
    upgrades to protect drinking water from floods and earthquakes.
        Blocking this funding is hurting communities everywhere. It
    has prompted lawsuits as well as investigations by the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO), and I have to say to
    you it is unacceptable to hear from GOA (sic) that your Agency
    has not been cooperating with those requests from them. And now
    the President's request would slash funding for your Agency by
    over 50 percent, taking it back to levels last seen 50 years
    ago, by the way.
        And I should note, protecting the health and well-being of
    the American public doesn't happen on its own. The EPA is
    powered by skilled and dedicated public servants, a group you
    have worked to demonize for months on end. Now, while you
    proudly gut your own Agency's workforce, you leave hardworking
    Americans who are suffering the consequences. Your job is to
    make sure kids have clean water when they turn on the tap,
    fresh air when they go outside. Your job is to make sure that
    our rivers in Washington State are full of salmon, not toxic
    sludge. And your job is to follow the law and to get the funds
    out that Congress passed.
        For the past 2 years, this committee has passed bipartisan
    spending bills to invest in the EPA and into our communities.
    And despite the draconian budget that you have put forward, I
    am going to be pushing to work with this committee on a
    bipartisan agreement once again that safeguards our health and
    our environment.
        Now, Administrator Zeldin, at the same time you propose
    cutting the EPA's budget by 54 percent and slashing staff by
    over 20 percent, and gutting many of EPA's core programs, you
    insist that despite these cuts, the EPA can carry out the
    Congressional directives of the bill we passed with bipartisan
    support through this committee without compromising the EPA's
    responsibilities. There is no way that can be true.
        Do you understand, Administrator, that your job is to
    execute the bipartisan laws negotiated in this committee and in
    Congress and carry them out faithfully, not to gut the programs
    that Congress passed into law?
        Mr. Zeldin. Of course we will fulfill all statutory
    obligations, and I would encourage you to read the announcement
    that we put out the morning of the President's 100th day that
    has 100 environmental wins from the first 100 days of the Trump
    presidency. I don't know if you have had an opportunity to read
    it yet, but based on what----
        Senator Murray. Well, I have had an opportunity to see your
    budget, and when you eliminate offices and slash staffing and
    propose cutting the budget in half of EPA, you are making
    certain that the Government will not be able to protect the
    public from pollution. That is not what Congress intended.
        Now, the Federal Government has given states significant
    responsibility to implement our bedrock environmental laws,
    like enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
    Water Act. EPA provides basic funding, categorical grants, to
    every single state so they can carry out more than 90 percent
    of on-the-ground work that is necessary to comply with
    environmental laws. Your budget cuts 16 of 19 categorical grant
    programs, which the Environmental Council of the States, a
    bipartisan organization of environmental agency directors from
    all 50 states, says will, quote, ``Incapacitate state
    environmental programs''. That is from them, not from me.
        We are talking about massive cuts, $843 million for Texas,
    $459 million for Florida, $169 million for Louisiana. It is
    hard to see this as anything other than the EPA abandoning its
    responsibility to states. And I want to ask you, have you
    consulted with any of the states on this proposal to eliminate
    almost all the categorical grant funding?
        Mr. Zeldin. Every aspect of this skinny budget was done
    deliberately as a result of a lot of conversation, a lot of
    thoughtful conversation----
        Senator Murray. With the states?
        Mr. Zeldin. States are absolutely included as it relates to
    conversations that take place--about conversations that take
    place about our priorities.
        Senator Murray. Well, I will say my state and many of the
    states said this would be devastating, and states cannot
    shoulder this burden. And I look forward to working with this
    committee to, as we have done before, in a bipartisan way, make
    sure that we fund these programs.
        Finally, your Agency has been cutting billions of dollars
    in grants, indiscriminately, irrationally, across the country,
    including in my home state of Washington. And I want to give
    you an example: wildfire and extreme heat waves, they are major
    threats to public health for a lot of the country. A few weeks
    ago, the EPA terminated a grant that would have made sure
    community centers in Spokane had the infrastructure needed to
    serve as a refuge during extreme weather and wildfire
    emergencies. There was no explanation for that cancellation.
        That is a community that saw 19 people die and over 300
    people hospitalized during a heat wave a few short years ago,
    where wildfires are a constant threat. So let me ask you, is it
    WOKE to protect people from wildfires and heat stroke?
        Mr. Zeldin. I don't know if you are going to get anyone in
    America to answer yes to the way you put that question out
    there.
        Senator Murray. Well, is it inefficient? Is it wasteful?
    Why was this grant eliminated?
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, there are hundreds of grants. I would
    have to have that individual grant in front of me. One of the--
    well, when Congress sets an appropriated level on a particular
    type of grant, we need to make sure that over the course of the
    fiscal year that that money is being spent, that we are working
    with Congress----
        Senator Murray. Well, apparently, after 4 months, you
    decided that this community in Spokane didn't need to deal with
    their extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. I don't know
    whether the--you won't tell me whether it is inefficient,
    waste, but whatever your word is.
        Mr. Zeldin. We are not.
        Senator Murray. But you need to know that you are
    abandoning communities in my state and across the country, and
    that funding was appropriated for work exactly like this.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Let us go to Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And Administrator, thanks for being here today. Appreciate
    having you. Both North American Reliability Corporation (NERC)
    and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have expressed
    concerns about grid reliability for our electric grid
    nationwide. And the reason, as you know, is very simply because
    we are losing baseload on the grid and we have more and more
    variable sources of energy.
        And one of the big reasons we are losing that baseload is
    because of the regulatory blizzard that has been put in place
    by the Biden administration that is forcing coal plants to
    close down with no benefit to the environment. We continue to
    move forward in our state with the latest, greatest
    technological innovations to address SOx, NOx, mercury, CO2,
    you name it, right, and yet they are still forcing these plants
    to close down.
        But it is putting the grid at risk. So talk to me about how
    you are going to take steps to unwind these burdensome rules,
    like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule, and like
    the Clean Power Plan 2.0?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, we believe at EPA we can choose to
    both protect the environment and grow the economy. It is not a
    binary choice where we have to pick one or the other. Over the
    course of the last couple years of the Biden EPA, there were a
    lot of regulations that came out, many of which seeking to
    strangulate entire industries, to put, for example, the coal
    sector completely out.
        Well, these are jobs. For many states, this is how they are
    powering their lives. This is an important engine of their
    economy. On March 12th, EPA announced many different regulatory
    actions, including a reconsideration of that Biden-era MATS
    Rule, including what is called Clean Power Plan 2.0, as you
    referenced, and other rules as well.
        Now, some people like to post some photograph, you know, of
    the '60s and '70s and say that if we get rid of some regulation
    from 2024, this is what the water is going to look like, this
    is what the air is going to be like. We are talking about
    regulations from the last year or two. And we are going to go
    through a reconsideration we are going to follow the
    Administrative Procedures Act. There is going to be a public
    comment period. And while I cannot prejudge the outcomes now,
    at the end of the process, when I am supposed to, we will make
    a decision on what the future should look like on each
    individual regulation, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Right. The same thing now for Waters of the
    U.S., talk to me about how we are going to make sure that
    private property rights are respected with Waters of the U.S.,
    which once again the Trump administration had put in place a
    responsible rule.
        Mr. Zeldin. The Supreme Court, in Sackett, has very clear,
    simple, prescriptive language as to what should be a Water of
    the U.S. EPA seeks to follow the Supreme Court in Sackett and
    to make sure that there is a simple, durable rule that can
    withstand the test of time, that would allow any farmer or
    rancher, landowner, anywhere in America, or state like Alaska
    and others, they will know whether or not water that is on land
    is a water of the U.S. or not.
        And what is very important to point out is that just
    because a water might not be a Water of the U.S., as it relates
    to Sackett, that doesn't mean that a state loses the ability to
    have oversight over that waterway. And that is a big
    misunderstanding as to what we are talking about here.
        So we are doing a rulemaking to reconsider the definition
    of Waters of the U.S., to get the definition for EPA in line
    with the Sackett decision of the United States Supreme Court.
        We don't want any of your landowners to have to go pay an
    attorney or a consultant to tell them whether or not the water
    on their property is a water of the U.S. I want every one of
    your ranchers and landowners to know whether or not there is a
    Water of the U.S. on their property. We owe it to them. And we
    should look at a map of the United States that has one
    definition that is being followed in all 50 states. We
    shouldn't have different definitions depending on what state we
    are in. And no matter what happens in presidential elections of
    the future, if we do this right and we come up with a simple
    definition that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett,
    the definition that we come up with now should be one that
    withstands the test of time.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And I also appreciate you
    referencing respect for states' rights. Respect for private
    property rights and respect for states' rights are
    constitutionally protected, and it is vitally important that
    the EPA and other Federal agencies don't overstep those
    constitutional rights.
        Mr. Zeldin. Agreed, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Don't forget permafrost.
        Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Zeldin, Wisconsin's coastal communities and tribal
    nations depend on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to
    protect water quality of both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.
    The initiative has been essential for cleaning up pollution,
    managing invasive species, and safeguarding access to clean
    water for over 40 million people. For every dollar spent on the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, nearly $4 in additional
    economic activity is produced. These outcomes have only been
    possible because of strong collaboration between EPA and its
    regional partners.
        So your fiscal year 2026 skinny budget makes no mention of
    the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or the staffing
    necessary to carry it out. So I would like you to tell us today
    what the Administration's budget will include for the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, while we are here and we are only able
    to speak about the skinny budget because the full budget has
    not been released, because you are asking about the Great Lakes
    Restoration Program, and I have heard from the Vice President,
    who has fought for this program as well, a former Senator from
    Ohio. This is something that there is great pride inside of the
    Agency for, the Great Lakes Restoration Program. There is a lot
    of support inside of the Administration to make sure that this
    program is funded and it continues very strong.
        Senator Baldwin. Okay. So it will continue and it will be
    fully funded?
        Mr. Zeldin. It will.
        Senator Baldwin. In the budget.
        Mr. Zeldin. It will absolutely continue. And while I can't
    speak to a full budget that has not been released yet, I am
    confident that you will have a smile on your face as it relates
    to the Great Lakes Restoration Program when you see it.
        Senator Baldwin. Wisconsin communities also face several
    challenges that make it more difficult to meet the demand and
    the expectation of access to clean drinking water. And we have
    increasing threats from PFAS contamination, an overabundance of
    lead service lines still, and inadequate and aging wastewater
    infrastructure. Our public water systems have relied on the
    EPA's State Revolving Funds to upgrade their water systems, to
    fix things that are broken so that they can protect families
    and workers.
        This budget decimates the State Revolving Funds, and our
    nation's primary Federal program for funding water
    infrastructure projects. How do you justify this funding cut,
    this decimation, to a family in Milwaukee seeking to protect
    their children from lead in their drinking water due to lead
    service lines? Or a farmer relying on a rural public water
    system that hopes to provide PFAS-free water to their workers
    and their livestock?
        Mr. Zeldin. As I mentioned, Senator, to Chairwoman
    Murkowski's question on this topic earlier, this is a good time
    for a conversation as it relates to the bleeding out of funding
    for SRF. Congress chooses----
        Senator Baldwin. We are having this conversation right now.
        Mr. Zeldin. Right.
        Senator Baldwin. And you are hearing, I hope strongly, from
    this committee that we are committed to restoration of those
    funds because they serve such a vital function in our
    communities.
        I wanted to add a couple of words to Senator Fischer's
    question about biofuels. I just want you to know that the
    biofuels industry is incredibly important in Wisconsin. We have
    several ethanol and biodiesel producers. Certainly, we have
    corn and soybean farmers and rural manufacturing jobs that
    depend on a predictable and forward-looking renewable fuel
    standard.
        A strong standard would not only provide domestic market
    certainty to farmers during a time of volatile international
    market access, as you know, but also invest in our nation's
    energy independence while lowering fuel costs for consumers and
    creating domestic manufacturers jobs.
        So I urge you to release a proposed renewable volume
    obligation rulemaking soon, and hope that the proposal will
    reflect market growth and demand in this sector.
        Mr. Zeldin. I agree.
        Senator Baldwin. All right. Lastly, Wisconsin is home to an
    array of diverse landscapes, from the coasts of the Mississippi
    River, and the Great Lakes, to the wetlands and grasslands
    across the Driftless Area of our state, to the Chequamegon-
    Nicolet National Forest, many of our state's most effective
    environmental conservation and restoration projects across
    these regions promote biodiversity to protect their ecosystems.
        Can you confirm for me right now that the Trump
    administration's executive order to ban diversity, equity, and
    inclusion at the Federal level has not led to projects being
    deprioritized, delayed, or defunded by EPA if they mention such
    terms as ``biodiversity''?
        Mr. Zeldin. Off hand, I can't think of a particular
    example. I would have to go back and talk to the team to see if
    there is anything.
        Senator Baldwin. Can you assure me that the executive order
    on diversity, equity, and inclusion has not led to random word
    searches for words like ``diversity'' that lead to cutoffs in
    funding? Can you guarantee me that that has not happened at the
    EPA?
        Mr. Zeldin. I wouldn't guarantee that. I would imagine that
    if we--when we received an executive order as it relates to
    diversity, equity, and inclusion that the team was probably----
        Senator Baldwin. Does that include ``biodiversity'', in
    your opinion?
        Mr. Zeldin. What I am saying is I would have to--as it
    relates to that term ``biodiversity'', I would have to check
    with the team. I am not aware of that, but I would have to ask.
        Senator Baldwin. Do you think supporting and promoting
    biodiversity somehow violates the President's executive order
    relating to bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion funding?
        Mr. Zeldin. I would have to see examples of how that term
    was applied to a particular program or grant in order to be
    able to answer that.
        Senator Rounds [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        And on behalf of the Chairman, I think she went to vote,
    now that we are actually trying to get our 15-minute votes in
    again, and I think we are all trying to honor that.
        Okay. Administrator Zeldin, first of all, welcome, I am new
    to this subcommittee as well, and I look forward to having the
    opportunity to work with you. I want to thank you, first of
    all, for your willingness to revise the Waters of the United
    States, or WOTUS Rulemaking. As you know, the last several
    decades, wetlands that were drained to become cropland prior to
    1985 have remained exempt from regulation under the Clean Water
    Act.
        The first Trump administration clarified the rules
    governing prior converted cropland, or PCC, protecting affected
    land from clean water regulation as long as it was used for
    agricultural purposes at least once every 5 years. You are
    going to hear a lot about these ag issues as you come into this
    position. The most recent Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
    rule under the Biden administration ended the prior converted
    cropland exemption immediately upon a change in use.
        This departs significantly from the flexibility provided by
    President Trump's 2020 WOTUS Rule. I recently introduced the
    Farmers Freedom Act to codify President Trump's earlier
    definition of prior converted cropland.
        My question today for you, Administrator Zeldin, as you
    work to develop an updated WOTUS framework, will you consider
    revisiting the definition of prior converted cropland?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I would be happy to follow up with you
    on that to make sure that we are heeding your calls and
    considering the merits of your point.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. And look, I really appreciate
    your comments on WOTUS and where it is going, and the concern
    to have some clear definitions laid out that everybody can
    understand from administration to administration. The ongoing
    uncertainty surrounding WOTUS regulations has been a major
    challenge for American farmers, and I have appreciated your
    commitment to working closely with the ag producers as you
    undertake this rulemaking process. And I appreciate that. You
    are going to find there are a lot of folks that want to work
    with you on that particular issue.
        My next question; and you know, I want to just go back to
    something just to provide you an opportunity. There are a lot
    of us here that really do think that there is an importance to
    the clean and drinking water state revolving loan funds, and
    there is a $2.46 billion decrease in the skinny budget proposal
    that has been laid out. So let me just ask this question on it:
    Congress appropriates and we direct, we authorize and so forth.
        My suspicion is that Congress will seriously consider
    reappropriating those funds again. Would it be fair to say,
    although there have been some suggestions that you are not
    following the law and so forth, if we appropriate it and direct
    that it be put back into those revolving loan funds, you will
    follow the law and you will see that it has been done?
        Mr. Zeldin. Of course. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. And I just appreciate that, because I
    think the misunderstanding is that somehow you are not going to
    follow a law on this, when Congress puts it in, and we say no,
    we want it back in, and it should go back out to the states. At
    that stage of the game, we can count on you working with us to
    get it done appropriately?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and I appreciate you raising this
    point and this example. Congress appropriates funding, and then
    the Agency distributes that funding as it is required to under
    the law. That doesn't mean from one administration to the next,
    that the Trump administration is going to come in agreeing with
    the policy priorities of the prior administration that just
    left office.
        There might be a disagreement of opinion between
    administrations, and we come in towards the beginning of a
    fiscal year, the way that funding will go out over the course
    of a fiscal year might be applying the new administration's
    priorities, as the American public voted for last November.
        Senator Rounds. Right, and based upon where there is broad
    latitude provided to the Executive Branch in the expenditure of
    those authorities, but where the Congress is more specific in
    their appropriations, it makes it cleaner and more directed in
    terms of your ability to decide upfront whether it is truly the
    will of Congress to do it in one particular program, such as
    these Revolving Loan Funds?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I love your question. And this applies
    to so much, from appropriation to policy. If Congress wants an
    agency to take a specific action, Congress can give an
    obligation to an agency. I am here, as I was during my
    confirmation process, and I will continue to come before
    Congress committing to fulfill all statutory obligations. And
    if there is some new statutory obligation that is created
    because of some law that is passed, say a month from now, our
    Agency will fulfill those statutory obligations. It is a really
    important point. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        And at this time, on behalf of the Chairman, I would
    recognize Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator.
        And welcome, Administrator Zeldin. I noticed that as a
    member of Congress during the first Trump administration, you
    opposed their recommended cuts to EPA's Long Island Sound
    Program. Similarly, during the first Trump administration,
    those of us who represent Chesapeake Bay states successfully
    opposed, on a bipartisan basis, their proposed cuts to the
    Chesapeake Bay Program.
        I am glad to see that the Spend Plan that was submitted by
    EPA for fiscal year 2025 shows that you plan to continue to
    invest in the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program at the
    appropriated and authorized levels of 92 million. I just want
    to confirm with you today, yes or no, that is right, isn't it?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes. Everything in the skinny budget that is
    before us, the answer is yes when repeating what you all are
    reading.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, this is with respect to the spend
    plan, which is separate from the skinny budget.
        Mr. Zeldin. Right.
        Senator Van Hollen. If you also----
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and by the way--and I will answer
    maybe your next question, the Chesapeake Bay Program, which I
    know you are fighting hard for, as we heard Senator Baldwin
    reference and the Great Lakes Restoration Program, the
    Chesapeake Bay Program is an amazing program. Our team takes
    great pride in running it. It is filled with a lot of success
    stories that span multiple states, including yours, and we will
    make sure that you also have a smile on your face as Senator
    Baldwin will have on hers when the full budget is released and
    you see the numbers for Chesapeake Bay.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that very much. You
    anticipated my next question, right, fiscal year 2026. So thank
    you. Now, let me turn to an area where we have some significant
    disagreement, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In
    just the last few days, an independent analysis of the benefits
    of that fund was conducted by the University of New Hampshire.
    It was released. Simple question, have you had a chance to read
    it?
        Mr. Zeldin. Is that the one that was written by a former
    Biden administration official?
        Senator Van Hollen. I don't believe so but we can check it.
        Mr. Zeldin. I think so.
        Senator Van Hollen. Here is my question.
        Mr. Zeldin. I don't know if there is a----
        Senator Van Hollen. Have you read it, was my question?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if you are referring to the----
        Senator Van Hollen. This is on May 12th.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes. If you are referring--if that is the one
    that I am thinking of, because I was presented a document, it
    might have been that, what you are looking at, I understand it
    was referred to as independent.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. Okay.
        Mr. Zeldin. But my understanding from the person who gave
    it to me is that it was written by a former Biden----
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, we will take a look at it, but
    hopefully, just being a member of an administration doesn't
    disqualify somebody from a fair analysis.
        Let me move on, because this analysis shows significant
    benefits from the deployment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
    Fund, including 41,000 new jobs each year compared to current
    policy, over $20 billion in additional wages by the year 2031,
    and very importantly, a whopping savings of $52 billion over
    the next 20 years for consumers. And I hope you will read it
    and give it a fair look, because you have made some wild,
    untrue, and reckless statements to justify your illegal
    freezing of these funds.
        And Mr. Administrator, I can say that with confidence
    because the veracity of your statements has been scrutinized by
    the Federal courts. Right, that is where, unlike on media
    outlets, you actually have to present evidence under penalty of
    perjury, you and your lawyers on your behalf.
        So let us look at what Federal District Court Judge Chutkan
    has said, after weighing the evidence and claims that you have
    made. During a hearing in early April, the judge pressed the
    lawyers for any evidence to back up your claims of waste,
    fraud, and abuse, and found that EPA, and I quote, ``Never
    proffered this adequate evidence'', unquote. The judge wrote
    that the EPA, and I am quoting, ``Has failed to provide a
    single piece of evidence to support your claims''.
        She went on to find that EPA acted, quote, ``arbitrarily
    and capriciously'', unquote. And she goes on to make a number
    of other factual findings in that case. I am well aware of the
    fact that you have appealed her decision, but these are factual
    findings based on the lack of evidence for the claims that you
    have made.
        Let me ask you this. You have received five letters, some
    as early as February 24th, from committees of Congress on this
    question of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. We checked this
    morning, based on what we know, you have not replied to a
    single one. So my final question here----
        Mr. Zeldin. That is not accurate, sir.
        Senator Van Hollen. What is that?
        Mr. Zeldin. I don't believe that is accurate.
        Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Well, we double-checked, and if
    we are wrong, we will correct the record. But there are five of
    them. And my question here to you today is twofold. One, will
    you commit to responding to those letters from Members of
    Congress? And number two, will you meet with me to discuss the
    Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, its status, and its future?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, we had, as you know, an opportunity to
    talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund a couple weeks ago
    when we saw each other, I am happy to have a follow-up meeting
    to discuss it further. I have personally read every single
    letter that every Member of Congress has sent me, whether you
    are on, you know, Senate Approps, you are on Senate EPW, or you
    are not, and that same thing applies to the House side. I have
    read every letter.
        I believe every single member of this committee who sent me
    a letter has received a response up to this particular point.
    You referenced the judge--the D.C., a District Court Judge's
    decision, and it is important to note that that decision was
    stayed by a circuit court. I would further point out, because--
    and I don't know, Senator, if you have actually read the
    judge's 31-page opinion.
        Senator Van Hollen. Actually, I have. And I have got it
    right here.
        Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Great. If you would not mind, Senator, if
    you can look--can I just finish the point real quick?
        Senator Van Hollen. Of course.
        Mr. Zeldin. Then if you can--if you wouldn't mind, checking
    out the footnote on page 29.
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
        Mr. Zeldin. It says that we have not provided any evidence
    of reduced oversight after the November election, but we
    provided the judge the January 13th amended Account Control
    Agreement that does exactly that. Now, it is a decision that
    the judge makes to make believe that that document, that that
    wasn't provided to the judge. Now here is the other thing----
        Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Administrator--I am going to
    reclaim my time.
        Senator Murkowski. And I am going to intervene because we
    are in the middle of two votes. We still have three more
    members that need to ask their questions, so.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I just want,
    therefore, Mr. Administrator, I look forward to meeting with
    you to discuss these things. As you know, in court, that is
    where people have to testify under penalty of perjury. I don't
    mean you, your lawyers on your behalf. And these are the
    findings I read from the judge.
        Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to
    continuing the conversation and getting responses to those
    letters. I wasn't citing them from this committee's members.
    There are five other members on other committees, including
    EPW, who at least have told us they have not gotten responses.
    So we will follow up on that one.
        Senator Murkowski. And we will have an opportunity in the
    second round.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Okay.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Oh. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am going
    to just make a statement, that I have to go back because I have
    an EPW hearing, and you are coming in front of our committee, I
    believe, next week.
        First of all, I am really pleased that EPA officials are in
    Charleston, West Virginia. The past EPA wouldn't come to
    Charleston, West Virginia unless we kind of pressured them
    under duress to talk about the new WOTUS Rule. So I know, I am
    pleased that you all are listening to our farmers, our
    landowners, our local officials are being heard, so I
    appreciate the quick and outward listening sessions that you
    are doing to a very overreaching and impactful rule.
        On your reorganization, and we can dig into this more next
    week. I am very pleased that you have put more emphasis on the
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. As you
    know, our chemical office over the last 4 years has been
    extremely sluggish, if non-existent, in terms of licensing new
    chemicals, which are cleaner, greener, and safer. And for the
    life of me, I could not figure out why they were stuck.
        We have a small refinery in West Virginia that has had
    three court cases that have judged on their behalf for the
    small refinery exemption. I know I brought that up to you
    before, so hopefully you are still looking into that.
        And the last thing I would say is the Clean Power Plan 2.0.
    Luckily, it is getting frittered away because of the impacts it
    would have on jobs in my state and also on the ability for all
    of our states to provide the energy that we need and that we
    know we are going to want here in the future. So thank you very
    much. You don't need to respond, I just wanted to say welcome,
    see you next week, and appreciate it.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Capito. We are all
    running this morning, so don't take any offense that we are
    like jack-in-the-boxes here.
        Let us go to Senator Ossoff.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for
    convening the hearing.
        Administrator, good to see you, and welcome.
        Mr. Zeldin. Thanks.
        Senator Ossoff. Administrator, are you familiar with
    Thomasville, Georgia?
        Mr. Zeldin. I have been in a lot of parts of Georgia. I was
    just in Georgia about a week and a half ago.
        Senator Ossoff. Thomasville is in Southwest Georgia. It is
    a great town, known for southern hospitality, great people,
    Mayor Mobley, Pastor Rich, there is a lot of agricultural
    activity around there. There is also a history, a legacy, of
    heavy industry that has led to significant air pollution, and
    there remain significant concerns about air pollution,
    specifically particulate matter 2.5, and reported high levels
    of leukemia and pneumonia in and around Thomasville.
        And as you know, oftentimes these rural communities don't
    get the love and attention of the Federal Government, they can
    be forgotten. In Georgia, big cities tend to get a lot of the
    Federal support. So there was great news for the good people of
    Thomasville last year when they won an EPA grant to help build
    a new health clinic, rehabbing the gym in the school to build a
    new federally qualified health center near three daycare
    centers, as well as to upgrade wastewater infrastructure.
        Earl Williams, who leads the Thomasville Community
    Development Corporation, called the grant a game changer. Mayor
    Mobley said the award represented a, quote, ``Transformative
    opportunity to make vital health and safety improvements.''
        But, Administrator, you canceled the grant, and I would
    like to know why.
        Mr. Zeldin. So I am looking at, this was part of the
    Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program?
        Senator Ossoff. That is right.
        Mr. Zeldin. And this gets to an earlier interaction that we
    had, and Senator Rounds got added as well. When Congress
    appropriates a block of funding, an administration is going to
    apply their policy priorities to how that money is going to get
    spent. A new administration comes in. We still have to spend
    the appropriated funding unless something changes with----
        Senator Ossoff. Administrator, with respect, I understand
    the appropriations process. My question is why you canceled
    this grant. What is it about building a new health clinic and
    upgrading wastewater infrastructure for my constituents in
    Thomasville, Georgia, that is inconsistent with administration
    policy?
        Mr. Zeldin. So I don't have the full grant in front of me.
    I only have a topline, which program it came out of. So when a
    new administration comes in and they apply their policy
    priorities----
        Senator Ossoff. You are repeating yourself. My question is
    why you canceled this grant.
        Mr. Zeldin. So when a new administration comes in, in this
    case, President Trump put out executive orders as it relates to
    environmental justice, with regards to DEI, I would imagine
    that would----
        Senator Ossoff. What does this have to do with--is a new
    health clinic for Thomasville, Georgia, Woke?
        Mr. Zeldin. As I imagine, as we look through the details of
    the particular program, there must be some aspects of this
    applying the last administration's priorities on environmental
    justice or it has got----
        Senator Ossoff. Here is a community, here is a community
    that suffered from air pollution, has a high disease burden as
    a result. Finally, the Federal Government comes, they are going
    to help build a health clinic and upgrade some infrastructure.
    You canceled the grant, devastating for the community.
        Here is what the Head of the Community Development
    Corporation said about your decision to cancel this grant,
    denying my constituents a new health clinic, and new wastewater
    infrastructure. A decision you made that hurts my constituents
    in Thomasville. Here is what he said, quote: ``We all worked so
    hard for this, and we won. And then all of a sudden, one day,
    it is gone. And it was just a great sense of disappointment. It
    was almost like I lost a good friend.''
        He sent me another letter, he said, quote: ``Our community
    is devastated.'' You hurt my constituents, and I don't need a
    civics lesson on the appropriations process or a broad critique
    of this program. I want to know why you canceled this grant.
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, so you are--when you go back to them
    and they ask. Well, did you find out why the grant got
    canceled----
        Senator Ossoff. Well, do you know why? I am asking you. I
    am asking, you canceled the grant.
        Mr. Zeldin. You can say----
        Senator Ossoff. I don't need to ask them why the grant got
    canceled because it was your decision. So tell me why you
    canceled the grant.
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, you can say--you could say, I asked the
    question and then decided to spend the entire five minutes
    cutting him off eight times in the middle of his first answer,
    so I was unable to get a full response.
        Senator Ossoff. Why do you not answer the question
    specifically and directly? Why did you cancel this grant? Why
    are you denying my constituents a new health clinic and new
    wastewater infrastructure?
        Mr. Zeldin. Do you want me to repeat anything that I said
    and asked----
        Senator Ossoff. No. I said, I want you to actually answer
    the question with specificity and not give a broad critique of
    this overall program or a lesson on how the appropriations
    process works.
        Mr. Zeldin. If you were listening to anything that I said,
    Senator----
        Senator Ossoff. Okay. You don't have an answer?
        Mr. Zeldin. I already answered your--say whatever you want,
    Senator.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Administrator, I had asked you, or we
    had had a discussion about the congressionally directed
    spending projects. You have indicated that, indeed, we have got
    a backlog here that we need to address. My understanding is
    that since fiscal year 2022, Congress had directed 2,264 CDS
    projects at the EPA. Only 705 have received the funding. So I
    think both of us would agree, you know, we have got an issue
    here. There is a problem.
        The fiscal year 2025 CR, of course, did not include the CDS
    projects, so I am looking at that and saying, all right, the
    Agency has the balance of the fiscal year to work on catching
    up from this backlog of the CDSs, can you just give me a little
    bit of your understanding in terms of how you have directed
    your team to expeditiously get these projects out the door in a
    more timely manner?
        Mr. Zeldin. I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. The
    backlog goes back years, and I have directed my team to both
    work with the members of Congress who represent those areas,
    the members of Congress who requested those earmarks, to get
    assistance. In the case where the recipient has not been
    responsive, and simultaneously to try to engage as much as
    possible directly with the recipient to try to get the
    recipient to submit their paperwork; we want to completely get
    through the entire backlog that we inherited as quickly as
    possible.
        Senator Murkowski. Can we help you with that?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I mean, I am working with my
    constituents right now as we are moving forward in this year's
    appropriations and getting requests for CDSs. So can you
    perhaps either let me know who it is on your team that we need
    to be communicating directly to if there are snags on your end
    or perhaps, again, you are just not able to get in touch with
    the applicant?
        Mr. Zeldin. 100 percent. And as you well know, the EPA is
    broken down into all sorts of different program offices.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Zeldin. And it not be just one person for all grants,
    it might depend on whether the backlog might--we might be
    talking about a backlog inside of the Office of Water, where
    they need assistance from the Members of Congress, or maybe it
    is another office. Maybe it is the Office of Air and Radiation.
    We would look forward to an opportunity to work with you and
    your team and all Members of Congress on both sides of the
    aisle as much as possible to eliminate the backlog that we
    inherited.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. Let us do that. I think that is a
    good plan. Many members here have asked about different grants,
    and programs, the pauses, the freezes. It has been particularly
    frustrating in Alaska when we hear that there has been a holdup
    in terms of the grant award. We have got just a limited
    construction season. It is just hard. And even if you are not
    choked by ice, you might have a barge that comes up with your
    materials for a project maybe once, maybe twice a season, and
    so it can push a project back not just months but by another
    season, another year, perhaps multiple years.
        It has been hard to provide some clarity to our communities
    on which grants are going to be awarded, which are just going
    through the review process that you shared with us, which
    grants have been terminated. So I would ask if your folks could
    provide a list of what has actually been paused for review
    versus what has been terminated.
        I think we have heard, for instance, on the EJ grants, that
    one has been perhaps more clear. But there are a lot in
    between, and I think it would help our communities if there was
    more certainty as to what has actually been terminated versus
    what is still in the pipeline for review. So I would ask for
    your help on that.
        Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Madam Chair. And we will continue
    to be distributing funding appropriated by Congress as we go
    through the rest of the fiscal year. That will include funds
    for your great, great state, and we look forward to us working
    with you on the process.
        As you know, when the President first came in, there was an
    administration-wide pause that was lifted. The pause that was
    then instituted for EPA was more specific to some of the
    Inflation Reduction Act programs. There was a Clean School Bus
    Program concern that was raised early in the Administration
    when Lion Electric and their bankruptcy issue caused some
    questions to be asked to make sure that the concerns with Lion
    Electric were just specific to Lion Electric. And as it relates
    to the grants that were cancelled, that is something that, if
    you have any questions about what was included in that, we are
    happy to answer any individual questions.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. Okay, we will look forward to work
    with you on that list.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have four
    letters from communities in Oregon that I would like to enter
    into the record.
        Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you so much. So the City of
    Chiloquin is a city of under 1,000 people in rural Oregon, and
    they had remediated a brownfield site, winning the award for
    the Oregon Brownfield Project of the Year, and had worked very
    hard and realized when you only have 1,000 people, it is pretty
    hard to even write grants, let alone win one. So they were very
    excited about their grant for a municipal center.
        Not only would it have been city offices but also an
    emergency shelter. It is a community that is affected by
    wildfire smoke more years than not, and an emergency readiness
    center to respond to emergency with upgraded communications. So
    they had a grant awarded and obligated that you cancelled, and
    can you explain to the people of Chiloquin why this grant was
    canceled?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and I know Senator Murray asked about
    a specific grant, Senator Ossoff, asked about a specific grant,
    you are asking about a specific grant. I don't have all of the
    details on every single grant in front of me. However, I would
    have no hesitation whatsoever to be able to have a follow-up
    conversation, to the extent you are interested, that Senator
    Murray is interested, that Senator Ossoff is interested, to go
    through all of those individual details. And it is possible
    that the issue that might be present on a particular request is
    something that can get fixed, that can get addressed, as it
    relates to difference of administrative policy priorities from
    one administration to the next.
        I went through a bunch of different Alaska grants before we
    were here today, and I found that there were different--that
    the grants might have an aspect that isn't consistent with this
    administration's policy priorities, but other aspects of it
    were. So we can work through that.
        Senator Merkley. So this is a grant that was both awarded
    and obligated. How does a community proceed to plan, because
    they are contracting for design, they are contracting for
    construction. The grant has already been awarded, you unawarded
    it. It seems to me like once it has been obligated, that should
    be kind of like, okay, well, we will take those priorities to
    the next set of grants rather than undoing the existing ones.
        So I think that is particularly upsetting to the rhythm of
    how communities can proceed with confidence if a grant that has
    already been awarded and obligated can be snatched back.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. I would encourage--and I am going
    to be, you know, in front of House Approps tomorrow, and next
    week Senate EPW, which you serve on, and House E and C
    Subcommittee. And my message would be for all of your
    colleagues that if anybody wants to ask about a specific grant,
    I would encourage them to reach out to us right now, as opposed
    to waiting until we are here for a Q&A, and I am getting asked
    about a very specific grant, as opposed to your office
    contacting us and saying: Hey, by the way, when we are at the
    hearing, I would like to ask you all sorts of very detailed
    questions about this one specific grant, if you would not mind
    bringing it. Because then, in that case, Senator, I would be
    standing here ready to answer a thousand questions about every
    individual grant.
        Senator Merkley. Well, there was a kind of a procedural
    question embedded in that, which is, if a grant has been
    already obligated, and so here the community has contracted for
    design, perhaps for construction, isn't it not kind of deeply
    inappropriate to then undo that at that point?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if it is not consistent with
    administration priorities, depending on how the program was
    appropriated by Congress and depending on what the details are
    of that individual grant, that grant can be subject to
    cancellation.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. I will follow up with a question on
    specifically why these grants were funded--or unfunded. The
    second one is from a plan for a community health project to
    increase tree planting in a heat kind of dome section of a very
    poor part of Gresham, Oregon, and air conditioning and space to
    address respiratory illness. The community, there is the
    philosophy, when you say it is inconsistent with the philosophy
    of the Government, is the incoming Government against
    addressing air conditioning to address heat, emergencies, or
    spaces to address respiratory illness during smoke emergencies?
        Mr. Zeldin. You are asking about a specific grant. I would
    need the details of that particular grant to be able to
    answer----
        Senator Merkley. Actually, I was asking about whether the
    philosophy, is that the philosophy of the incoming
    administration, that you are against--you may have undone this
    for who knows what reason, but are you opposed to tree planting
    and spaces to address respiratory emergencies?
        Mr. Zeldin. Tree planting is fantastic. We would encourage
    more of it, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Well, if you look at these individual
    grants, which I am sure there are so many of them, I know that
    they were done with kind of a huge swath of cancellation, but
    if you look at them and go, well, there is nothing about this
    that we oppose, we like to have community health centers built,
    is there a possibility you will restore those grants?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, over the course of the rest of the
    fiscal year, it is our intent to continue to be spending money
    that was appropriated by Congress to fulfill our obligations
    and to follow the law, and it very well will end up including
    grants that were canceled. The way that the grant may be
    finalized under new terms might not include whatever the
    particular aspect was that led to its cancellation the first
    time, but I am sure that there is going to be many examples of
    grants that will end up going back out the door just not
    without----
        Senator Merkley. Yes, possibly, you may be restoring
    grants, if I just summarize what you just said?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Yes?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. The third one is a community health center
    in the Town of the Grand Ronde, and to have a place to
    coordinate national--response to natural disasters. I know you
    are not going to give a response to this specifically, but in
    philosophy, it is not that the administration is against
    community health centers?
        Mr. Zeldin. I remember during the first Trump term, that
    was something that there was an increase of funding to
    community health centers. That was a subject of legislation. I
    remember because I was in the House at the time.
        Senator Merkley. And the fourth one is an early learning
    center, and the administration is not against early learning
    centers, in philosophy?
        Mr. Zeldin. I have not heard of any administration, or any
    Member of Congress, or otherwise, being against something like
    that.
        Senator Merkley. Well, these are important grants. I think
    there may be elements of each of these grants that you don't
    particularly like, like they are going to put solar panels on
    the roof, or the wording of the grant used the word
    ``resilience'' or said ``we are responding to heat emergencies
    from climate change.'' I am sure there are words you don't
    like, but I hope when you review these grants, and you have
    stated your intention to spend the money in these categories by
    the end of the fiscal year, which is only months away, that you
    will examine these.
        I will get you a list for Oregon. I think in these small
    communities, it is so hard to even write a grant, and it is
    such a victory when they win a grant and say, we can finally
    solve a major community problem.
        And I know I am over my time, Madam Chair, but I will close
    just with this note. Because you have responded to the question
    of earmarks, or congressionally directed spending on the
    Revolving Water Fund, so in Oregon, we call these community-
    initiated projects. The communities say, here is our very top
    need, and will you fight to get us help because we cannot
    afford this water treatment on the front end, or wastewater in
    the background.
        And I think very similarly, I think it is in Alaska
    communities say, here is our priority, Senator Murkowski is
    fighting for them. I think that is kind of the best
    arrangement. It sounded to me like you didn't like the idea of
    us fighting for the top priorities for our communities, but I
    think it is absolutely our responsibility. Better to have the
    communities say they want their priority is, and us fight for
    them, than some bureaucratic decision made 3,000 miles away, or
    further away from Alaska.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator, there are so many great examples
    of what is called congressionally directed spending, earmarks
    where it is a member----
        Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.
        Mr. Zeldin. Community-initiated projects.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Mr. Zeldin. Where a member of Congress, House, Senate, is
    fighting for something that is filled with merit, purely, it is
    a great project that is going to have extremely positive
    outcomes. There are many of those examples, and that is
    something that I am not here to say, you know, generally
    encouraging or discouraging. That is a decision for Congress to
    make as to whether or not and how much to do it. My job is to
    make sure that the money gets out the door when Congress does.
    I don't want to use the wrong word ``congressionally'' not
    congressionally-directed.
        Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.
        Mr. Zeldin. Congressionally-initiated funds. We will make
    sure that the money gets out the door, Senator. The point as it
    relates to the description, the notes in the skinny budget as
    it relates to SRF, is just the concern of how that pot of money
    has been used, with regards to these funds.
        With that being said, I am sure that there are many
    different examples, many examples of what was described there
    being good outcomes for a particular community. A very
    thoughtful congressionally initiated--community-initiated
    funding.
        Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.
        Mr. Zeldin. So I was used to the term ``earmark'' when I
    was in Congress, but we call it something else now.
        Senator Merkley. The reason I don't love ``congressionally
    directed'' is it is not some invention of us up here that we
    just say: Oh, what do we want? No, it is what have our
    communities identify they want. So I have been trying to get
    the Appropriations Committee to change its terminology to
    reflect what is actually happening, and I think it puts it in a
    strong light.
        Senator Murkowski. So I want to just follow on Senator
    Merkley's comments here, because the operating plan for fiscal
    year 2025 we have received, it is very much in line with the
    previous year's funding level for each line item. There is a
    lot of changes that have been discussed, but it sounds like you
    are committing to spending the funds as delineated in the
    Agency's spend plans.
        And I guess my ask to you is, if that is not going to be
    the case, that the committee, or the subcommittee--excuse me--
    receive a reprogramming request, so that we basically follow
    the process of procedure here, if in fact we are not doing--the
    Agency is not doing the spend out as we have anticipated, as
    these small communities understand them.
        I just have two very quick follow-ons. One is very easy for
    you because we have discussed it at length, but it is a
    significant issue in my state when it comes to contaminated
    lands. The history that I have shared with you of Alaskan
    Natives receiving their settlement of lands being conveyed by
    the Federal Government, and basically, they were conveyed
    tainted lands, lands that were contaminated by various actions
    of Federal agencies, whether it is the land managers or the
    Department of Defense.
        And so we have made some good progress with EPA. And
    believe me, this is not EPA's fault or liability for the
    contamination, it is the Federal Government's, but what we have
    learned is that the EPA is uniquely qualified to help us solve
    this issue. Over the past couple years, there has been roughly
    $20 million in funding that has been directed to contaminated
    lands, and the agencies have been doing some really good work.
        I just need your commitment that we are going to continue
    with this. $20 million, unfortunately, doesn't even get the
    first project cleanup. We know that these are expensive, but it
    is an obligation. It is a liability of our government, and we
    owe it, whether it is to Alaskan Natives as conveyance of their
    settlement, or to others. And I know that when we are talking
    super funds, brownfields, contaminated lands, we just have so
    much work to do here. So know that you have cooperation on my
    level here.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to
    visiting over the course of the next couple weeks, being in
    Alaska, might be able to have the opportunity to hear about,
    see about--see this firsthand. And I will, with regards to all
    appropriations, make sure that we are fulfilling our
    obligations under the law. So if Congress appropriates the
    funds, we will make sure that it is spent.
        Senator Murkowski. Very good. PFAS is something that we
    talk a lot about in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Last
    month you announced that EPA will, quote, ``Tackle PFAS from
    all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing,
    stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding
    polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive
    receivers.'' You said this was just the beginning of the work
    that EPA is going to do to tackle PFAS, which I certainly
    appreciate, and I know most everyone up here does.
        Can you tell me whether the operating plan and the skinny
    budget requests, whether they actually reflect this kind of
    full forward push on PFAS, and whether it includes the $10
    billion that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding provided
    to take on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
    contamination? I am looking at this skinny budget, and I am
    saying, good for you, let us go on PFAS. But I am worried about
    making sure that we are actually budgeting to do so.
        And I am also worried about whether or not with the RIFs
    that we have seen to date, as well as what is anticipated about
    perhaps an additional fork in the road, whether we are going to
    be able to do the job. So again, this is something where you
    are going to have good support from people on this committee
    for the initiative. But do you have the budget, and do you have
    the people?
        Mr. Zeldin. Yeah, Senator, we are actually adding people
    into this effort inside of the Office of Water. As you noted,
    this spans multiple program offices at EPA. A lot of the PFAS
    work is done inside of the Office of Water, the reorganization
    announcement that we made a couple weeks ago includes boosting
    that effort inside of the Office of Water.
        The press release from April 28th that you referenced
    included a lot of different actions that we plan on taking, and
    everything that the Agency has announced is already factored
    into the skinny budget that is before the committee today.
        Senator Murkowski. And so let me just ask more directly,
    whether or not you are concerned that the RIF or the deferred
    resignation is going to impact your ability to execute, whether
    it is on the PFAS side, or contaminated lands, or any number of
    issues that you have heard here from members?
        Mr. Zeldin. No, Madam Chair. This is a very important
    priority of ours at EPA. When I was in Congress, I was a member
    of the PFAS Task Force. I had voted for the PFAS Action Act
    when I was a member of the House. I represented the district
    that had all sorts of different PFAS contamination issues. This
    is something that, in many respects, started during President
    Trump's first term in office and has continued to progress
    since. And we are going to make sure that we are hitting the
    ground running.
        That is included in the April 28th announcement. But as we
    noted in that announcement, those are just some of the many
    decisions and important work that are before us. It is a very
    high priority.
        Senator Murkowski. So you have spoken to the adequacy to
    meet the PFAS mission. Are you concerned about your numbers
    EPA-wide to do your overall mission, not just specific to PFAS,
    but with everything else that you are looking at? Because the
    reduction in staffing is very significant, you have got to
    admit that. And so you have got a big task, and we want you to
    be able to execute on that. So I just want to hear from you
    whether you have any concerns about your staffing levels right
    now?
        Mr. Zeldin. Madam Chair, we are going to fulfill all
    statutory obligations. One of the things that was a surprise to
    me coming into the position was just how many people who are
    employees at the Agency were not working on any statutory
    obligation at all. And I also want to say that there are a lot
    of amazing, dedicated employees at EPA. The American public
    might feel disconnected from Agency employees who might be
    working in Washington, D.C., but there are a lot of people who
    have been there for a long time.
        They believe in the Agency mission, they work hard every
    single day. One of the reforms we brought in coming in is
    ending COVID-era remote work. And it is great to hear noise in
    the building, to see the foot traffic, and to see people being
    productive and collaborative. But if anyone out there was
    tuning in and they don't know what the Agency looks like, it is
    filled with a lot of amazing, dedicated workers who believe in
    the Agency's mission, and we are going to work hard to make the
    public proud.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I am glad that you have
    acknowledged your workforce because I think you do have people
    who are good public servants. They are proud of the work they
    do, and the work that they do has value, and we want to
    recognize that.
        I know our second vote is coming to the end.
        Senator Merkley, do you have anything quick?
        Senator Merkley. Just very quickly, I want to accentuate my
    concern, following on your concern of the employees. By the
    rough count we have now, we lost about 400 people of
    probationary staff who were fired within their first year, 560
    in the first round of deferred resignations, 180 in the DEIA
    who have been riffed. That is 1,129 deferred resignations.
    Second round, 1,800 have opt-ins, so now we are up to almost
    3,000.
        Office of R&D rumored that they are reduced to 500
    positions, which would be a loss of 1,300 additional. So now we
    are at 4,300. I will just point out that for two decades the
    level of employment at EPA was about 17,000. Right now it is
    about 14,000. So subtracting the numbers I just shared, we are
    talking about more than 4,000 reduction from that. Meanwhile,
    there are all sorts of programs that have been established over
    time.
        This Congress has said we want to undertake things like
    addressing the environmental laws, and the fuel economy
    standards, and the Innovation Manufacturing Act, and updates to
    the Clean Water Act, and updates to Safe Drinking Water, so you
    have all these additional responsibilities, but it sounds like
    you are aiming to reduce the employment to around 10,000, and
    therefore it raises doubts that this work can really get done.
    Do you share those concerns? Or should we be concerned?
        Mr. Zeldin. Senator, when the President's full budget comes
    out in the coming weeks, there will be more information as it
    relates to what you are raising on the number. The number that
    you just cited, though, is lower than the actual number. So
    from that respect, again, I know we are here to talk about the
    skinny budget because that is what has been released, and we
    are still waiting for the release of the full budget. Some of
    the numbers that you gave were accurate, some weren't and----
        Senator Merkley. Well, just fill us in, you aim--well, just
    fill us in. What are you aiming for? You are aiming for 10,000,
    11,000?
        Mr. Zeldin. The way that the--the right answer is going to
    be based off of, as we go through the reorg, each office is
    going to be identifying how much that office needs, how much
    each region needs to be able to fulfill our statutory
    obligations, to fulfill our mission, and to power the great
    American comeback. Each office, when they have their number, it
    all gets added up, and that is the right-sized number of----
        Senator Merkley. So we will get the--we will get the number
    later, is what you are saying?
        Mr. Zeldin. Right. I am just filling you in on the process
    of how we are going to arrive at that. We are in a process of
    going through the reorganization now. That is how we will
    arrive at that final total number, which is higher than the
    number today.
        Senator Merkley. All right. Well, we look forward to those
    details. You mentioned the PFAS mission, and EPA just
    announced, and so therefore you are announcing, I guess, that
    your plans to weaken the rule curbing ``forever chemicals''.
    And what are those chemicals? Those chemicals are PFAS,
    originally covering six PFAS contaminants including PFOA and
    PFOS. I am concerned that really, if this information, which
    just came out yesterday, sounds like it is at odds with your
    commitment to tackling PFAS. I am concerned about the numbers.
    I know it sounds like we are going to learn a lot more when we
    have a full budget and a full vision laid out before us, we can
    have a more detailed conversation.
        Mr. Zeldin. Well, Senator, I don't know if you are quoting
    a news story, and it might not come as a shock to you, but
    sometimes the news says stuff that is not accurate, that is not
    what the Agency announced.
        And as it relates to PFOA and PFOS, you said that we were
    weakening the standard, and that is actually the opposite of
    what the Agency actually announced. We were keeping the
    standard, and there was an issue as it relates to the four
    other chemicals, and that is something that we are going to be
    going through a process. But that doesn't mean that it gets
    weaker. The number might end up getting lower, not higher.
        Senator Merkley. Okay.
        Mr. Zeldin. So when you go through a process and we follow
    the law, at the end of it, the final Maximum Contaminant Levels
    (MCL) might be a lower number, not a higher number.
        Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, I will just submit for the
    record this article from the Washington Post titled, ``EPA
    Plans to Weaken the Rule Curbing Forever Chemicals in Drinking
    Water.''
        Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony, but we will
    look forward to a lot more information as we have a full budget
    and a full reorganization plan.
        Mr. Zeldin. Yes, thank you. And Madam Chair, I would
    encourage the committee to look at the actual announcement from
    EPA as opposed to The Washington Post.
        Senator Murkowski. We will have further discussion about so
    many of these issues, the reorganization, what we are seeing
    with the grants.
        But I appreciate, Administrator Zeldin, you appearing
    before the committee, responding to our questions.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We will hold the record open until May 21st for additional
    questions from members and would look forward to your responses
    to those as well.
                     Questions Submitted to Hon. Lee Zeldin
              Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
        Question. In March, your office announced plans for 31 deregulatory
    actions across three major areas. More broadly, the President has
    issued an Executive Order on ``Reducing Anti- Competitive Regulatory
    Barriers,'' and the Office of Management and Budget is soliciting input
    on deregulation. Can you provide information on how EPA plans to engage
    with stakeholders subject to EPA regulations to evaluate opportunities
    to streamline overly burdensome regulations?
        The New Chemicals Division performs a critical role in reviewing
    submissions so that new chemicals can be evaluated with respect to
    approval for commercial use (e.g., utilized in domestic manufacturing
    of high tech). However, the Agency has been encountering chronic
    challenges with completing reviews within the statutory period of 90
    days. Can you assure us that EPA is properly resourcing the New
    Chemical Divisions to ensure that reviews are completed within the
    statutory period?
        Answer. EPA agrees that the TSCA new chemical review process is
    critical for advancing innovative chemistries for all sectors of our
    manufacturing economy. To improve the efficiency of the new chemical
    review process, a functioning and stable IT system is necessary. The
    previous Administration publicly acknowledged that systems were either
    not functioning or, at times, completely shut down which paralyzed the
    agency's ability to review these important submissions. EPA is grateful
    to President Trump and Congress for passing the continuing resolution
    which includes $17 million to help improve the IT systems used in the
    TSCA program, especially in our review of new chemicals. We will ensure
    that this money goes to support improvements for our IT infrastructure.
        We have pivoted staff that were working on nonregulatory programs
    to assist in the New Chemicals Division and support efforts regarding
    the backlog. We are analyzing our processes and procedures to identify
    process improvements to shorten the review period for new chemicals,
    eliminate the use of unrealistic assumptions and provide some
    regulatory certainty for submitters.
        Additionally, on May 2, 2025, EPA announced the next phase of
    organizational improvements to better provide clean air, water, and
    land for all Americans. This action is part of a larger, comprehensive
    restructuring effort to help EPA fulfill its statutory obligations and
    deliver on its mission to protect human health and the environment. The
    reorganization will bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate
    science into EPA's statutory programs. The plans include specific
    changes for OCSPP that will strengthen and build the agency's chemical
    safety programs, including the New Chemicals Program. Adding additional
    expertise to the TSCA program will help ensure we're using the best
    science and latest tools to really drive our programs into the future--
    reviewing chemicals more efficiently, providing better protections for
    consumers and workers; and increasing innovation and economic growth.
        Question. There continues to be a lack of viable alternatives to
    PFAS chemicals. PFAS are used in critical industries, including many in
    the national security sector. Yet, the proposed budget makes
    significant cuts to EPAs Office of Research and Development, the
    scientific research arm of the agency that provides funding to finding
    alternatives to these chemicals.
        What steps are you taking to ensure that critical research in PFAS
    alternatives is not impacted by these cuts?
        Answer. Understanding the characteristics of PFAS chemicals is
    essential to the ability to identify appropriate alternatives. As noted
    in Administrator Zeldin's April 28, 2025, announcement on EPA's efforts
    to address PFAS, EPA is committed to implementing a PFAS testing
    strategy that includes analysis of existing information on PFAS, as
    well as generation of critical data either through collaborative
    efforts with internal and externals stakeholders, or by using test
    order authority under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
    For example, EPA is evaluating how groups of structurally similar PFAS
    behave to help identify features that may relate to their hazardous
    characteristics.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, granting West Virginia's state
    primacy of Class VI permitting was a significant step in allowing my
    state to lead on carbon capture and storage projects. As you know,
    state primacy is a critical tool to faster permitting decisions by
    removing bureaucratic hurdles in DC and allowing the states who know
    their natural resources best to lead on permitting. State primacy will
    greatly improve the deployment of CCUS projects across the country.
    According to EPA, eight states are pursuing Class VI primacy, and we
    want to make sure EPA has the resources and ability to process these
    applications in a timely manner. How is EPA utilizing its resources to
    expeditiously process and approve state primacy applications? How is
    the agency working with states in the primacy application process and
    do you support efforts to process these applications in a timely
    manner?
        Answer. EPA appreciates the funding Congress has provided for the
    Underground Injection Control program. Consistent with Pillars 2 and 3
    of the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, granting a
    state primacy for Class VI Wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act
    bolsters American energy dominance and expands cooperative federalism
    while recognizing that states are best positioned to protect their
    underground sources of drinking water. One of my first decisions as
    Administrator was to charge the Office of Water with fast-tracking UIC
    primacy and permitting. As a result, on May 15, 2025, proposed to
    approve the State of Arizona's request to oversee Safe Drinking Water
    Act permitting for all underground injection wells in the state.
        EPA is also committed to ensuring that all UIC permits, and primacy
    packages are processed in a timely manner. To effectuate this
    commitment, EPA has established a Tiger Team to ensure every efficiency
    possible is utilized in issuing these important statutory functions as
    well as addressing the significant backlog that formed under the prior
    administration.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, under the previous Administration,
    EPA moved at a glacial pace on individual Class VI permit applications.
    If the U.S. is going to lead on CCUS deployment, which supports our
    energy security and dominance, EPA has to process these applications in
    a timely manner. I know you share this view, and I credit you for the
    actions you've taken to-date to improve the permit review process. I
    appreciate that the EPA under your leadership is not going to make the
    same mistakes of the previous Administration. According to EPA, there
    are 170 well applications currently under review and that number will
    grow as investments in CCUS projects continue to increase. What steps
    are you taking to ensure that existing applications and new permit
    applications are processed in a timely manner? What do you think were
    the primary causes of delays in processing individual permit
    applications under the previous Administration and how can we overcome
    them? Please let us know how this Committee can aid you and your agency
    in providing timely review of permit applications.
        Answer. Consistent with Pillars 2 and 3 of the Powering the Great
    American Comeback Initiative, permitting Class VI Wells under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act bolsters American energy dominance while promoting
    job creation and economic opportunity. One of my first decisions as
    Administrator was to charge the Office of Water with fast-tracking UIC
    primacy and permitting. As a result, on April 7, 2025, issued final
    Class VI permits to Oxy Low Carbon Ventures LLC for three wells for
    geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in Ector County, Texas. EPA is
    committed to approving permits as quickly as possible and ensuring they
    meet requirements to protect drinking water sources.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Deb Fischer
        Question. The U.S. rendering industry diverts 54 billion pounds of
    animal byproduct from the landfill each year. They help recycle
    unwanted animal materials as well as used cooking oil and transform
    them into ingredients for dozens of products including fuels, pet food,
    fertilizer, and other industrial uses. Since the 1990s, rendering has
    been included in EPA's ranking of food recovery strategies to reduce
    waste, previously called the Food Recovery Hierarchy. The last
    administration removed rendering from EPA's new ranking systems, now
    called Wasted Food Scale, with no scientific evidence or reasoning
    provided for the change. State and local governments as well as the
    private sector model their food waste strategies, incentives, and
    programs after the Wasted Food Scale. Can you commit to looking at
    restoring rendering to the nation's food recovery and waste strategy?
        Answer. Yes. Dedicated EPA employees are exploring a potential path
    forward for including aspects of rendering into the Wasted Food Scale
    and the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and
    Recycling Organics. We will continue to work with the industry to
    develop the needed data to support this effort.
        Question. During the hearing, you stated that a congressional
    solution on year-round sale of E15 would be the most durable and
    easiest solution to this issue. Is it accurate that through regulatory
    means tried by President Trump in 2019 and through emergency summertime
    petitions, the year-round sale of E15 has effectively been the status
    quo?
        Answer. Yes. EPA's action to extend the 1-psi waiver to E15 in 2019
    allowed year-round E15 sales beginning that summer. That rule remained
    in effect through the summer of 2021. Since 2022, EPA has issued
    emergency fuel waivers that have allowed continued E15 sales in the
    summer months.
        Question. Would a legislative fix be more efficient and effective
    use of EPA resources?
        Answer. Yes. A legislative solution would provide the greatest
    certainty for EPA and industry.
        Question. Crop protection tools are critical for Nebraskan farmers
    to produce food safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively for the
    nation. When evaluating pesticide safety, can EPA commit to: Seeking
    input from USDA and impacted stakeholders when designing pilot projects
    or mitigation actions related to pesticides on listed species and their
    designated habitat?
        Answer. Yes, EPA remains committed to working with and seeking
    input from USDA and impacted stakeholders as EPA begins to implement
    any necessary mitigations to protect listed species and critical
    habitat (if designated) into registration and registration review
    decisions. EPA meets regularly with USDA's Office of Pest Management
    Policy (OPMP) as well as with grower, state, and industry groups to
    discuss issues of particular concern from these different perspectives.
        Question. Ensure that any epidemiological study or data considered
    by the Agency for regulatory decision making in the pesticide review
    process meets existing data quality requirements and can be verified
    and independently reviewed by the Agency?
        Answer. EPA strives to use high-quality studies to support its
    regulatory decisions for pesticides. Studies are subjected to robust,
    independent evaluations by EPA to ensure data quality and the utility
    of the data to inform regulatory decisions based on current standards.
    This includes taking into consideration rigorous guidelines that have
    been established for how testing must be conducted, as well as existing
    guidance on how to evaluate and incorporate relevant and reliable data.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, I was encouraged to see the Trump
    administration extend the MATS compliance deadline for coal-fired power
    plants to 2029. Will you consider supporting additional measures to
    provide regulatory relief for these facilities?
        Answer. Yes. EPA submitted a draft proposed reconsideration of the
    2024 MATS rule to OMB.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, States such as California are
    attempting to override the EPA by imposing additional, stringent
    regulations on pesticides-creating a significant burden for
    agriculture. Do you share my concern that conflicting State and local
    labeling requirements jeopardize the future of pesticide use in
    American agriculture?
        Answer. EPA and States work collaboratively to avoid conflict on
    labeling to ensure growers have clear and consistent directions for
    using pesticides. Core labeling requirements for all pesticides sold in
    the United States are mandated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its implementing regulations. The EPA
    reviews and approves all pesticide labels before they can be sold,
    ensuring they contain the necessary information for use that will not
    cause unreasonable adverse effects. States can enact their own
    regulations that are stricter than the EPA's, but they cannot impose
    labeling or packaging requirements that are in addition to or are
    different from those required by FIFRA.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, how can the EPA address PFAS
    contamination while making certain that local water operators are not
    unduly burdened by the regulatory response?
        Answer. EPA is committed to addressing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
    substances (PFAS) in drinking water while following the law and the
    science. On May 14, 2025, EPA announced the agency will keep the
    current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for
    perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS),
    which set nationwide limits for these ``forever chemicals'' in drinking
    water. EPA also announced its intent to extend compliance deadlines for
    PFOA and PFOS, establish a Federal exemption framework, and initiate
    enhanced outreach to water systems, especially in rural and small
    communities, through EPA's new PFAS OUTreach Initiative (PFAS OUT).
    This action will help address the most significant compliance
    challenges EPA has heard from public water systems, members of
    Congress, and other stakeholders, while supporting actions to protect
    the American people from certain PFAS in drinking water.
        On May 14, 2025, EPA also announced its intent to rescind the
    regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS,
    PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of
    these three plus PFBS to ensure that the determinations and any
    resulting drinking water regulation follow the legal process laid out
    in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
        Question. In 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act. Section
    131 of the Act amends Section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation
    Act, and codifies the ENERGY STAR program ``to identify and promote
    energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy
    consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through
    voluntary labeling of, or other forms of communication about, products
    and buildings that meet the highest energy conservation standards.'' 42
    U.S.C. Sec. 6294a(a). The Act requires, among other provisions, that
    the Administrator of EPA work with the Secretary of Energy to promote
    ENERGY STAR technologies as preferred for energy efficiency and
    reducing pollution, preserve the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label,
    and other specific activities. In addition to these statutory
    requirements for the EPA to conduct the ENERGY STAR program, the Full
    Year Continuing Resolution for FY2025 is based on funds for the ENERGY
    STAR program. How is EPA's proposed reorganization of the Office of
    Air, which purports to eliminate the Office of Atmospheric Protection
    including the ENERGY STAR program, consistent with these laws?
        Answer. We are currently evaluating a number of different options
    related to Energy Star; however, EnergyStar is a program the private
    sector can effectuate without excessive taxpayer resources.
        Question. Does EPA intend to transfer the ENERGY STAR program to
    another entity and if so, is additional authority needed?
        Answer. EPA is currently evaluating a number of options related to
    Energy Star including, but not limited to, privatizing the program or
    moving responsibilities to the Department of Energy.
        Question. What steps will EPA take to obtain Congressional approval
    of its plans for ENERGY STAR?
        Answer. EPA will follow the law in making decisions on the Energy
    Star program.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, did you account for these Federal
    cost savings to the taxpayer in your decision to eliminate ENERGY STAR?
    If so, what did you determine were the annual cost savings for the
    Federal government in using ENERGY STAR? If not, can you commit to the
    committee that you will develop an estimate of those cost savings and
    report to this committee a detailed accounting?
        Answer. While the benefit of Energy Star is widely recognized,
    multiple private sector partners have reached out to EPA about taking
    on this work, similar to how LEED certification is run by a nonprofit.
    I recognize that EPA should concentrate our focus on statutorily
    required, uniquely Federal activities. We are looking at next steps for
    the program.
        Question. What is the value of U.S. economic activity generated by
    the ENERGY STAR program?
        Answer. It is unclear what the economic activity generated by the
    program is versus what the economic activity would be without this
    program. As this program does not preclude the purchase or sales of any
    product this program is essentially a government-sponsored advertising
    regime. We expect that companies will and would have promoted their own
    products but for the Energy Star program. This does not account for tax
    benefits that state or the Federal government has tied to Energy Star
    program which can be modified to a performance-based approach that
    minimizes or eliminates potential impacts.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. Late last year, Congress did something it doesn't do very
    often pass a standalone, bipartisan legislation, through regular order.
    Senator Risch and I worked with 39 other Senate cosponsors to pass the
    Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act to make it
    easier for third-parties to clean up polluted mines they had no role in
    causing.
        Can you provide an update on the EPA's work to stand up this pilot
    program, and what you need from Congress to make it successful?
        Answer. EPA's Office of Mountains Deserts and Plains has been
    meeting with stakeholders, federal land managers, and potential Good
    Samaritans as well as developing the key documents for establishing the
    pilot project permit program. The current plan is to issue the 15
    authorized permits so that work in the field can begin on the following
    schedule:

      --2026 Construction Season: 1--3 projects

      --12027 Construction Season: 2--5 projects

      --12028 Construction Season: Remaining projects to reach 15 total

        Congress gave EPA seven years to issue the 15 pilot project
    permits--we plan to do it in four years.
        Question. Administrator Zeldin, you have said that you would ensure
    Americans have access to clean water. But this Administration is
    proposing to cut $2.46 billion in funding specifically set aside for
    clean and safe drinking water. If the administration cuts this funding,
    and states like New Mexico do not have the funds to cover the
    difference, how will we make the water infrastructure improvements
    needed across the country?
        Answer. The State Revolving Loan funds will continue to revolve as
    loan repayments, state match, and federal capital replenish the fund to
    allow for additional loans to be made for water infrastructure
    projects. In addition, EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and
    Innovation Act (WIFIA) program is also available to provide low-cost
    financing to public and private borrowers for all types of wastewater,
    drinking water, and stormwater projects. In New Mexico for example,
    $20.9 million is currently revolving in the Clean Water SRF and $24.7
    million in the Drinking Water SRF. After decades of sustained federal
    investment, states are ready to contribute more funding to this mature
    program.
        Question. This administration has, illegally, frozen and attempted
    to claw back funding for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This
    program was authorized by Congress and would improve air quality and
    create jobs in communities across the country. Administrator Zeldin,
    what would you say to the communities that competed for and were ready
    to use this funding to develop their local economies and provide good
    paying jobs for their residents?
        Answer. EPA terminated these grants because the programs were
    designed through self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified
    recipients, and reduced agency oversight. Instead of awarding money to
    shovel-ready projects, the Biden EPA again decided to fund
    organizationsthat fund organizations that fund organizations that,
    potentially, might use the money to fund projects. EPA looks forward to
    restructuring the program in a more efficient and accountable way.
        Question. The Energy Star program at EPA is, by its own admission,
    ``one of the most successful voluntary U.S. government programs in
    history''. Fundamentally, EnergyStar saves families money. Over the
    last 33 years, the program has saved consumers an estimated $500
    billion. Why block consumers from choosing what's best for their
    budgets?
        Answer. Removing the EnergyStar program as a public taxpayer
    expense would not prevent consumers from making choices that are best
    for their budgets. Companies provide information related to the cost of
    the products and energy usage as part of their sales information. There
    are many different approaches that we are exploring that could save the
    federal government significant amount of money, while still continuing
    the areas of success with the program. This could involve working with
    the private sector for more efficient implementation.
        Question. For decades, the EPA has published Inventory of
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks reports. This annual report provides
    a comprehensive accounting of total greenhouse gas emissions from all
    man-made sources in the United States and data on carbon dioxide
    removal from the atmosphere by forests, soils, and other sinks. The
    gases covered by the Inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
    oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and
    nitrogen trifluoride. In a recent op-ed, you said ``one of the core
    elements of the EPA's mission is protecting air quality.'' How will the
    EPA protect air quality without recording and publishing emissions
    data?
        Answer. EPA continues to record and publish emissions data related
    to criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
        Question. How does the EPA plan to ensure meaningful and consistent
    consultation with Tribes during permitting reform processes, especially
    given the unique role Tribes play as either permitting agencies or as
    sovereign governments impacted by state-issued permits?
        Answer.
      --The EPA is guided by the federal trust responsibility to federally
            recognized tribes, longstanding practice and experience
            consulting with tribes, and internal policies that guide EPA's
            work such as the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and the EPA
            Consultation Policy.

      --EPA follows these policies and complies with the federal trust
            responsibility when implementing programs under federal
            environmental law. EPA notes that it was one of the first
            federal agencies to have a formal Indian policy describing the
            manner in which the agency works in partnership with Tribes.

      --Further, OITA provides national guidance on the EPA Consultation
            Policy and each major EPA headquarters and regional office have
            staff dedicated to implementing the policy on agency actions,
            including on potential reforms to permitting processes.

                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
        Question. The Long Island Sound Program is one of EPA's Geographic
    Programs and it's a program that we worked together to reauthorize in
    2018 while you were a Member of Congress. We have seen firsthand the
    great results this funding has had for the ecological health and water
    quality of the Sound. The President's FY26 skinny budget did not
    include any details on the Long Island Sound Program. Can you give me
    and the subcommittee your support to continue fully funding the Long
    Island Sound Geographic Program?
        Answer. The Long Island Sound Program is one I have long supported.
    Its support for the protection and restoration of water quality,
    habitat, and living resources in the Sound is fully funded in the FY
    2026 Budget Request with $40 million.
        Question. The success of the Long Island Sound Geographic Program
    relies on dedicated EPA staff. EPA leadership and continued
    participation in the program is crucial, especially as there is a new
    and updated Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for 2025 to
    2035. What steps will you take to ensure adequate staffing to carry out
    Congressionally- authorized geographic programs like the Long Island
    Sound Program?
        Answer. I have committed to ensuring that EPA has the necessary
    staff to fulfill its statutory obligations, including for this program.
        Question. The Long Island Sound is just one of the Geographic
    Programs to support New York's waterbodies and watersheds. The EPA has
    Geographic Programs that fund restoration, education, and community
    engagement activities in Lakes Erie and Ontario through the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain through its Basin Program, and
    the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, of which, the headwaters are in New
    York's Southern Tier. The skinny budget does not mention these
    programs. Can you commit your full support to fund the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and the
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed?
        Answer. EPA greatly values the important work happening in the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and
    the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and funding is provided for each of these
    programs as part of the President's FY 2026 Budget Request. Great Lakes
    is fully funded with $368 million, Chesapeake Bay is fully funded with
    $92 million and Lake Champlain with $15.6 million.
        Question. New York State has over 80 Superfund sites, of which over
    20 are on Long Island, and we also have one of the largest Superfund
    sites in the country-the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. I am
    concerned by the President's proposed decrease in funding for EPA's
    Superfund Program. I am especially concerned by the loss of dedicated
    EPA staff in Region 2 who work to hold polluters accountable and
    remediate some of the most dangerous and contaminated sites on Long
    Island. Will you push back against OMB, OPM, and DOGE to protect staff
    in EPA Region 2 and Superfund staff in all of EPA's regional offices?
        Answer. I fully support all our employee's decision to take or not
    take the DRP/VERA option. I am excited that the majority of the hard-
    working staff throughout the agency will remain at the EPA to continue
    to ensure that we meet our statutory obligations, including our
    Superfund program. We will continue to fund our important Superfund
    work in Region 2.
        Question. EPA staff conduct significant outreach to New York
    communities. As it relates to Superfund sites, it's crucial for the EPA
    to communicate and conduct outreach to nearby communities and
    stakeholders. New York's population is incredibly diverse, and
    according to the State, there millions of households whose primary
    language is not English. They speak dialects of Chinese, Spanish,
    Russian, Yiddish, Bengali, Korean, Haitian Creole, Italian, Arabic,
    French Polish, and many more. Do you agree with that it's important for
    the EPA to communicate with communities near Superfund sites? And if
    so, then can you commit to me that the EPA will do this outreach in
    languages other than English to ensure New York communities are
    informed of the EPA's Superfund activities and educated on the
    potential public health risks of these sites?
        Answer. EPA will continue to prioritize working with local
    communities with efforts to accelerate cleanups at Superfund sites
    being our most effective way to help these communities. EPA is also
    exploring ways to use AI tools to assist with translation needs.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Murkowski. And with that, the committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Wednesday, May 14, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Mullin, Rounds,
    Merkley, Murray, Van Hollen, Heinrich, Baldwin, and Ossoff.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS BURGUM, SECRETARY

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Call to order the Senate Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee.
        Secretary Burgum, good morning. Welcome to the committee.
    It is good to have you here to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2026 Budget Request for the Department of Interior.
        I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about
    the important work that the Department does, including its
    leading role in supporting America's energy agenda, empowering
    Indian Country and Tribal Nations, providing recreational
    opportunities to tens of millions of Americans, and generating
    billions of dollars in economic output.
        It has been a real pleasure. I have appreciated the
    meetings that we have had, the conversations that we have had
    by phone, and it has been great to meet the various assistant
    secretary nominees from the Department. I have enjoyed our
    conversations there. I am impressed by their understanding of
    the issues that they focus on and their commitment to public
    service. You are building out quite the team.
        It was great to be able to talk to Kate MacGregor. She has
    a little bit of history with the Department and comes with a
    lot of knowledge and understanding, and certainly on Alaska-
    related issues. So we are eager to get her confirmed and to
    work, as well as some of the other nominees. We are still
    waiting for some of the key ones. As the Chairman of the Indian
    Affairs Committee, we are anxious to have a nominee for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs as well.
        So I want to thank you. I want to thank you, I want to
    thank President Trump for recognizing Alaska's amazing natural
    resource potential. This was very significant in the day-one
    executive order, everything from the Ambler Road to the
    National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA), our non-
    wilderness coastal plain, Alaska LNG, but there has been very
    swift, very early, and decisive action in this space, and it is
    welcome both here in Washington, DC., and certainly in my
    state. So I am looking forward to working with you to further
    facilitate the development of Alaska's resources.
        I know you are looking forward to going to Alaska in just a
    couple of weeks. Hopefully, it is going to be a great trip,
    lots of good information, good feedback, and good weather. I am
    hopeful that the Denali will be out in all of its majesty and
    splendor, and you will be reminded why Alaskans prefer the
    Koyukon Athabascan named Denali, meaning ``the great one.''
        The President and you have set out an ambitious agenda,
    particularly with respect to the focus on energy and economic
    development. I am very supportive of this endeavor and know
    that I want to be your partner in achieving so many of the
    goals. But beyond the actual resource development, the
    Department of the Interior can be an economic force for good in
    many different ways. And one of the most important economic
    drivers that we see up in Alaska, aside from the resource end
    of things, is within the Department, within the National Park
    System.
        National Parks in the home states of the members on this
    subcommittee and generates a collective $7.4 billion of
    economic output annually. That is more than the gross domestic
    product of 40 different countries. But it is not just the
    economic output that makes parks so important, it is the
    experiences of traveling to parks, seeing the wildlife, having
    an adventure that creates a lifetime of memories. We have had
    discussions about some of your early years and the significance
    of that.
        Back home in Alaska, we have already had about 150,000
    people come through on cruise ships this year. That might not
    surprise other people, but this is early for us. We estimate a
    total of 1.65 million visitors for the tourism season. That is
    about double the population of our state. So when we see a
    skinny budget that proposes to cut $1.2 billion, or 35 percent
    from Park Service, it is hard to square that with the claims
    that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy, again
    recognizing that our economy is more than just our natural
    resource development.
        Another area of concern that I will address in my questions
    within the National Park Service budget proposal is the concept
    of turning over management of national parks to the states. I
    am trying to figure out exactly how this would work. I am kind
    of thinking it is like me putting my kids in charge of the
    upkeep for the house that I own. In some instances, it might
    make good sense, but as a wholesale best practice, I worry
    about how that might impact the parks or our people.
        So should this concept be included in the full budget
    request, I would hope that we have a really thorough
    conversation with you to better understand the justification
    for the proposal.
        I am concerned about what the skinny budget proposes for
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE). Cutting nearly $1 billion from Indian Affairs
    would hurt the Federal Government's ability to meet its trust
    responsibility to Native people. In some of our conversations I
    have shared, some of the areas where I think the Department has
    failed Indian Country, and this is in areas like probate, where
    we have an extraordinary backlog, public safety and justice,
    missing and murdered Indigenous people, as well as the
    education of Native American children.
        And while I appreciate that the skinny budget alleges that
    proposed cuts would enable tribes to focus on law enforcement,
    I am not sure how reducing BIA law enforcement funding by $107
    million is treating the program as a core priority of tribes. I
    know because I hear it, tribes have been requesting more
    support for this program to address a serious lack of policing.
    So I worry that cuts of this magnitude cannot be made up for by
    directing tribes to apply for grants at the Department of
    Justice (DOJ), as the skinny budget suggests.
        I want to end my opening comments this morning by talking
    about what I consider to be, and I know that you put equal
    priority to, and that is the men and women of the Department,
    the people who actually make things happen. We have talked
    about a lot of good ideas for using new systems, IT systems,
    artificial intelligence, how we can make the Department more
    efficient. These are good goals, worthy goals. And I hope to
    see that detailed more in the budget.
        But I think we know when we are talking about management of
    our public lands, if you don't have the necessary staff,
    whether out in the field or in the headquarters, all the
    investments that we want to make can become less efficient.
    When I think about the executive order as it relates
    specifically to Alaska, we have got some good things that we
    want to do up north when it comes to resource development, but
    scientific and ecological assessments that are provided by USGS
    are relied upon not just by Federal Land Management agencies,
    but by the industry as well.
        So USGS science helps avoid polar bear dens, identify
    permafrost, map caribou migration patterns. So when we see cuts
    to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), but also Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
    and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and
    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE),
    it causes me to wonder: are we going to be able to accomplish
    what we are all seeking to accomplish together?
        I think it is important also that people have expertise and
    knowledge about the places that they serve. I had this
    conversation with folks in the Forest Service, you just can't
    take somebody who maybe comes from Indianapolis, a good Forest
    Service person, but you put them out at the Mendenhall Glacier
    Visitor Center, where their job is bear management. They don't
    have a clue about bear management. We want to make sure that we
    are making good and smart decisions.
        I know you are probably going to get a lot of questions
    today about staffing cuts and how that is going to impact the
    operations of the Department, and not just here in Washington,
    but around the country.
        I do wish that the acting assistant secretary for Policy,
    Management, and Budget, Mr. Hassen, is here today to answer
    some of these questions, because he seems to be in charge of
    making a lot of the decisions about the staffing and the reorg.
    I am hoping that he is going to be in a position to be more
    responsive to my staff about some of the questions that we have
    raised.
        But ultimately, and you know, you have been a governor--you
    know the buck stops with you. He can be responsible for certain
    things, but ultimately it is you that are accountable. So
    getting the answers to questions about the reorganizations, the
    impacts of Reduction in Force (RIFs), how the Department will
    operate national parks, protect reserves, and implement the
    President's energy agenda. So getting this channel of
    communication going back and forth in a good and constructive
    way I think is going to be important.
        But my bottom line to you this morning is, I am pleased
    with your nomination. I am excited that you are there at the
    Department. I am really excited about the shift that we are
    seeing in Alaska, where the Department has really gone from
    being a problem to being a partner in so many different areas.
    So looking forward to what we are going to be able to do
    together.
        With that, I will turn to Senator Merkley.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Chair
    Murkowski. And welcome, Secretary Burgum.
        Mr. Secretary, I am just astonished, and not in a good way,
    by all we have seen over the last 4 months at the Interior
    Department. Coming into this second Trump administration, I
    feared that Interior would open up more lands to drilling and
    mining, deepening our addiction to fossil fuels, and ignoring
    the growing impact of climate chaos. And of course, that chaos
    has huge consequences for the health of our public lands.
        And that fear was justified, despite the U.S. operating at
    an all-time high for energy production, and more than 19
    million leased acres sitting idle across the country, that is
    46 percent of the onshore acres and 79 percent of the offshore
    acres, yet, the administration lied to the American people, and
    declared a bogus energy emergency. And now you are expediting
    fossil fuel permitting and dropping protections for vast swaths
    of public lands while restricting renewable energy production.
    You don't have an ``all of the above'' energy policy, you have
    a ``fossils above all'' policy, and one that hurts our future.
        I also feared that a second Trump administration would
    undermine the Endangered Species Act, in order to pave the way
    for industry and developers to not have to be bothered by
    protecting species on the brink of extinction or the health of
    their ecosystems, and right on time, the Department proposed a
    change to the Endangered Species Act declaring that habitat
    destruction doesn't count when it comes to harming species.
        But Mr. Secretary, I never expected to see, not even for a
    second, an administration that would fire or push out under
    threat hundreds of dedicated public lands employees, including
    firefighters and park rangers, who keep us safe and protect our
    national treasures. I never expected to see an administration
    openly propose to offload vast numbers of national park sites
    onto the states, fracturing our treasured system with an eye on
    profit rather than preserving our collective heritage.
        I never expected to see an administration brazenly violate
    bipartisan congressional direction written into law by holding
    back funds for state and tribal historic preservation offices,
    national heritage areas, international anti-poaching groups,
    and volunteer trail groups. I never expected to see an
    administration that would callously propose to forsake our
    treaty and trust responsibilities to sovereign tribal nations.
        In your confirmation hearing, you said how proud you were,
    as governor, of the strong partnership you had with tribes in
    North Dakota. We don't have to wonder what tribes think today
    about your proposal to cut core tribal programs for road
    maintenance, for public safety, for social services, and other
    vital services, nearly in half. Or cut tribal school
    administration by 80 percent in a system with $1 billion in
    deferred maintenance and dozens of schools in desperate
    condition.
        A broad coalition of organizations from across Indian
    Country, serving tribal nationals and tribal citizens, sent you
    a letter on April 11th calling these cuts absolutely
    unacceptable and that they, quote, ``undermine the sacred
    promises made by the United States to tribal nations.''
        Madam Chair, I would like to submit that letter for the
    record.
        Senator Murkowski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. I never expected to see an administration
    delay funding for wildfire preparedness and fire red card
    employees who are trained to fight wildfires, or try to end air
    and smoke monitoring in national parks as we enter wildfire
    season. And here we are, on the brink of another fire season.
    You have left us less prepared.
        Safeguarding endangered species and ecosystems, preserving
    public lands, supporting tribal nations, protecting against
    wildfires are fundamental responsibilities of the Department.
    For the Trump administration, however, it is clear that none of
    that is sacred.
        President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, ``There is
    nothing so American as our national parks. The country belongs
    to the people.'' An environmentalist and novelist, Wallace
    Stegner, said, ``National parks are the best idea we ever
    had.''
        If creating the national park system was the best idea we
    have had, this administration's assault on the national park
    system is one of the worst. Parks bind us together as a nation.
    They are shared natural wonders, open to all. Parks preserve
    and show us our shared history, places where we can take pride
    in what happened there, and places where we can learn how to
    live up to our ideals.
        Congress created nearly every national park site by law,
    not just our crown jewels, but each of the park sites,
    including sites that are not part of the capital N, capital P
    system, like the Oregon Caves system in Oregon. They all
    deserve recognition. Each location is special and part of our
    national story.
        But this administration wants to strip down the national
    park system and hand out the parts. Mr. Secretary, you like to
    talk about unleashing America's balance sheet, focusing on the
    mining and exploitation profit potential of our public lands.
    But accounting for the value of public lands is not as simple
    as a business spreadsheet. How do you value recharging one's
    soul on the rim of the Grand Canyon? How do you measure the
    value of a fourth grader gasping in awe at the unspoiled
    natural wonder of Crater Lake in Oregon, or of an adult who
    watched civil rights marches on TV in the '60s walking across
    the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, and reliving the
    fight for racial equality and remembering Bloody Sunday, 1965?
        This administration talks about public lands like they are
    just a transaction, available for wheeling trade, or for sale.
    But they are not just a transaction. They are part of the soul
    of this nation. They are to be celebrated, protected, and
    passed on to the next generation and the generation after. Our
    National Park sites, our National Wildlife Refuges, our
    National Landscape Conservation System belong to the American
    people. They are not for sale.
        So today, I will try to dive deeper into the shocking
    strategy of selling off America's treasures, destroying
    endangered species and ecosystems, walking away from our
    responsibility to the tribes, and the effort to fire dedicated
    professional Federal workers, and to freeze funding for parks,
    nonprofits, and most dangerously, wildfire preparedness.
        I look forward to the discussion. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        Mr. Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. You have
    five minutes to give us a little bit of the outline here. Your
    full statement, of course, is included as part of the record.
    And we look forward to the exchange with members at the
    conclusion.
        Please proceed, and welcome.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BURGUM

        Secretary Burgum. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, and
    Ranking Member Merkley. It is a pleasure to be here this
    morning. I look forward to a dialogue on the topics raised
    during your open comments, and other questions that the members
    may have.
        So again, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
    morning, to President Trump's fiscal year 2026, Budget
    Blueprint, and talk about the actions we can take working with
    you to make America safer, stronger, more beautiful, and more
    prosperous.
        Interior-managed resources hold a significant portion--
    position on America's balance sheet. The public lands and
    minerals within Interior's domain include more than 480 million
    acres of surface land, 750 million acres of subsurface mineral
    estate, and more than 2.5 billion acres offshore. Our natural
    resources are national assets, and they should be responsibly
    developed to grow our economy, help us balance the budget,
    generate revenue for the American taxpayers.
        With commonsense approaches and modern systems, we can
    increase our return for citizens, strengthen our economy, and
    create great-paying and meaningful jobs, all while protecting
    our beautiful lands, our abundant wildlife, our clean air and
    water.
        The President's fiscal year 2026 Budget Blueprint requests
    $11.9 billion in current authority for the Department, which
    provides significant savings for the American people. Of that
    about $10.6 billion of that is within the jurisdiction of this
    committee. The fiscal year 2026 Budget features strategic
    investments to further President Trump's commitment to energy
    dominance, which is the foundation of American prosperity,
    national security, and world peace.
        Last month, we were working to remove layers of red tape
    that undermine coal production on Federal lands. Clean American
    coal is a triple win for our country because thermal coal
    provides reliable and affordable baseload electricity.
    Metallurgical coal is foundational for bringing back our steel
    industry, and the mining and refining of our coal that contains
    critical and rare earth minerals is essential to secure our own
    domestic supply chains for our defense, transportation, and
    tech industries.
        We are also busy rectifying mountains of restrictions
    designed to restrict resource development in Alaska. And we are
    increasing the production of affordable, reliable energy on
    Federal lands. We have taken commonsense, simple measures to
    help increase production in the Gulf of America by 100,000
    barrels a day, which will help reduce the price at the pump for
    American families. And we are following the law, and we have
    proudly announced that we will have the first lease sale in the
    newly named ``Gulf of America'' that will occur later this
    year.
        Right now, America is in an artificial intelligence (AI)
    arms race with China. And keeping our energy production for
    electricity, our baseload power production open, will help us
    win this contest while driving down electricity costs for
    American families. We are also undertaking efforts to establish
    our position as a leading producer and processor of critical
    and rare earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity
    at home, strengthen domestic supply chains of the United States
    and its allies, and reduce the precarious position that we are
    in relative to China controlling 85 percent of the refining for
    rare earth minerals.
        Preventing and combating wildfires is vitally important to
    protect people, communities, the environment, and the Federal
    wildfire risk mitigation suppression responsibility is split
    currently across five agencies and two departments. This
    creates duplicative and ineffective structures. The budget that
    you are seeing today reforms wildland fire management to create
    operational efficiencies by creating a unified Federal wildland
    fire responsibility that would combine those five agencies to
    help work on suppression, risk mitigation, and coordination
    with non-Federal partners.
        The Department of the Interior upholds the Federal
    Government's unique trust responsibilities by fostering the
    government-to-government relations between the Federal
    Government, the federally recognized Tribes, American Indians,
    and Alaskan Natives. And this budget supports programs at the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education,
    sustaining the Federal Government's support for core programs
    that benefit tribal communities.
        Since becoming Secretary, I have traveled to national
    parks, historic sites, Bureau of Land Management locations,
    Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Reclamation sites to learn more
    and hear from leadership on the ground, hearing from them about
    the red tape that we put on their lives that gets in the way of
    doing the great work that those team members on the front lines
    do. We are instituting changes to get more people actually
    working on the front lines, more minutes on mission, if you
    will, in the parks, in firefighting. And we will be talking
    more about that today.
        We are opening more areas to hunting and outdoor
    recreation. Hundreds of more locations across our wildlife and
    public lands will be open to help drive tourism, create jobs,
    and generate revenue for local communities, all while promoting
    responsible stewardship of our natural resources as we work
    with conservation, fishing, and hunting groups across the
    country.
        Interior is also very focused on streamlining our core
    business operations, which appears to not have been looked at
    for decades and decades. This will result in dramatically
    improved efficiencies and lower costs for American taxpayers.
    It is going to allow us to take costs out of the budget without
    affecting any of the operations that we all care about on the
    ground at the refuges and parks.
        This budget is about putting America first and doing what
    is best for the American taxpayer as Interior moves forward.
    These initiatives set the foundation for a renewed focus on
    responsible resource management and economic growth.
        I appreciate that this subcommittee has strongly supported
    the Department's mission. I look forward to working closely
    with you to advance the President's priorities. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug Burgum
        Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in
    support of President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Blueprint request
    for the Department of the Interior and discuss what our team is doing
    to make America safer, stronger, more beautiful, and more prosperous.
        The Department of the Interior oversees onshore and offshore energy
    resources, honors Federal Trust responsibilities with our Tribal
    neighbors, delivers water to the West, and oversees wildlife refuges
    and national parks. The resources that we sustainably govern directly
    impact the lives of every American every day.
        Interior-managed resources hold a significant position on America's
    Balance Sheet. The public lands and minerals within the Interior domain
    include more than 480 million acres of surface land, 750 million acres
    of subsurface and mineral estate, and more than 2.5 billion acres
    offshore. We believe that our natural resources are national assets
    that should be responsibly developed to grow our economy, help balance
    the Budget, and generate revenue for American taxpayers. With common
    sense approaches and modern systems, we can increase returns for our
    citizens, strengthen our economy, and create great-paying and
    meaningful jobs--all while protecting our beautiful lands, our abundant
    wildlife, and our clean air and clean water.
        The President's 2026 Budget blueprint requests $11.9 billion in
    current authority for the Department of the Interior, providing
    significant savings to the American people. Of that amount, $10.6
    billion is within the jurisdiction of the Interior-Environment
    Appropriations subcommittee. The 2026 Budget blueprint was provided so
    your subcommittee may begin debate and consideration of appropriations
    bills for the upcoming fiscal year.
        Unleashing American Energy. The 2026 Budget for the Department
    features strategic investments to further President Trump's commitment
    to Energy Dominance, which is the foundation of American prosperity,
    national security, and world peace.
        This Budget prioritizes America's energy independence with a
    strategy that focuses on the development of ample baseload power that
    is needed to solve the inherited electricity crisis which underpins the
    National Energy Emergency that was wisely declared by President Trump
    on his first day in office. The Department of the Interior has already
    taken meaningful measures to reverse the mountains of red tape intended
    to suppress US energy production. We are increasing production of
    affordable, reliable energy on Federal lands and reviving our Nation's
    understanding of the National security need for mining for critical,
    rare earths, and other important minerals. The Budget also advances key
    national priorities including enhanced border security, an optimized
    workforce that leverages resources and maximizes taxpayer dollars, and
    the President's commitment to restore confidence in America's fiscal
    management by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary spending.
        At the end of the previous administration, 625 million acres of
    offshore acreage--certainly worth trillions of dollars--was bafflingly
    restricted from development with the stroke of a pen. President Trump
    acted swiftly to remedy that insanity. We proudly announced that the
    first lease sale in the appropriately renamed Gulf of America will
    occur this year--a move that generates immediate and long-term revenue
    for the Treasury. With a simple, commonsense offshore commingling
    policy change we're increasing production of oil in the Gulf of America
    by 100,000 barrels per day--which will help reduce the price at the
    pump for American families. And as we begin to get back into the
    business of mapping the full extent of the resources within the Federal
    estate, we recently published a finding showing there is at least 23%
    more recoverable oil and gas in the Gulf of America than previously
    known! This number will continue to increase, as new innovations occur.
        President Trump made himself very clear via executive order that he
    wanted to unleash Alaska's energy potential, so we have been busy
    reviewing and rectifying the mountain of restrictions--including 68
    Executive orders from the previous administration--that were designed
    to restrict resource development in Alaska. Interior plans to reopen up
    to 82% (19 million+ acres) of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska for
    leasing and energy development opportunities. We are in the process of
    reinstating a program that makes the entire 1.56-million-acre Coastal
    Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) available for oil
    and gas leasing. And we have initiated action along the Trans-Alaska
    Pipeline Corridor and Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River to convey
    these lands to State of Alaska. These are critical steps for developing
    the proposed Ambler Road, which would provide access to mineral-rich
    areas, and the crucial Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Pipeline project.
        Americans rejoiced when President Trump formally ended the ``War on
    Coal'' that caused great damage to our economy and national security.
    Beautiful, clean American coal has survived decades of regulatory
    assault and will play a pivotal role in continuing to power America
    going forward. Last month, we ended the Obama-era Federal Coal
    Moratorium and removed layers of red tape that undermined beautiful,
    clean American coal production on Federal lands. We approved the
    expansion of the Spring Creek Coal Mine in Montana, which has 40
    million tons of recoverable resource and directly supports hundreds of
    American jobs. Clean American coal is a ``triple win'' for our country
    because thermal coal provides reliable and affordable baseload
    electricity, metallurgical coal is foundational for bringing back our
    steel industry, and the mining and refining of coal that contains
    critical and rare earth minerals is essential to secure our own
    domestic supply chains for our defense, transportation, and tech
    industries which are currently heavily dependent on foreign sources.
    Moreover, the US Geological Survey recently provided us with an
    estimate that our coal reserves are worth somewhere around $8
    trillion--which should be counted as a big-time asset on America's
    Balance Sheet!
        Right now, America is in an Artificial Intelligence Arms Race with
    China. Beijing controls the processing of 85% of critical minerals and
    is dramatically increasing their coal production and other forms of
    baseload power. The Communist Party leadership knows that the A.I. Arms
    Race will be won by the country with the best technology and most
    electricity. We hold a slight lead in our AI software, but we are now
    forced to play catch up on baseload power generation due to the Climate
    Extremist policies of the prior administration that raised prices,
    lowered reliability, and contributed to our National debt and deficit.
    Keeping domestic coal-fired power generation open will help us win this
    contest, help ensure 24 x 7 x 365 reliability, while also driving down
    electricity costs for American families even as the demand rises as
    data centers are built.
        The Department is also undertaking efforts to establish our
    position as the leading producer and processor of critical and rare
    earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity at home,
    strengthen domestic supply chains for the United States and its allies,
    and reduce the global influence of adversarial States. We will
    prioritize America's critical mineral dominance by updating the U.S.
    Geological Survey's (USGS) list of critical minerals and continuing the
    ongoing geological mapping of the country. The Budget will also support
    programs that support USGS's ability to provide high-level energy and
    mineral characterizations that will afford greater understanding of the
    country's expansive resources. On these fronts, we're already making
    great progress with actions such as approving rare earth mineral
    exploration at the Colosseum Mine. And as part of our commitment to the
    ``Map, Baby, Map!'' surveying ethos, we published a factsheet on deep
    sea mineral opportunities.
        The Budget also saves taxpayers $80 million by eliminating the
    Department's ``intermittent'' energy programs that focus on
    unaffordable, unreliable energy to the detriment of American consumers,
    businesses, and communities. This includes eliminating funding that
    supports offshore wind projects that harm coastal communities,
    wildlife, and military readiness.
        Improve Wildland Firefighting. Preventing and combating wildfires
    is vitally important to protect people, communities, and the
    environment. Nearly 65,000 wildfires burned more than 8.9 million acres
    across the United States last year, endangering communities, critical
    infrastructure, and local economies. The trend of increasingly extreme
    and frequent wildfires has continued, with catastrophic fires in
    Southern California and the Southeast in recent months.
        Federal wildfire risk mitigation and suppression responsibilities
    for wildland fire are currently split across five agencies in two
    different departments. This current duplicative and ineffective
    structure defies commonsense. The Budget reforms Federal wildland fire
    management to create operational efficiencies by consolidating and
    unifying Federal wildland fire responsibilities into a new centralized
    Federal Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the Interior. The
    new unified service will employ all Federal wildland firefighters,
    procure and sustain Federal wildland fire resources and manage Federal
    wildland fire response policies. This new service will streamline
    Federal wildfire suppression response, risk mitigation efforts, and
    coordination with non-Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.
        Supporting Tribal Nations. The Department of the Interior upholds
    the Federal Government's unique trust responsibilities by fostering the
    government-to-government relations between the Federal Government and
    federally recognized Tribes, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The
    Budget supports programs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of
    Indian Education, sustaining the Federal Government's support for the
    core programs that benefit Tribal communities. At the same time, it
    streamlines programs for Tribal communities, to reduce inefficiencies
    and eliminate funding for programs and activities found to be
    ineffective. For example, the Budget eliminates the Indian Guaranteed
    Loan program for Tribal business development because it is duplicative
    of several other programs across the Federal Government that offer
    loans to small businesses and which Tribal businesses are eligible for
    and receive.
        Expanding Outdoor Access. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt
    gave remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Gateway to
    Yellowstone where he described our National Parks as ``great natural
    playgrounds'' that exist for the ``benefit and enjoyment'' of the
    American people. Since becoming Interior Secretary, I've traveled to
    National Parks, historic sites, and wildlife refuges to learn and hear
    from leadership on the ground. We're instituting changes to get more
    people actually working in the parks and are looking forward to what
    Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly forecasted to be an ``outstanding
    summer.'' We've also attended events for the National Park Foundation,
    Trust for the National Mall, and met with National Trust for Public
    Lands leadership to help fortify the public-private partnerships that
    provide funding to enhance experiences for the hundreds-of-millions of
    annual visitors.
        President Trump knows very well that America's connection with our
    beautiful public lands is strengthened through expanded access. In a
    major step to expand recreational access to America's public lands,
    Interior recently announced 42 new proposed hunting opportunities
    across more than 87,000 acres within the National Wildlife Refuge
    System and National Fish Hatchery System. This proposal would more than
    3X the number of opportunities and 5X the number of stations opened or
    expanded compared to the previous administration, underscoring the
    Trump Administration's strong national commitment to outdoor recreation
    and conservation. By opening more areas to hunting and outdoor
    recreation, we're helping drive tourism, create jobs, and generate
    revenue for local communities, all while promoting responsible
    stewardship of our natural resources.
        Responsible Land Management. When it comes to land management, we
    are cutting wasteful spending by prioritizing the Administration's
    goals of federalism.
        America needs more affordable housing, and the Federal Government
    can help make that happen by making Federal land available to build
    affordable housing stock. We created a Joint Task Force on Federal Land
    for Housing with Secretary Turner and HUD to increase housing supply
    and decrease costs for millions of Americans.
        Under this agreement, HUD will pinpoint areas where housing needs
    are most pressing and guide the process by working with State and local
    leaders who know their communities best. Interior will identify
    locations that can support homes while carefully considering
    environmental impacts and land-use restrictions. Working together, our
    agencies will take inventory of underused Federal properties, transfer
    or lease them to States or localities to address housing needs, and
    support the infrastructure required to make development viable--all
    while ensuring affordability remains at the core of the mission.
        Reforming the Department. Interior is focused on streamlining our
    core business operations, which will result in improved efficiencies
    and lower costs for American taxpayers. The Department has already
    taken steps to unify many of the Department's business functions within
    the Office of the Secretary. This unification includes human resources,
    information resources and technology management, training and
    development, civil rights and equal employment opportunity,
    procurement, Federal financial assistance (grants and cooperative
    agreements), communications, personnel security, finance, and other
    similar functions. Further unifying our organization will create
    significant efficiencies across the Department by optimizing processes,
    eliminating redundant efforts, and helping streamline technology
    adoption.
        Interior will advance innovation, collaboration and solutions that
    address the pressing challenges of our time. In closing, this Budget is
    about putting America first and doing the best for the American
    taxpayer. As Interior moves forward, these initiatives set the
    foundation for a renewed focus on responsible resource management, and
    economic growth. By advancing policies that honor America's heritage
    while fostering innovation, the Department remains committed to serving
    the National interests of the American people.
        Theodore Roosevelt once said that ``far and away the best prize
    that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' The
    work we do at Interior makes America more prosperous, beautiful, safe,
    and strong. Therefore, it is certainly work worth doing!
        I appreciate that this subcommittee has strongly supported the
    Department's mission, and I look forward to working closely with you to
    advance the President's priorities.

                                WORKING TOGETHER

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will begin
    with a round of questions, five minutes apiece, and recognizing
    members in the order within which they have arrived.
        I want to start, Mr. Secretary, just where you left off
    there, which is the extension of an offer to work with members
    on this committee. I was reminded last week when we had
    Secretary--excuse me--Administrator Zeldin here that many of us
    have the bat line, we can call the administrator, we can call
    the secretary, and I have appreciated that engagement. But I
    think we also recognize that our teams need to be able to have
    this level of direct communication as well.
        And so in the effort to make sure that we are following the
    commitment of transparency, partnership, and responsiveness, I
    would like just your commitment, on behalf of your staff, that
    we are able to set up at least quarterly meetings with your
    senior team, our senior approps folks here, to just go through
    many of the knits, and recognizing that quite often we are
    going to need more than just that, but just this regular
    communication, particularly at a time when there is so much
    that is going on right now with a reprogramming, with
    restructuring, for us to better be able to help you, we just
    need that kind of commitment.
        So it is worth a minute of my time at the top here to just
    ask for that public commitment to working with all of us here?
        Secretary Burgum. You have that commitment. And again, for
    those of you that are part of the confirmation process, thank
    you for continuing to move leaders forward. We are excited
    about having Kate MacGregor start on the Tuesday after Memorial
    Day. This will be the first of 16 Senate-nominated positions
    joining Interior. We have got some great candidates, and as we
    get those onboarded, we are going to make sure to be working
    closely with all of you.

                                ALASKA RESOURCES

        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that, and we look forward to
    that. I mentioned how refreshing it is to have an
    administration that recognizes the extraordinary potential that
    we have in Alaska, viewing our resource assets as an asset
    rather than a liability that needs to be protected against. I
    have mentioned the executive order unleashing Alaska's
    extraordinary resource potential. You also had a corresponding
    secretary's order. I am hoping that you can share with me an
    update on the plans to meet implementation goals of this EO,
    and what Alaskans can expect to see in the works for this
    summer season.
        And I also have mentioned in my opening statements my
    concern that as we are seeing this significant transition
    within the Department and workforce reduction initiatives, that
    we are not going to see any of this that happens back here
    undercutting both the President's and your stated policy goals
    as they relate to Alaska here.

                             WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES

        Secretary Burgum. Well, I think the place I would like to
    start, which would be helpful I think for all the members of
    this committee, is to understand that when I came on board, one
    of the first things that I wanted to understand as an executive
    was how many people worked in each bureau, what roles they had,
    and where they were located. Of course, we had remote work in
    place when I entered the building after my confirmation. That
    headquarters could hold as many as 3,500 people, but there was
    nobody there.
        There were the appointees that had come on, there were
    custodial staff, and I said, ``where is everybody''? We have
    got a back-to-work order that is, you know, coming up. The
    back-to-work order occurred later in February, and then we
    started to have some people trickle into the building. We still
    have a building that maybe is one-third full. I said, well, I
    will just go to the systems and find out.
        It turns out there was no way for me to even send an email
    to the 65,000 team members across all the bureaus. There was
    not a way to find out how many people worked in each of these
    bureau agencies. The IT systems are so incredibly outdated. And
    so then I said, well, let us just start with parks, because
    that is obviously important to everybody. How many people work
    in the parks, and how many are permanent, how many are
    permanent-temporary, and how many are summer help? Just trying
    to find that out was difficult.
        And then we got a number of about 26,500 people work in the
    park system. And my next question was, well, how many of them
    actually physically work in a park? And that answer took almost
    eight weeks, because we had to have a group of people pull from
    all these heterogeneous information systems, because we had a
    home address where maybe their payroll check is being sent. We
    did not, in many cases, even have duty stations for where
    people reported to.
        And then when the number came back, I know everyone is just
    like hair on fire like: Oh, if we cut anybody, we are not going
    to be able to keep the parks open. The first number I got--
    slightly less than 50 percent of the permanent employees
    actually work in a park. They are working at a regional
    headquarters, they are working in some other location, they are
    working here in headquarters. And so then it was like, well,
    how many of them work by different functions?
        Because we always talk about park rangers and wildland
    firefighters, which we had put as a protected class on all of
    the orders when I got there, which is, don't get rid of any
    wildland firefighters, don't get rid of any law enforcement, we
    don't want any of that. So then it comes back and of the 65,000
    people in Interior, 2,000 of them are listed as being in HR. I
    did not hear anybody mention please protect the HR positions.
    We have got several thousand people working in IT, and I don't
    know what they do.
        I am trying to find out, but I know we have got gobs and
    gobs of contractors chewing up the budget, and I think that
    people in IT are hiring contractors to do their work. And so my
    thesis right up front is for all the mischaracterization and
    hyperbole that somehow taking a hard look at our--at how we
    actually operate an agency of this scope and scale, that we
    can't have a substantial amount of savings, both in personnel
    cost and in dollars, and then actually end up with what all of
    us want, what all of you want, and what I want.
        I want more; I want more people in the parks, whether they
    are driving a snow plow in the wintertime, or whether they are
    working with an interpreter in the summertime, or whether they
    are doing trail work. If they are firefighting, I want more of
    that. I want less overhead. Because when I talked to these park
    superintendents and I said: ``How can I make your life more
    productive?'' It is not just about ``Oh. I need more people.''
    Some of these parks, like Yellowstone, they have got more
    people working this summer than they ever had in the history of
    the park, or certainly more than they have had.
        Senator Murkowski. So Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Burgum. So I mean, so we are up from where we
    were two or 3 years ago. But I am saying: ``What can I do to
    help your life be more productive?'' And they say: ``Get rid of
    the red tape above me.'' And so that is one of the things we
    are working on. And I think we are listening to the people that
    are actually on the job doing operations. And this is just
    common sense.
        So I think we can accomplish the goals that were raised by
    Senator Merkley and others, which is we can get more people
    actually doing the work and have the savings. Then if I can
    produce the savings, if I can reinvest those, you know, into
    the things that matter to people like deferred maintenance.
        Senator Murkowski. So I let you go two minutes over my
    time, and I don't want to set that as the standard for the rest
    of my colleagues, because I understand we have a vote here, I
    think, at 11:30. And I want folks to be able to have multiple
    rounds. I do think it was kind of important to just lay the--
    set the table here for what we are seeing. So I appreciate
    that.
        And now I am now going to turn to Senator Merkley.

                              NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Secretary,
    as you know, we have 63 crown jewels in our national park
    system. Where some people say: I want to visit every national
    park; they are normally talking about those crown jewels. But
    there are 370 other national park sites in the system. And
    those include, in Oregon, places like the Oregon Caves, the
    John Day Fossil Beds, the Lewis and Clark National Historic
    Park, places of significance certainly to the people of Oregon,
    but people of the nation.
        You have proposed slashing $900 million from the national
    park system by offloading some of those 370 national park sites
    that are not part of the crown jewels. And you calculated you
    could save this $900 million with lower maintenance because
    there would be fewer sites. Do you have the list of sites that
    you plan to offload, for us?
        Secretary Burgum. I do not. This is a proposed idea, and
    the whole $900 million is not related specifically. But thank
    you for clarifying for everyone that this does not touch any
    of, as you have described, ``the crown jewel parks''. But
    certainly, in places like North Dakota with Knife River Indian
    Villages, we have got places that were designated as Federal
    locations that have almost no visitors, they are cost centers.
    We have to staff them. We have to maintain them. And I know, as
    a governor that----
        Senator Merkley. So are you going to send us a list of the
    proposed sites?
        Secretary Burgum. This is a proposal for the fiscal year
    2026 budget, so we will be working through, and I think this is
    going to be a case-by-case, state-by-state, to see, but yes, we
    will send you it when we have the plan.
        Senator Merkley. So it is almost I will try to keep moving
    quickly because of the limited time. But certainly, most of
    these, there are a small number that were not established
    through law, but almost all of the 370 were established by law.
    Is it your understanding that we would have to change the law
    in order for you to be able to put these sites up for transfer?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Okay, I appreciate that, because we were
    very concerned that this would be a form of an executive
    action, and then we would all go to court and fight it out
    because the law established them, and we believe that the law
    has to be changed in order to send them off. And if you have
    some in your home state that you are comfortable sending off,
    you could request the governors to say what they want to do.
    But I have a feeling the Governor of Oregon would say these
    sites, these three sites in Oregon and others, are of great
    value to our national system for all Americans.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2025 FUNDING

        I want to turn to the challenge of getting answers from
    your Department. We have had repeated requests dating back to
    January 23rd about funding--whether you want to use the term
    ``frozen'' or the term ``impounded'' or ``delayed'' and we have
    not gotten answers. How do we get answers from your staff?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, let us start with any specific ones
    you may not have. I mean, we are following the executive orders
    to review. There was an enormous amount of money that went out
    the door between November 6th and January 20th. I think
    everyone would say that it would be responsible for us to make
    sure that those funds were going to the recipients that it was
    intended.
        Senator Merkley. Just getting any kind of an answer would
    at least have us know that your team is actually paying
    attention to our requests for information. Can I call you when
    we can't get information?
        Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Our national partners who are
    fighting poaching and trafficking of elephants and rhinos, have
    not been able to access their legally obligated funds since
    January 20th. Are these funds blocked? Are they delayed? Are
    they frozen? That is an example, you may not have the answer,
    but it is affecting studies that have been in motion, that many
    Americans passionately support our effort to be part of the
    international effort for these amazing animals.
        Secretary Burgum. And I am sorry, the question was.
        Senator Merkley. Yes, the question is, if you do know the
    answer, you can tell me now. But otherwise, can you commit to
    getting us an answer?
        Secretary Burgum. Yeah, we can commit to getting you an
    answer.

                          GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT

        Senator Merkley. Thank you. The law requires that we get a
    list for the Great American Outdoors Act and the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund projects by April 29th. Obviously, we are
    past that. We have not gotten that list. Can you assure us we
    will get it shortly?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. We will be working on that.
        Senator Merkley. Working on it like, can we get it within
    the next couple of weeks?
        Secretary Burgum. We have got lots of irons in the fire
    right now, as we are trying to build up staff, but yes, we will
    be working on it.
        Senator Merkley. Well, let me just note that the number of
    days left in fiscal year 2025 are evaporating. So there is less
    and less time to actually have the funding that was passed by
    law transmitted in an effective way. We hope that when we see
    those lists, the funds will get out by the end of the fiscal
    year and that they will be fairly distributed across the
    country. What many are concerned about is we will see funding
    from the Great American Outdoors Act turn into a political
    tool. Can you commit that that will not happen?
        Secretary Burgum. We will follow the law related to the
    Great American Outdoors Act.
        Senator Merkley. Well, that is not an answer, because the
    law gives you some flexibility. I am asking that this not
    become a fund to reward Blue or Red House districts in a
    discriminatory fashion?
        Secretary Burgum. I am smiling because that practice was so
    widely used by the prior administration. It is one of the
    things we are reviewing. But certainly, we will be trying to
    allocate the dollars based on the merit and based on following
    the law and within----
        Senator Merkley. Actually, I think your statement was very
    inaccurate about the previous administration, but we will leave
    it to others to determine that situation. Because my time has
    evaporated, we will turn to Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
        Secretary Burgum. I just want to say, on the last thing,
    grants went up by over 100 percent in the last part of the last
    administration, if we cut them by 50 percent, we would be back
    to the level of spending we were at in 2021, at the beginning
    of the Biden administration. And so the idea that taking a look
    at any cut is some, you know, dangerous, destabilizing thing is
    just not true. This thing operated--all these agencies operated
    with far less spending for decades and decades compared to
    where they have been at the last year.
        Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, let me just point out that is
    not a point that I made. So I don't appreciate you trying to
    pretend that I did.
        Senator Murkowski. Let us go to Senator Hoeven, please.

                             WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thanks for being here, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate it,
    appreciate your service. Have you ever started any businesses
    and run any businesses?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Have you served as a governor at any point
    in your career?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. In any of those positions, did you go in
    and work to find savings, and also then put people and systems
    in place that actually, while saving money, enabled you to
    provide better services to your customers?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. When I
    came into North Dakota, we had a $6 billion general fund, and
    we cut it by $1.7 billion, 27 percent the first 4 months I was
    in office. All the trains left and still ran on time, and we
    created more meaningful, more purposeful jobs for the people
    that worked there.
        Senator Hoeven. In fact, not only do you have a great love
    of the outdoors, you are a rancher, you like to hunt, but one
    of your specialties is finding and putting in place systems
    that actually improve the productivity of the workforce so you
    deliver better service at lower cost. That is one of the things
    you specialize in, isn't it?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, I spent two and a half decades in
    the private sector developing software systems to do exactly
    that.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes. And so the other thing that would
    actually help you accomplish that and make sure there are more
    people in the parks, and that the American citizens are better
    served, is if you could actually get your management team in
    place, right? Instead of having it held up for no good reason.
    So you just said what: You have got one of sixteen people that
    have to be confirmed, and we sit here voting in the middle of
    the night because nobody will let you get your team on board so
    you can do the very things that some here want to criticize you
    for. Would you say that is accurate?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, we have the first member starting
    next week within the executive leadership team.
        Senator Hoeven. So if somebody really wanted to help you
    get your team in place and make sure that service is getting
    done, seems like they would want to help you get that team in
    place rather than hold it up, wouldn't you think? Would that
    make sense to you?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.

                             TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Hoeven. Okay. I know you are aware of the Advanced
    Training Center that we have at Camp Grafton, which is our
    National Guard facility in North Dakota, and that you have
    worked with it. And you are probably aware of the recent
    statistics of more than 5,400 law enforcement BIA law
    enforcement officers trained--3,000 of them got training at
    that facility. And so it supports Artesia in terms of getting
    BIA law enforcement officers trained up and on the job.
        And we only have, in the Northern Plains, about 50 percent
    of those staff positions filled, meaning almost a 50 percent
    vacancy rate. So my question to you is: Will you work with us?
    And we have got the senator here from New Mexico, so he knows
    Artesia, he knows how important this issue is, but particularly
    for the Northern Plains and folks that live up there and want
    to stay up there, we have got to enhance this training and
    expand the course offerings. Are you willing to work in support
    of that?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.

                                  WILD HORSES

        Senator Hoeven. Okay. The next question I have is, we have
    wild horses in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I have got
    a bill in with Senator Kaine, bipartisan, he has some
    experience with the horses out, you know, on the East Coast in
    the parks there. It would make sure that--require maintenance
    of a genetically diverse herd, in no event less than 150
    horses; are you in support of that legislation?
        Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely.

                                  PUBLIC LANDS

        Senator Hoeven. Talk to me about the public lands rule,
    under the Biden administration, they sought to essentially put
    more than 245 million acres off limits, of public land off
    limits for any kind of energy development. For example, just in
    our state, that is 45 percent of the Federal oil and gas
    acreage, and that is 99 percent of the Federal coal acreage.
    That is just our state. Okay.
        So talk to me about the importance of addressing that rule,
    overhauling that rule, and making sure that we have access on
    behalf of--you know, you can talk about the balance sheet here
    a little bit if you want, in terms of our Federal assets, for
    energy production on behalf of this country, and you know, one
    of your key roles in terms of energy development?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, yes, Senator Hoeven. Striking
    hundreds of millions of acres off of America's balance sheet
    was basically like stealing from our children and our
    children's children, because all of those represent the
    opportunity to sustainably develop, whether it is grazing,
    whether it is forestry, whether it is critical minerals, which
    are essential for national security, whether it is just energy
    development to help win the AI arms race with China.
        All of those things are essential, and public lands were
    meant for the benefit and the use of the American people. They
    were not meant to be all--certainly, some areas are wilderness
    areas and need to be protected completely, like National Parks
    and Wilderness areas, but that represents a small fraction of
    the total amount.
        So I am with you completely, and it is completely
    irresponsible that we would cheer when we are hurting ourselves
    financially, because when we shut down the multiple-use
    doctrine for public lands, we are actually hurting America, and
    we are helping our adversaries.

                                  PRODUCTIVITY

        Senator Hoeven. Yeah. And Madam Chair, just a final
    question quickly, but it is just to once again reaffirm Your
    whole career, in every capacity you have had, has been to
    provide better service to the people that you are working for,
    whether it is in a business, or whether it is for the state.
    And given the opportunity, you believe you can do that here as
    well, in other words, better service in the national parks,
    better resource management, if you are given the chance to do
    it, right?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. I have never entered an organization
    that has this much redundant overhead and outdated systems, I
    have never seen anything like it. It is worse than when I
    walked in North Dakota 9 years ago and the opportunities for
    creating better, more meaningful jobs for our dedicated team
    members, and to deliver better service is enormous.
        Senator Hoeven. And I have known you for over 30 years, and
    you have done it in every role, and I would just encourage
    people to work with you, and they will be very pleased, I
    believe, with the outcome.
        Secretary Burgum. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Murray.

                                HURRICANE RIDGE

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski.
        Mr. Secretary, I wanted to start by touching briefly on
    Hurricane Ridge. That is a place, as you know, that is very
    special to people in my home state of Washington, and visitors
    come to it from all over the world. I know that you visited
    Olympic National Park last week, and you saw how scenic it was,
    and a hint of how brutal the weather can be, it is called
    Hurricane Ridge for a reason.
        The Hurricane Ridge Day Lodge burned down in a tragic fire
    2 years ago, and Congress delivered the emergency funding
    necessary to rebuild it last year. In the execution report that
    you delivered to the committee in February, the disaster
    funding spend plan, you included the money for the Olympic
    National Park, I understand, it is for Hurricane Ridge. Do you
    have any updates for us on the next steps for that project?
        Secretary Burgum. No. But I did have an opportunity with
    the park superintendent and some of the lead people to actually
    get to Hurricane Ridge, and thankfully, there were not 70-mile-
    an-hour winds, it was beautiful, sunny, calm gorgeous. But I
    got to see the site where the fire had happened and was able to
    meet with them regarding the plans that they have, and it looks
    like a great, great project.
        Senator Murray. Good. And can you just keep my staff and me
    updated on that project as it moves forward; it is really
    important to all of us.
        Secretary Burgum. Okay. Thank you.

                        PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL PARKS

        Senator Murray. Thank you. As you saw, Washington State is
    home to a number of pristine public lands. People travel from
    all over the world to experience my state--and and Oregon.
    Secretary Burgum, our public lands aren't for sale. Protecting
    our wilderness, living up to our tribal obligations, keeping
    our communities safe, that it is just not negotiable, and it is
    actually a core reason that your Department does exist. And
    these have been places with strong bipartisan support.
        So I am really concerned that one of the first things you
    did was make deep, painful cuts at our parks and start talking
    about our public lands kind of like they are a piggy bank. I do
    not want to tell future generations that: You see that river of
    sludge, it used to be clear, it used to have salmon. Or, you
    see that charred mountainside, it used to be a forest with
    campgrounds and trails. Or that smokestack used to be a
    national park.
        I worry because it feels to me like your vision could lead
    to that, with your budget cuts and mass firings and
    reorganization. And I am deeply concerned about the proposed
    cuts to programs and funding that our tribes rely on, the mass
    firing of park rangers. They are the people who help our
    visitors. They clear the trails. They clean the bathrooms. They
    respond to emergencies. And it just, as I watch this, and hear
    from folks, and see what is happening on top of getting some
    bedrock environmental protections, I just don't see how your
    Department can execute the law without staff in place.
        So just let me ask you. In your short tenure, you have
    overseen significant staffing reductions, over 10 percent, and
    reorganization efforts across the Department of Interior, with
    I understand, more firings to come. The National Park Service
    has lost 18 percent of its staff. You managed to actually fire
    the only plumber at Mount Rainier National Park. There is just
    nothing efficient about that kind of management. You have also
    decided that what few staff remain at our national parks will
    focus solely on visitor services.
        That really abandons the conservation mission, which, no
    doubt will lead to the degradation of our natural resources and
    our parks. Actually, on May 8th, five former NPS directors,
    Republican and Democratic administrations alike, raised really
    grave concerns about these decisions, and they wrote that the
    National Park Service's founding statute requires conservation
    at our parks so they will, quote, ``be unimpaired for the
    enjoyment of future generations''.
        You know, we need trail guides, and biologists, we need
    EMTs and geologists, we need snowplow drivers, and we need
    historians. Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that you do have
    a statutory obligation to conserve our national parks? And that
    is really a simple yes or no.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.

                             WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES

        Senator Murray. Well, it just feels to me, watching this,
    that you are abandoning that obligation with the staffing cuts.
    And your job is to carry out the laws that Congress has passed,
    not as you wish were written. So let me ask you, how many
    people do you plan to fire from the National Park Service?
        Secretary Burgum. Let me respond by saying, I am going to
    repeat myself, that there is an opportunity to have more people
    working in our parks, in all the positions that you have
    described, Senator, and have less people working for the
    National Park Service. We just have to accept this math, that
    if you have a situation where slightly less than 50 percent of
    the people actually work in a park, I can increase the number
    of people in the park, but still decrease the number of people
    on payroll at the National Park Service, because we are
    eliminating overhead, back office, IT, and HR roles.
        And so I can agree with everything that you are saying, but
    then to have a mischaracterization that if we cut anybody, that
    somehow I am cutting into the conservation mission.
        Senator Murray. Well, it is huge cuts, and the people you
    are talking about are actually the support staff. And when you
    cut support staff that is not efficient. You know, how does
    someone drive a snowplow if you don't have a staffer that makes
    sure that the government gets the best deal to buy that
    snowplow? I mean, there is many, many detailed people that you
    are talking about that actually make sure that the spending is
    efficient, that the people are efficient, that we all know how
    important staff is. I mean, you can't survive without that.
    Those are the people that you are letting go. We can't be
    efficient if they are not there.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, are you suggesting that the
    National Park Service today is operating at peak efficiency and
    that there aren't any changes that I could make?
        Senator Murray. I would suggest that, I welcome any
    suggestions to us about how to be efficient. But just mass,
    across-the-board cuts and firing is really going to increase--
    not increase efficiency at our parks. And that, I think, we all
    should be very concerned about.
        Secretary Burgum. But if the goal is for us to have more
    people working in the parks, you are comfortable if I can get
    to a spot where we have more people working in the park?
        Senator Murray. You show me what employees you are leaving
    behind that don't support someone, that makes sure that they
    have the equipment that they need, that is up to date, that is
    running, those kinds of things, you can't just cut those people
    and expect people to be out in the national parks without
    somebody who is making sure that their equipment is safe, that
    their hours are maintained--all the things that it takes to, to
    run a place. Our national parks are huge. They take a lot of
    people to run.
        Secretary Burgum. The state is huge. I have run a DOT. I
    understand the role of support personnel across fish and
    wildlife, parks and rec, DOT, all of these aspects of a
    national park are part of running a state. And I am confident
    that with our team, that we can achieve your objectives and
    still have a reduction.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        Senator Murray. Well, one thing I am really concerned
    about, and everybody should be, is our national wildland
    firefighting efforts, and countless staff who provide the
    necessary support there. For example, firefighters put their
    lives at risk without support they need in many different
    roles. It just gets more dangerous. So those are the kinds of
    people that I am extremely concerned about that without thought
    or, you know, really smart moves, that we are going to be
    putting our parks at risk.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, agree on the wildland firefighters.
    That is why Secretary Rollins and I yesterday held a joint
    event reaffirming our commitment to work together between the
    Forest Service and Interior, and our commitment to have full
    staffing for wildland firefighters this summer. And we are
    close to approaching that goal, and so we are fully committed.

                                 INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate it. And just one really
    quick question regarding our tribes, you have a role in
    fulfilling the Federal Government's Trust and Treaty
    responsibilities to our tribes. I see numerous cuts across the
    budget that defunds tribal police, putting the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. I just want to ask you, how many tribes have you
    personally consulted with on your budget request?
        Secretary Burgum. I have been meeting with tribes every
    week since I have been here. I have got a deep understanding of
    our challenges and shortage in law enforcement.
        Senator Murray. There is 574 tribes, which ones have you
    met with; have you consulted or met with?
        Secretary Burgum. I am happy to provide you a list. But I
    just recently had the Interior Secretary Tribal Advisory
    Committee. We had 24 representatives from tribes from across
    the country actually meeting in my office just a couple weeks
    ago. Law enforcement was a key part of that. We had an
    opportunity to meet with the family of Emily Pike, I brought
    Kash Patel over. Of course, it is not just the BIA, it is also
    the FBI when these cases get escalated. We have over six
    outlets.
        Senator Murray. Well, I would just remind all of us that
    Kash Patel is cutting a $0.5 billion from his budget on this,
    so.
        Secretary Burgum. And he is providing 60 people to Indian
    Country right now to help with the 6,000 unsolved cases of
    missing and murdered Indigenous women, which is a priority for
    us.
        Senator Murray. All of us. And I just want to say that my
    tribes in Washington State are deeply concerned, they are
    telling us that these layoffs will eliminate natural resource
    management, basic social services, and they are horrified. So I
    hope that in your list that you will provide me, that I see
    some of their names.
        Secretary Burgum. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Murray.
        I will turn to Senator Rounds.
        And Mr. Secretary, just so you know our votes have started,
    so you are going to see us popping in and out here.
        Secretary Burgum. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Murkowski. Don't take that as lack of interest.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, thank you.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Secretary Burgum. I want to
    follow up a little bit on the Native American tribes as well,
    and I just, first of all, I have appreciated the working
    relationship that you have had with tribes in the North and
    South Dakota region. And one area in particular that they have
    expressed concern, and you have heard about it before, and that
    is that most Great Plains tribal law enforcement agencies are
    understaffed, and with as few as two officers responsible for
    patrolling millions of acres during a single shift.
        They have come up with a recommendation. They would like to
    be able to hire more law enforcement officers, but part of the
    challenge is that, in order to get them set up, they have
    literally got to travel to New Mexico to get trained. And
    tribal law enforcement leaders often point to that as being one
    reason why there is a shortage, because most of these young
    people coming into that profession don't want to go that far
    away for 6 months at a time.
        So one of the suggestions was, could we also put in or work
    with--they have the option of doing--work with local law
    enforcement as well, and being trained such as the South Dakota
    Law Enforcement Training Center, and so forth, but we would
    like to have more room for them, perhaps locally. And they may
    have talked to you about this already. But would you consider
    working with them in a cooperative effort to perhaps find a way
    to fund some additional spots in the Northern Great Plains for
    those law enforcement officers, so they would not have to
    travel for 6 months down to New Mexico?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. This is an idea I know that you and
    Senator Hoeven and others have worked on. We have had great
    collaboration on advanced training at Camp Grafton, North
    Dakota. Adding basic training there I think would be helpful
    for recruiting for Northern Plains Tribes, and I would be fully
    supportive of that.
        Senator Rounds. And I think it would save some money as
    well, just in terms of travel costs.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Rounds. Let me also just suggest, the relationship
    with our tribal leaders is critical, and they really appreciate
    the consultation that in some kinds is lacking, and we would
    like to rebuild that again. Over the last several years, some
    Great Plains tribes have experienced violent crime rates of up
    to five times higher than the national average. Tribal leaders
    have indicated that despite their efforts, these rates remain
    alarmingly high. Several have proposed establishing a cross-
    jurisdictional commission to directly address violent crime.
        This proposed body could include relevant officials from
    the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice.
    So not just such as you as--and another secretary, but to have
    a built-in program where your folks could meet with their folks
    on a regular basis. As the tribal nations continue to deal with
    threats of public safety, would you consider working with the
    tribal leaders on this initiative?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Rounds. I think it would really add a lot, and I
    think we would get a lot of stuff done in a short period of
    time with that type of a joint commission-type approach. Thank
    you.

                            FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT

        And then finally, I want to hit an item with regard to
    minor fence line disputes. We just went through this with the
    Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service. So the
    Department of the Interior land management agencies oversee
    hundreds of millions of acres of land throughout the United
    States, laws such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
    authorize a multiple-use approach for public lands, allowing
    producers to utilize Federal grazing leases.
        Concerned landowners in Western South Dakota have
    approached my office regarding minor fence line disputes
    between producers and Federal officials, specifically after we
    had that type of a situation come up with the Department of
    Ag--with the Department of Forestry. My understanding is that
    such disagreements are relatively common in areas with a high
    concentration of Federal land. I am just curious. Do agencies
    within the Department of the Interior follow a standard
    mediation process for resolving these issues, or is this
    something that we need to look at?
        Secretary Burgum. I am not aware, but I would be happy to
    look at it. I am familiar we have got lots of U.S. grasslands
    from the U.S. Forest Service in Western North Dakota. I own
    ranch land there, and I know that when you have got topography
    in the Badlands that sometimes the fence line--it is impossible
    to put the fence line on the property line. And so, you know,
    having these be mediated locally versus escalating into legal
    action would just be common sense.
        Senator Rounds. And I think that is the approach we would
    like to take. These farmers and ranchers have been on that for
    years. It has been back and forth. And most recently, with the
    ability to do fence lines more accurately, now we are finding
    pros and cons in terms of acres that may be on one side of a
    fence or on the other side of the fence either way. And rather
    than ending up in court, it seems to me that a mediation
    process would be a lot better way to approach these. And I
    would just appreciate your assistance if we can put that
    together for the Department of the Interior if it does not
    already exist.
        Secretary Burgum. That would be great.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Mullin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen,
    you are next.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

                                 CHESAPEAKE BAY

        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I do want to associate myself with
    the comments that Senators Merkley and Murray have made,
    expressing concerns about the budget or the lack of budget to
    date when it comes to the spend plan for fiscal year 2025. You
    and I have never met. You come from the beautiful State of
    North Dakota. I want to tell you a little bit about my State of
    Maryland and the very important role the Department of the
    Interior plays in the State of Maryland and seek your
    assurances on a couple of things.
        So one of the world's natural treasures, and one of our
    country's national treasures, is the Chesapeake Bay, and we
    need to make sure we preserve the Bay and maintain a healthy
    Bay, not just because it is a natural wonder, but because big
    parts of the Maryland economy depend on a healthy Bay. We have
    the watermen who make their livelihood off the bounty of the
    Bay. We have a tourism industry that depends on a healthy Bay,
    sports water--sports fishermen as well as the boating industry,
    and a whole economic ecosystem around a healthy Bay.
        And so the challenge, of course, is how to make it--how to
    protect it, right, because the Bay watershed encompasses six
    states and the District of Columbia, you can put something in a
    stream in parts of New York State and they end up in the
    Chesapeake Bay. It has a 14:1 land-to-water ratio, which is the
    largest such ratio of any coastal water body in the world. So
    you can see that what happens on the land has a direct impact
    on the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
        And the Department of the Interior has a number of very
    important programs in place to help protect the Bay, its
    health, and the economy, the health of the economy. One is the
    Wild Grants program. This is a program that has been bipartisan
    in origin. Senator Shelley Moore Capito and I launched it. It
    helps restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat from brook
    trout in West Virginia, to ruffed grouse in Pennsylvania
    forests, to oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.
        Another very important DOI program is the U.S. Geological
    Survey. It provides very important science that all of the
    states use to help develop their strategies to protect the
    health of the Bay and guide the restoration efforts. We also
    have in Maryland a number of national wildlife refuges, seven
    altogether, that number one, help provide critical habitat
    around the Bay and prevent more pollution from running off the
    land into the Bay. They also help provide outdoor opportunities
    for people who visit the state of Maryland and the Bay.
        And then there is the National Park Service, which through
    the Chesapeake Gateways Partnership provides more public access
    to the Bay. And then we have a number of important national
    heritage areas, and the National Park Service plays a very
    important role in our state, including Antietam National
    Battlefield, including the Harriet Tubman National Underground
    Railroad Historic Park, including Fort McHenry National
    Monument and Historic Shrine.
        So that is a quick overview of all of the important
    interaction and investments the Department of the Energy--or
    Interior has with the State of Maryland.
        And so my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is will you work
    with me, the committee, the Maryland delegation to, number one,
    maintain that strong partnership, but also to maintain the
    resources that are necessary to support that partnership?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. And the reason I ask
    is, as we look at the skinny budget, a number of the categories
    that are deeply cut would impact almost all of the programs
    that I just mentioned. I mentioned the WILD Program, for
    example. If you look at the category of funding and the cuts
    there, they are very significant. If you look at the National
    Geological Survey cuts that are being proposed, it appears,
    although it is hard to determine, that the entire program that
    supports that scientific work might be wiped out.
        I don't know for sure. But this is why we are expressing so
    many concerns, because this partnership has been very important
    to our State of Maryland, to the Chesapeake Bay. And so I
    appreciate, Mr. Secretary, your assurances both in terms of
    working together and the resources to match that effort. And I
    look forward to continuing our conversation.
        Secretary Burgum. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.

                             WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES

        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I am the last one up
    here, so we are going to take some time and answer questions to
    give people the opportunity to come back.
        I wanted to point out, have the duties for the Interior
    increased by 50 percent over the last 4 years?
        Secretary Burgum. They have not.
        Senator Mullin. If I am not mistaken here, your budget from
    2021 to 2024 grew by almost 50 percent.
        Secretary Burgum. That is correct.
        Senator Mullin. So there is probably a lot of room to make
    changes, right?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. And I think there are ways to make
    changes where we don't touch programs, but we actually just
    focus on reducing overhead, because the overhead burden across
    the Department and the Bureau is staggering.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Senator Mullin. Let us talk a little bit more about that.
    What is your vision of seeing Interior? I mean, because we have
    a wealth of resources, right, right in front of us, underneath
    our feet. We are heavily, heavily dependent on, even, I would
    consider adversaries like China for rare earth minerals. And
    yet we find that throughout public lands, all over the place.
    We find that we have an opportunity that we could even use
    resources not just to allow us to be less dependent or
    completely independent of other countries, but where we could
    also use it to pay down a significant amount of debt; is that
    correct?
        Secretary Burgum. Absolutely. That is true. And you
    mentioned critical minerals. I think this is something that may
    have not broken through to the public because there has been a
    lot going on the last month. But on April 4th, China put on
    export controls relative to critical minerals. These are things
    that are essential for American automobiles, for American
    technology, for American defense. And we have literally--
    because they control 85 percent of the refining and we do not
    have strategic mineral reserves like we have a strategic
    petroleum reserve, and we were literally within 1 month in this
    country facing the possibility that we were going to run out of
    minerals, which could have led to shutdowns of factories in the
    U.S.
        I think the general public does not realize the precarious
    situation we are in. So part of the task that we have is to
    make sure that we are, for national security purposes and for
    economic purposes, not put in that position of vulnerability.
    And it is one of the things that we are working on across the
    whole-of-government.
        But you are absolutely right, Senator, that those critical
    minerals, many exist in the public lands. But we have killed
    mining in this country the same way we have killed timber
    harvesting, the way we have attacked ranching and farming, and
    certainly the way we have attacked energy development.
        Senator Mullin. And it has become quite a national security
    risk?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, it is huge. It is one of our largest
    national security risks--the fact that we are in a great power
    battle with a country that controls the supply chains for what
    we need to actually build our defense.
        Senator Mullin. What is the biggest barrier for us to be
    able to actually retrieve those rare earth minerals?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, I think that this has been a long-
    term strategy on behalf of China, where they have not just
    cornered markets, but when U.S. companies, innovators,
    entrepreneurs, job creators, have said: Hey, I am going to open
    up a mine, we bury those companies with red tape.
        Senator Mullin. ``We'' as in the United States?
        Secretary Burgum. Those few that have persevered and become
    we, the United States, have done that through layers and layers
    of permitting delays, passing laws that create extra costs,
    that discourage them from being able to get the capital they
    need to develop those kinds of either extraction or refining
    processes. And then, when they finally do, a few of them break
    through and get successful, and then they are producing a
    mineral here, then China just dumps and floods the market with
    the supply that they have, collapsing the price, and then the
    companies can't exist.
        And so they are using their power and state capitalism to
    actually affect the outcome of companies here. And so between
    our red tape and their dumping materials, we literally have no
    critical minerals industry left. And we have got to get back in
    that game. I mean, it is just incredible, the risk we have put
    ourselves in.
        Senator Mullin. And I know you are working with the
    Department of Energy and plus with the President on correcting
    this, because as I can't overstate, it is a huge national
    security risk we run. And we literally have it under our feet.
    And a lot of this is found in tribal land, and tribes that are
    in reservations that are struggling today, struggling
    financially. You go to some of these reservations and they
    literally look like a third-world country.
        They don't have the ability to bring gaming in because they
    are in very rural areas. Their hospitals are in bad shape.
    Their schools are in bad shape. There is almost no future for
    those that live there. And yet we could bring that future and
    that wealth to those tribes if we could get out of our way.
        Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely. And we have been in
    discussion with one of the tribes in Arizona. I mean, they have
    got tremendous uranium deposits. And here we are--even though
    the war in Ukraine has been going on, we are importing enriched
    uranium from Russia to run our 93 remaining nuclear plants. I
    mean, some of these things are just absurd, that we have
    created dependencies around the world on the adversaries that
    we are actually in, if not in power battles with, or trade
    battles, we are in proxy wars with them. And it is just insane
    that we would be dependent on them for, in this case, almost 20
    percent of our electricity in this country.

                            OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Mullin. Right. I want to turn my attention to
    McGirt, a decision that was made by the Supreme Court that has
    really put law enforcement and law and order at a heavy strain,
    and it is unique to Oklahoma. We are doing better with it, but
    I have asked the justice to come in and just brief Oklahoma to
    kind of see what his envision was. Unfortunately, I met a less
    than welcome response from the justice, and I am trying to
    leave his name out of it because I don't want to bring
    attention to it.
        But it has caused a lot of problems. We are greatly under-
    resourced. I would compare some areas to literally the Wild
    West. We have law enforcement that cannot pull over individuals
    with tribal tags. We have tribes that are literally suing the
    municipalities which they govern in, and it has been a--we
    could use some help.
        There are not enough FBI agents to be able to prosecute, as
    I met with the FBI in the region, they said we only have time
    to deal with the most heinous crimes, heinous. And so I know
    you have been in the same briefings that I have been in, and
    those heinous crimes are heinous, but there are a lot of crimes
    behind that are pretty heinous too. And we could use a lot of
    assistance in that.
        And so I would look forward to working with you. And even
    if the time for us to be able to come in and brief you on it,
    or get you to Oklahoma at some point, and really do a deep
    dive, because it has become quite a mess.
        Secretary Burgum. I would welcome the opportunity to get a
    deeper briefing on how McGirt is playing out. But I do
    understand that this is one of the most--tribal law enforcement
    is challenging anyway when you have got states, counties,
    tribes, overlapping jurisdictions, lack of MOUs, you know, lack
    of agreements around pursuit and chase, there are all kinds of
    challenges that I am familiar with. But the McGirt ruling takes
    it to a whole other level.
        Senator Mullin. Yes.
        Secretary Burgum. And it is literally the most complex law
    enforcement environment. And that is the kind of environment
    that law enforcement personnel themselves are saying: Hey, I
    can't do this. If I can't figure out, when I see an action
    happening, but I can't do something about it, and I am in law
    enforcement, because I may not have the jurisdiction.
        Senator Mullin. Right.
        Secretary Burgum. We have created a super complex
    situation. And I appreciate you, Senator, being so engaged with
    it, because it is going to take a full effort to try to get
    this sorted out.
        Senator Mullin. Thank you so much.
        I have stalled long enough. I will yield back.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the tap dancing. Thank you,
    Senator Mullin.
        Let us go to Senator Heinrich.

                                 NATIONAL PARKS

        Senator Heinrich. Just in time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary, I appreciate our conversations and your
    responsiveness. I want to bring up what is in the skinny budget
    and just quote from it real quick: ``The National Park Service
    responsibilities include a large number of sites that are not
    'national parks' in the traditionally understood sense, many of
    which receive small numbers of mostly local visitors and are
    better categorized and managed as state-level parks.''
        I just want to strike a note of caution with that sort of
    approach. I love our big ``P'' national parks. Behind me is a
    picture of a non-big-P national park. It is a national
    preserve. It is the Valles Caldera National Preserve. We have
    been talking in New Mexico for a hundred years about this being
    a national park, and we finally settled on the approach of a
    preserve, in part because we wanted the natural resource
    management of a national park with the ability to also have
    world-class hunting and fishing and the visitors that come with
    all of those things.
        So I would just urge you to look, as you develop this list,
    and many of these units have been created in statute--many of
    them that are not necessarily a big ``P'' national park are
    incredibly important parts of our national park system, our
    history, and our culture. And I just hope you will approach
    that with caution.
        Secretary Burgum. Absolutely, and with consultation. And
    thanks for bringing the beautiful photo behind you.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes, if you get a chance to visit, I
    highly recommend it. And bring your fly rod.
        Secretary Burgum. Is that you in the photo?
        Senator Heinrich. Actually, it is. Yeah.
        Secretary Burgum. I thought it might be.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Secretary Burgum. You can tell by the angle of the wrist.
        Senator Heinrich. Have you discussed with any particular
    states this approach yet, or is it still in the formation
    stage?
        Secretary Burgum. This is completely in the idea formation
    stage.

                       BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS

        Senator Heinrich. BIE school construction costs. I am not
    going to question your effectiveness at finding ways to reduce
    overhead and push forward on-the-ground deployment for better
    resource management. But this particular account, and I was
    talking to the Chair about this on the way over, really
    concerns me. The President's budget calls for a 79 percent, or
    $187 million reduction in the BIE school construction account.
    This is a place where we have a $4 billion construction
    backlog. It is not overhead. I mean, this is money to actually
    build schools. It is not money to pay administrators.
        And so, you and I have talked about the incredibly poor
    condition of some of these BIE schools. How are you going to
    move the needle on BIE school construction with this budget
    line item?
        Secretary Burgum. It is interesting that we have got in BIE
    about 125,000 kids, which is about exactly what we had in North
    Dakota in our K-12 system. But of course, these are spread
    across the nation. Not every state has got a BIE school. And we
    have got a complicated situation that in some places you have
    got a BIE school next to a tribal school, next to a public
    school. That is a scenario I have seen. And I think that part
    of this is we have got to take a look at this system-wide, in
    terms of dollars coming in. In states like my own state of
    North Dakota, we put more dollars into BIE than we do into
    tribal and into public schools. And yet the outcomes are the
    worst.
        When I am wearing my education hat, I am not seeing a
    correlation. I think the school construction and deferred
    maintenance is an issue across parks, across refuges. I mean,
    it is just across all of government, the Federal Government; we
    have got a deferred maintenance issue. The construction thing I
    would just set aside, but where I would start my focus on BIE
    is: How do we improve outcomes for those kids? And then, are
    there opportunities for us from a school construction
    standpoint to look for any opportunities with tribes or with
    public schools to not just fix the problems, but can we do it?
    I mean, I know there is a case in our state where they are less
    than a mile apart.
        Senator Heinrich. I think we can both agree we have got to
    do better for these kids.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.

                               NATIONAL MONUMENTS

        Senator Heinrich. The President's budget proposes an almost
    $200 million cut to the Bureau of Land Management conservation
    programs. In your confirmation hearing, you told me that you
    would not make any wholesale changes to monument designations
    in New Mexico without first meeting with local elected leaders
    and citizen groups in the state. Do I still have your
    commitment on that?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Heinrich. Great. I appreciate that.
        Secretary Burgum. I think you do know there have been
    concerns, people have come to me about the buffer zone related
    to that and how it infringes on tribal allottee rights, so we
    are--yeah, we are listening to all sides of this thing.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Secretary Burgum. But we will keep in close consultation.
        Senator Heinrich. And that, I think you are talking about a
    particular mineral withdrawal, and my question was related
    directly to the monuments which is a separate issue.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. But I will be happy to engage with you on
    both.
        Secretary Burgum. Okay.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Baldwin.

                                 ICE AGE TRAIL

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Burgum,
    I am proud to represent a state with two national scenic
    trails, the North Country and the Ice Age. And I have been
    hearing from Wisconsinites about some of the workforce cuts and
    frozen funds under this administration. They have really left
    the trails critically understaffed and underfunded. And so I
    would like to ask for you to provide an update on the current
    funding for maintenance and staffing, particularly for the Ice
    Age Trail in Wisconsin. I don't know if you are prepared to do
    that today. If not, I would ask that you do that within the
    next couple of days?
        Secretary Burgum. I am not prepared to do it right now, but
    happy to have my team take a look at the trail.
        Senator Baldwin. Okay. And that, you know, the staffing and
    the maintenance funds?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.
        Senator Baldwin. We have had a lot of discussion, and my
    colleagues have asked a lot of questions about the way in which
    some of the staffing cuts have been handled, even before your
    confirmation and the frozen funds. I know this is a hearing to
    look at the 2026 fiscal year, but I do want to call your
    attention to some of the impacts that we are seeing. Under your
    leadership at the Department of Interior, staff have been
    fired, and funds in some cases have been clawed back that were
    supporting research into foundational science, for freshwater
    ecosystem, health, and fisheries, wildlife disease prevention,
    and agriculture and economic sustainability.

                         UNITED STATED GEOGOCIAL SURVEY

        While the President asserts that his administration--well,
    he distanced himself from Project 2025, as you are well
    familiar, nonetheless, it is following through with the
    playbook's vision by attempting to abolish the Biological
    Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey. So
    can you share with me the mission of the Biological Resources
    Division?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, I think I will just talk in general
    about the evolution of USGS over time, because this was----
        Senator Baldwin. Well, I am particularly interested in this
    division.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. Well, this division was one that was
    not part of the original scope of USGS. It was added. And the
    review that we are taking on this division is because one of
    the original scopes was actually mapping, and it seems that
    there are a number of things that, as you referred to in
    biological, that might be better suited to be in the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife service versus in USGS.
        Senator Baldwin. Okay. Well, I want to share some of the
    concerns I have been hearing regularly about the biological
    services funding and staffing cuts. Roughly a 100 people are or
    were employed in Madison and 80 more at a location in La
    Crosse, Wisconsin, until they began to be fired in March. In La
    Crosse, these scientists have dedicated their professional
    lives to studying invasive--studying and tracking invasive
    carp, which decimate ecosystems and commercial fishing
    operations.
        They have been focused on restoring habitats along the
    Mississippi River, which improves surface water quality for
    farms and navigation for the shipping industry. They are
    studying PFAS to understand the impacts of those chemicals on
    wildlife. In the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in
    Madison, it is by the way, the only center dedicated to
    wildlife disease detection, control, and prevention in the
    United States.
        And in Madison, they have been making progress on
    monitoring the avian flu pandemic through their work at the
    Wildlife Health Center. So I would like your commitment to
    reverse the budget's intent to abolish the Biological Resources
    Division. And instead, we need to really invest in our nation's
    ability to respond to threats to our natural resources and
    wildlife health by funding these centers and their staffs in
    Wisconsin. Can I have your commitment on that?
        Secretary Burgum. I will not provide that commitment right
    now. Obviously these are important priorities. We have
    important priorities everywhere. But of course, one of the
    things that we also think is an important priority is as a
    nation, when we have a trillion-dollar interest cost, and we
    spent last year 2,000 billion dollars more than we brought in,
    I think that every Department in this administration feels a
    responsibility to try to find a way, that even though the work
    is important, how do we prioritize to spend less money to help
    bring our overall budget in balance.
        Senator Baldwin. I think you would find the economic
    impacts of funding these missions are enormous. On the invasive
    carp, for example, were they to ever get into the Great Lakes
    system, the ecological damage is almost unimaginable. I want
    to--actually, I notice I have run out of time.
        I do have some questions that I will submit for the record
    relating to the rights protection implementation line in the
    Interior and Environment Appropriation Bills that helps fulfill
    the Federal treaty, trust, and contract obligations to tribes.
    And I do have some specific questions that I will submit for
    the record. I hope you will get back to me quickly.
        Secretary Burgum. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Ossoff?
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome. How are you?
        Secretary Burgum. I am great.

                      OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

        Senator Ossoff. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the
    Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia?
        Secretary Burgum. I am not familiar. No.
        Senator Ossoff. I would love to get you down to visit. Can
    you do that?
        Secretary Burgum. I would love to get to Georgia.
        Senator Ossoff. We would love to welcome you to visit the
    Okefenokee. It is one of our state's great treasures, one of
    the most beautiful, biodiverse wildlife refuges in North
    America, the largest blackwater swamp of its kind in North
    America. There is an effort with bipartisan support that the
    previous administration supported to secure UNESCO World
    Heritage Site designation for the Okefenokee. This has strong
    bipartisan support among local officials, state officials in
    Georgia, former Governor Sonny Perdue, Lieutenant Governor Burt
    Jones among them.
        Will you continue to support our efforts to secure UNESCO
    World Heritage Site designation for the Okefenokee, which is
    now in your purview as part of a national wildlife refuge
    system?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, I am certainly interested in
    learning more about it. But I know that is a lengthy process so
    I would love to understand all the implications of supporting,
    and if there are budget implications for Interior. But I am
    certainly happy to take a look at it.
        Senator Ossoff. Well, we need your support. We need to get
    you down there as well to spend some time at the refuge. I know
    there has been some public discussion about the sale of public
    lands. Can you give an unequivocal guarantee that you will not
    pursue any sale of any part of the Okefenokee National Wildlife
    Refuge?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.

                       NORCROSS, GA WATER SCIENCE CENTER

        Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much for that. Mr. Secretary,
    I wrote you a letter on April 10th about an apparent effort by
    DOGE to close the U.S. Geological Survey Office in Norcross,
    Georgia. This is the Water Science Center in Norcross. It plays
    a critical role in ensuring water quality for folks in Metro
    Atlanta. Did you receive that letter?
        Secretary Burgum. I am certain that our team did.
        Senator Ossoff. I have not received a response. It has been
    about six weeks, any reason for that?
        Secretary Burgum. No specific reason other than how
    incredibly short-staffed we are as we are trying to ramp up.
        Senator Ossoff. Can you get back more promptly in the
    future?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. As we just said earlier, we have
    zero of our 16 Senate-confirmed leaders on board. The first one
    is coming on Tuesday after Memorial Day. And so as we get our
    leadership team in place, I am sure our operations will----
        Senator Ossoff. We need timely responses to those kinds of
    inquiries, Mr. Secretary. And the staff at this office test
    water quality to ensure that Georgians don't drink contaminated
    water. Senator Warnock and I have asked you not to close this
    office. No justification for such closure was offered. There is
    significant public concern in Georgia about the potential
    impact on water quality. Am I correct that you have abandoned
    those plans or overruled the DOGE effort to close that office
    in Norcross?
        Secretary Burgum. I am not familiar with the--when you are
    saying ``closure'', I know that there was an effort to take a
    look at all the real estate we had, particularly the fact that
    virtually every employee in Interior was working remotely, and
    yet we were paying hundreds of millions of dollars in real
    estate bills. And so I think it was reasonable that we took a
    look to say, do we need the real estate? But I am not sure when
    you are saying closing the office if you are talking about the
    positions, or about an office lease, because I know some office
    leases were being considered removed and some have been
    supposed to----
        Senator Ossoff. Yes, but DOGE expressed its intent to close
    the U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in Norcross,
    Georgia. You have heard from me and Senator Warnock our
    opposition, as I mentioned, there is tremendous public concern.
    Are you still planning to close that office?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, we will certainly take this
    particular request under consultation, and our team will be in
    discussion with you and your team about that.
        Senator Ossoff. Okay. Well, with respect, Mr. Secretary,
    this is an issue that I raised about a month and a half ago
    with you.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes, I understand that.
        Senator Ossoff. So when can I expect a response?
        Secretary Burgum. Soon.

                       OCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK INITIATIVE

        Senator Ossoff. Okay. Let me raise with you the ongoing
    bipartisan effort to establish Georgia's first ever national
    park. This is the Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve
    Initiative. Congressman Austin Scott, Republican in the House,
    and I are leading a bipartisan, bicameral group of the Georgia
    delegation in order to establish this national park and
    preserve. For the first time, made major progress in the U.S.
    Senate last Congress on this effort, overwhelming local support
    in the Macon area for getting this done. We have been grateful
    for the Department's past support providing technical
    assistance to help us move that forward. Will you continue to
    provide that support?
        Secretary Burgum. We are happy to engage with you and take
    a look at this proposal and this project.
        Senator Ossoff. Okay. Mr. Secretary, my time has expired. I
    know you are getting up to speed and staffing up. Would
    appreciate more intensity of engagement on some of these
    Georgia concerns, and look forward to sitting down with you,
    and welcoming you to the state to work with you in Georgia's
    interest. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Burgum. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.

                                 DOI EFFICIENCY

        Well, as you can tell, Mr. Secretary, everyone wants a
    piece of what goes on in the Department, because the role and
    the responsibilities there are very, very key. We are going to
    have an opportunity for a second round here, and rather than
    going into some of the particulars and the details, I am
    probably going to stick to more generic.
        But you and I have had a conversation about really
    understanding and being able to value the assets that we have
    when it comes to our public lands. As I am looking at the
    skinny budget, and I look at USGS and see close to a 40 percent
    reduction from current levels, 38.9, I worry about things like
    what happens with mapping, USGS's Earth MRI, the three DEP
    programs, just to understand where our mineral reserves are.
        So I am hoping that as you are going forward, you are
    looking at the level of cuts, and you are looking outward to
    say: All right, what is it, where are we going to create
    additional value when we have better understanding? And I think
    we would both agree that being able to identify that is going
    to be really critical for the mission going forward.
        So I don't necessarily need your comment to that other than
    you are nodding and you are giving me a yes there.
        Secretary Burgum. Yes.

                                 NATIONAL PARKS

        Senator Murkowski. So I am good with that. I also
    understand from the discussion here today, a lot of interest
    with what may be forthcoming with regards to the Park Service
    and what it may mean for states to be managing some of these
    assets. I certainly have a lot of questions. I am not quite
    sure which national parks are actually considered crown jewel
    parks. I know what I consider them to be. I just don't know if
    there is a category that says ``crown jewel parks'', and if so,
    where Alaska's parks kind of stack up on this.
        So what I am hearing from you is this is very much in the
    preliminary stages of discussion. As things advance, not only
    the Chair and the Ranking will be brought in, but the many of
    us who have questions in these areas will be read into, to more
    of the details?
        Secretary Burgum. Yes. And quick clarification, the
    national parks with a capital ``N'' capital ``P'', the 63
    National Parks, none of those are under consideration for
    transfer. That would include all the national parks in Alaska.
    Most of these are historic sites, cultural sites that, as you
    said, have got low visitation that is primarily local, that
    might better fit into a state historic society site, or some
    other designation.
        Senator Murkowski. Yeah. Well, it is good to hear that on
    the Alaska side specifically, because, as you know, many of
    these areas are so remote and so very difficult to access that
    if you are just using the metric of how many people have
    visited, you would say: All right, well, yeah, these come off
    the books. But that is not the case. And I appreciate that
    recognition.

                               DOI REPROGRAMMING

        And we have received an official reprogramming request from
    the Department to consolidate, to unify, to optimize a lot of
    the administrative functions. We are still trying to get
    additional details to make an informed decision on the
    reprogramming. So again, as I mentioned at the outset, just the
    opportunity for staffs to be able to sit down and go through
    that level of detail. I don't want to take your valuable time
    on a phone call. This is something that I think both of our
    teams could benefit from, from just a real considered analysis
    of that.

                                INSULAR AFFAIRS

        I want to raise an issue that has not been raised here yet
    today, and this is that section of your portfolio that relates
    to insular affairs. I know that you have got perhaps a special
    and a personal interest in the region, given your father's
    history, but looking at the skinny budget, it really doesn't
    give any insight as to what may happen within the Office of
    Insular Affairs.
        I have had, over the years, built some good relationships
    with folks out there, and I hear their concerns. I met just
    recently with Congresswoman King-Hinds from the Commonwealth of
    Northern Marianas, just talking about their disastrous economic
    conditions out there. I was in Palau in October and talking to
    them about making sure that, again, when we have made
    commitments, as a country, for Federal assistance under certain
    compacts that were there.
        So I don't know if you have any comments, if you have any
    updates in terms of persons that you have identified to head up
    the office. But I just want you to know that while we might not
    talk about it a lot at the committee, we do recognize that this
    is an aspect of Interior that oftentimes is kind of out of
    sight out of mind, and we don't regard that as such.
        Secretary Burgum. I think it was maybe my first week or my
    second week after confirmation, we held a meeting that included
    all the governors and representatives from the countries and
    the islands that we were involved with in insular affairs. We
    also invited Puerto Rico to join that discussion.
        Senator Murkowski. That is right.
        Secretary Burgum. Several of those governors, including
    from Guam, I have had a relationship with through the Western
    Governors Association, and know some of them personally. We
    just, in the last two weeks, got a leader on board, and an
    assistant. One of those folks on that team is from the Mariana
    Islands. That is the first time that we have had someone from
    there. So he has received some press locally back home. I was
    also able to recruit a seasoned, long-time executive from the
    cellular industry, who I have known personally for a long time,
    who helped bring cellular service across all these islands.
        Interestingly, when he came out of law school, he
    interviewed in-person for a Federal judgeship on Palau. And so
    he is familiar with islands, islands' economies, island
    infrastructure, and he is en route right now for his first
    trip. He started two weeks ago, got up to speed, and he is out
    visiting them. And I know that we are going to have a lot of
    intel coming back from that trip.
        This is all very tied into defense. Yes, we have economic
    issues, but China has been working in the oceans on three sides
    of American Samoa. Just this week we announced for the first
    time that we are going to be offering a potential lease sale
    offshore in American Samoa for critical mineral development on
    the seafloor. Again, if we can bring economic activity back to
    support their economy but also assert our rights relative to
    those being U.S. waters versus the activity that China has
    done.
        So I think we are going to be working very closely with the
    Department of Defense. Of course, Guam, as you know, has got a
    huge defense presence for us. But we have neglected some of
    these areas, both economically and strategically, and our
    intention is to make sure that we are--they are all, they are
    all essential for both those reasons, both strategic and
    economic. And we have responsibility, but we take it very
    seriously, and I am excited about the team we are putting in
    place.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate you sharing that.
        I will defer to my colleague now, Senator Merkley.

                         FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS

        Senator Merkley. So here on the committee, when we put into
    law the strategy, we specify several things that are specific
    activities locked into law, but many, many others are in report
    language. And that report language is designed to give the
    administration flexibility. And that creates kind of a dialogue
    about the administration saying: Well, we would like to not do
    that, and do a little more over here, and so on and so forth.
    But it also means that there is a desire for Congress be the--
    to have the thinking behind the report language honored and
    discussed.
        So a spending plan is due to us, and you all provided one,
    and a normal spending plan, and I am just going to show one for
    the Geological Service. This is six pages. And if you want to
    know what we are going to spend on harmful algae blooms, it is
    in here. If you want to know what we are going to do for
    ShakeAlert, which is a tsunami warning system, very, very
    important to us on the West Coast, and so forth, it is all
    here.
        So the spending plan is very, very detailed, giving us
    information both on the things we put into law but also on the
    plan as related to the things we put into report language. When
    we received your spending plan, and I am just using Geological
    Service as an example, it has three lines. It has a total
    amount, which would be found in a normal six-page spending
    plan, and two subaccounts that constitute 12 percent of the
    spending for the Department, which means 88 percent of this
    spending plan, we have no idea what you are going to do now.
        Now let me take ShakeAlert as that example, in Oregon, the
    effort has been extensive, we have earthquakes every year,
    someday we will have a massive one. We had a harbor virtually
    destroyed in Southern Oregon near the boundary of Oregon and
    California from an earthquake that happened in Japan. Because
    of the formation of the underwater mountains it channeled that
    energy right towards that spot across the entire Pacific Ocean.
    So you can imagine if there is a nearby earthquake or a really
    big one, we are in big trouble.
        So our work is kind of at a loss, and all these folks out
    there in all these individual programs are in these six pages.
    They don't know if they are getting funding or not, and yet we
    are nearing the end of the fiscal year. So how do we get from
    what--the two subaccounts that you sent us were ones we had
    locked into law. So technically, you have met the letter of the
    law, but certainly not the spirit of having this dialogue over
    these various programs. And yet we are trying to prepare our
    strategy for next year.
        We always kind of realized if there wasn't a good-faith
    effort to honor the reporting language, we could put every one
    of these sub-lines locked into law. But that takes away the
    flexibility. So it has been a mutually beneficial arrangement.
    When can we get a spending plan that isn't just the two
    subaccounts that constitute only 12 percent of the--and that
    was just the USGS as an example?
        I mean, massive amount of every other part of Interior, it
    is the same story. So if the entire, you know, massive spending
    plan with details versus just--this is the entire Department
    spending plan right here. How do we address this? And what is
    the holdup for getting a vision for all these individual pieces
    that were laid out in what we put into the report language?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, if you talk about the vision, the
    one thing coming in, having spent all those decades in tech and
    specifically around financial and accounting systems, with this
    Federal budgeting process and the tools, it would be very easy
    for us to give you that six-page sheet and just take what is in
    there, increase the number a little bit, hand it to you,
    everybody is familiar with it, and go. But it is the systems
    themselves and the information and how they flow that needs an
    entire overhaul.
        And I know we cannot get it done now, but certainly we are
    taking a look at that as we bring in a new team, a new IT team,
    and because we want to have a collaborative process, we want to
    work with you. We want to do that. But we also want to figure
    out a way to make sure that we are spending dollars and getting
    good return on them. It is not how much we spend it is also the
    results that we get.
        Senator Merkley. So here is the challenge: the spending
    plan is about fiscal year 2025, which started last October 1st.
    So I take the point about as you produce a strategy for a
    detailed budget for fiscal year 2026, for us to have a starting
    point for discussion. But for fiscal year 2025, all of these
    individual programs are going, we cannot be efficient. We are
    suspending our design work. We are suspending our contractors.
    It is all going up in price, all because we can't--we don't
    know if our funds are going to be obliterated because they are
    in the report language. So you could move them from place to
    place.
        And so it is massively inefficient. And what I have heard
    is a theme of your desire is to be efficient. But you have got
    all of these subprograms all operating inefficiently right now
    because you have got people standing around going: We don't
    know what we are doing because we don't have the money, and we
    don't know if we are ever going to get it. How is that a good
    strategy?
        Secretary Burgum. Well, it is a necessary effort that we
    are going through right now. Because you mentioned contractors,
    the explosion in the number of contractors working for
    Interior, go way beyond the 65,000 estimated headcount. And in
    some cases, it appears that we may have team members whose job
    is to manage contractors. And so then it leads us back to, you
    know, is that work that we should be doing ourselves versus
    outsourcing to others? And why the huge increase in contractors
    in the last couple of years? Did we suddenly find that we are
    unable to do this work ourselves?
        So there are a lot of questions that I think would be
    reasonable to ask, because those answers that we will get from
    looking at 2025 help inform what we should put in the budget
    for 2026. You know, what is working, what is not, what is
    efficient, what are we doing internally versus outsourcing. So
    anyway, and with a small staff, we are asking a lot, and I
    think the----
        Senator Merkley. I would take your point looking forward.
    When I ran nonprofits, I tried to do things in-house, not use
    subcontractors at all, because I could do it much more
    efficiently, get much more work done, I had complete control.
    But this is about work that is underway right now being
    interrupted with no idea what is happening, we have no idea how
    many canceled contracts. So that work, that is very
    inefficient. I mean, looking forward to what you want to fund
    next year, I take your point about this analysis.
        But for this fiscal year 2025, what contracts are there
    with all of these to execute the construction work on new
    ShakeAlert, or the new algae research, or what biologists are
    standing by waiting to know if they are going to complete that
    work? And to me, it is horrifically inefficient to interrupt
    all of that work, nobody knowing what is happening. They don't
    know.
        And I understand that technically it is a pause, but it is
    a pause leading to an obliteration of that program, even for
    the things that were in there for fiscal year '25, or so forth.
    Anyway, I want to make that point, that looking to the future,
    huge control by the executive. Looking to fiscal year 2025, I
    am sure there are individual items you are like: Well, we want
    to adjust what we did in fiscal year 2025. And that is why we
    put them into report language rather than locking them into
    law.
        But this is the worst outcome, where we have no idea, and
    all these programs have no idea if they are getting the money.
    So I have heard that OMB has locked this up, preventing you
    from being able to actually give us a spending plan; is that
    correct?
        Secretary Burgum. We are waiting for some of the
    apportionments from OMB, yes.
        Senator Merkley. Can you connect with Mr. Vought and tell
    him this is horrifically inefficient for fiscal year 2025 and
    you need to be able to let these programs operate or not
    operate, be canceled, or get their funding, and not be standing
    around waiting for words and expertise.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, we are in regular communication
    with OMB. And again, I think perhaps when both of you were out
    of the room, at the administration level, last year we spent
    2,000 billion dollars as a government, more than we brought in.
    I mean, that is what two trillion is.
        And so while these numbers may seem small, each of us as a
    department has been asked to do something to help rein in
    spending to get that number. Interest now passes $1 trillion,
    we can get that number down, we can fund everything we have
    talked about here today.
        Senator Merkley. I will say that your spending plan has the
    same amount, for example, for the Geological Service, as we put
    in. So you are not saving a damn dime. What you are doing is
    interrupting every subaccount and every team that is working on
    these different projects. So again, looking forward, I take
    your point. Looking at fiscal year 2025, I do not.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, respectfully, they are connected,
    because understanding, for me to decide whether they should be
    in the budget for 2026, I need to know what they are actually
    doing in 2025, and whether we are doing it ourselves or doing
    it with a contractor. So while you are saying they are not
    connected, I think they are completely connected in terms of us
    having information about how we--what would we fund going
    forward based on what we learn about this year's
    appropriations.
        Senator Merkley. Well, it is hard to learn much about this
    year if you don't ever get a spending plan implemented, and the
    year is over or half gone. It ends on September 30th. For
    example, the Whitewater Conservation----
        Secretary Burgum. But you are not saying that this is not
    intentional. I mean, this is like we came in during the middle
    of the fiscal year. I mean, this is a transition year. This
    must happen in the Government every 4 years.
        Senator Merkley. Actually, we get a much more detailed
    spending plan from other administrations in transition. This is
    a rare exception. I will just give----
        Secretary Burgum. Oh. This is the first administration that
    is actually trying to reduce spending instead of increase it.
    So maybe that is the difference.
        Senator Merkley. Well, you are not the first administration
    that has looked for efficiencies, but my point is you are
    creating vast inefficiencies while you are bragging about doing
    efficiencies. And therefore, you really need to be honest with
    the American public about the damage you are doing to the
    institutional knowledge and the fact that people are standing
    around waiting for their funding, not knowing that projects are
    interrupted and they are going up in cost.
        All of these are not factors you should be bragging about
    to the American people, because they are inefficiencies. They
    are wasting our American money. Look to fiscal year 2026, see
    your changes that you want, but don't come here and tell us
    that by interrupting programs and running up costs that you are
    doing something efficient.
        Senator Murkowski. I think that telling.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, and I just want to be clear, I am
    not bragging about anything. There is no bragging going on. I
    mean, we all share this. We are all Americans, and we are all
    facing the same overspending problem.
        Senator Merkley. I just heard you say that you are the only
    folks in the history of the country that have looked to create
    lower costs. That is just not true. And so you are bragging
    about that, but you are disrupting programs and making them
    less efficient.
        I am going to turn this back to the Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. I think the point that needs to be
    made here is when we are dealing with a full-year CR, which in
    my view was an awful alternative, it was the one that helped us
    avoid a Government shutdown, which was a worse alternative, but
    you are stuck with the proposal. We are stuck with not knowing
    how you are going to implement it. And it goes back to what I
    have asked for, and I think the ranking member is suggesting
    that we have all got to have more detail to it.
        And I would agree, you need to be clearly focused on what
    is happening with fiscal year 2026, but we cannot ignore where
    we are with fiscal year 2025. And our job as appropriators here
    is not insignificant. We are still the ones that, ultimately,
    we have made that determination at the executive. Your role is
    to implement it. And so how we get through this fiscal year
    225, I think, is the frustration that my colleague has pointed
    to. I share it. This is why we have asked about the
    reprogramming.
        What we need is to have just more openness, more detail.
    And I get the fact that it is really hard to be able to provide
    that when you don't have your folks. So we are in an awful
    spot. The best way that we can remedy things is just for
    everybody to recognize this is not a place where anybody wants
    to be. It is a challenge and a transition. I don't think most
    transitions from one administration to another are quite as
    rocky, because typically we don't leave you with a long-term
    CR. You are able to walk in and know what the game plan is. And
    there may be minor reprogramming, but nothing to the extent
    that we are seeing now.

                           PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

        So our second vote has started, and I think we are well
    into that. I had more things that I wanted to raise on the
    public safety and justice side. I worry about tribal
    governments competing for grants within DOJ or Homeland. As you
    well know, coming from your states, you have certain tribes
    that just have greater capacity to compete for such funds. And
    so we don't want this to be a situation where it is only the
    most sophisticated and the wealthy tribes that are able to gain
    access to this.

                                 ALASKA ISSUES

        I am also worried about whether the reduction in the safety
    and justice line assumes a reduction in funding for PL280
    states, which is Alaska's situation. So I would love to have
    more conversations with you on that. I think we have raised the
    issue of BIA probate enough so that you know how much of a
    priority that is and making sure that we can really help to
    expedite that.
        I am going to end my comments with just again, I think
    there is an excitement from folks in my state that not only you
    are coming to the state in a couple weeks, but Secretary
    Wright, as well as Administrator Zeldin. I kind of gave you a
    pass on what can we expect when you come up. You can deliver
    that at the time. But I think that there is a lot of
    anticipation about what the executive order is actually going
    to translate to in terms of forward momentum that we can
    actually see. What is it going to mean in terms of jobs, in
    terms of projects moving forward?
        And I know that you are working aggressively to that, and
    believe me, it is appreciated. There are so many things within
    this budget, and I think as a governor who gets budgets, and a
    businessman who gets budgets, you recognize this is a massive
    undertaking. I think that is why the President asked you to
    take it on, because he knew of the expertise that you bring to
    the table. But regardless of how good you are, you need folks
    to help you make it happen.
        So view us as partners here, helping to facilitate what you
    are trying to do. We can help you on the appropriations end,
    and that is certainly my desire.
        And with that, Senator Merkley, have you had any finals, we
    are ready to close out.

                              WILDAND FIRE BUDGET

        Senator Merkley. A closing question. The President's budget
    proposes to jettison parts of the Forest Service and put it
    into the Department of the Interior related to a different
    structure for fighting fires. And the question I have is
    whether that is a proposal for us to consider legislatively, or
    if you believe you can make that reorganization without us
    acting legislatively?
        Secretary Burgum. I don't think we have a conclusive answer
    yet on that. If we find that it is something that we think has
    got deep merit that requires legislative action, we will
    certainly be working with you on that. If it is something that
    we think deserves merit and we can execute it between Brooke
    Rollins and I moving forward, we will do it the way that we can
    get the most efficiency. You know, we do have some good
    collaboration going on at the National Interagency Coordination
    Incident Center in Idaho.
        I mean, that is a good thing. But we have got four
    different wildland firefighting units in Interior. We have got
    one inside the Forest Service. We don't even have the same pay
    scales. You know, the Forest Service people have a casualty
    thing if they are killed in action, or if they are seriously
    injured. That doesn't exist for BIA firefighters.
        So we have got to figure out a way to get some unification.
    It doesn't mean moving people around, but we have got to get
    some things where we have a national force that is nationally
    coordinated. You know, last year we had a 124,000-acre fire in
    North Dakota. Sadly, two people died. And we were calling for
    Federal air support on Saturday morning, and the planes arrived
    on Tuesday. And there were planes available, but it was the--
    you know, the bureaucracy of decisionmaking and the layers that
    are there. And so I think that there are places where we can
    absolutely streamline.
        Brooke Rollins and I held a joint event yesterday. We did a
    fire incident briefing together at the U.S. Forest Service.
    That has never happened before. And so whether it is making
    sure that we are providing support to those critical people,
    the frontline firefighters, all the way up through the top of
    both agencies, and both Departments. We are going to make sure
    that we have got the best wildland firefighting coordination
    than ever before.
        And when we put that all together, then we may come back
    and go: Man, we are short. We need more aircraft. We need more
    places. We need more people. But one thing for sure we need is
    more fire load management, because we are spending way too much
    money on the back end. I know this as being Vice Chair and
    Chair of Western Governors, we talked about fire every year for
    8 years, and when the fuel load is building, the fires are
    getting bigger, we have got to figure out a way to get more.

                                 REORGANIZATION

        Senator Merkley. Let me say thank you for that detail. And
    here is the point, is that we are all for coordination, we are
    all for efficiency. But I think it is the opinion of Members of
    Congress that when you have an organization established in law,
    changing that organization requires a change in law. We have
    seen a number of agencies affected profoundly in ways that were
    not consistent with law. So do the planning. Send us a
    proposal. I think we should wrestle with it. We want the fire
    service to be as effective as possible. It is so critical to
    certainly both of our states and the entire West.
        But what we don't want is something done without due
    consideration that creates more problems than it solves. And we
    don't want to do something that breaks the Constitutional
    separation of powers. I guarantee you that will end up in
    court, and there will be pieces of that that result in more
    difficulty than a two-day delay on planes, which is a big issue
    for sure. But what if we produce a seven-day delay as a result
    of a poorly crafted, poorly considered reorganization? So bring
    us the reorganization plan. Let us do this the right way.
        Secretary Burgum. Well, we look forward to working with
    you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Douglas Burgum
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
        Question. Given the severe and ongoing staffing reductions within
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--including a reduction of over 40%
    at the Columbia River Gorge Hatchery Complex--and the May 2, 2025
    ``Personnel Actions Freeze'' memorandum prohibiting new hires,
    reassignments, and changes in duty stations, how does the Department
    specifically plan to meet its legal and trust obligations under
    congressional mandates, Federal court orders--such as the 2018-2027
    United States v. Oregon Consent Decree--and Treaty commitments to
    Columbia Basin Tribes?
        Specifically, how will the Department ensure continued operation of
    critical fish hatcheries that support endangered salmon and steelhead
    recovery efforts and fulfill the Treaty-reserved fishing rights of the
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Community of Oregon,
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Yakama Indian
    Reservation, and Nez Perce Tribes?
        Answer. Working together with the affected Tribes, FWS is
    undertaking a multi-phased effort to ensure continuity of operations at
    the Columbia River Gorge Complex, in accordance with the US v. Oregon
    Consent Decree. We are maintaining fish welfare and meeting salmon
    production targets with current FWS staffing. When activities, such as
    spawning, require additional staff, FWS is working with the US v.
    Oregon Parties to solicit additional help from States and Tribes. FWS
    continues to hire seasonal employees to implement its mission as it
    embraces new opportunities for optimization and innovation in workforce
    management.
        Question. The Tribes have indicated that current staffing levels
    are insufficient to maintain operations, and Tribal governments are
    being forced to compensate for Federal shortfalls at their own expense.
    How does the Federal Government plan to reimburse the Tribes for the
    staff and other resources that they are using to cover the Federal
    Government's shortfall?
        Answer. FWS is undertaking a multi-phased effort to ensure
    continuity of operations at the Columbia River Gorge Complex. We are
    maintaining fish welfare and meeting salmon production targets with
    current FWS staffing. FWS continues to hire seasonal employees to
    assist with peak spawning season. FWS has not requested nor received
    funding from Tribes for our hatchery operations. Questions about
    compensation to Tribes are best addressed by NOAA, which has the lead
    for distribution of mitigation funds under the US v. Oregon Consent
    Decree.
        Question. I am aware that the Department prematurely opened a
    Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Deferred Resignation
    Program (DRP) portal for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff from May 9-16,
    2025, before the scheduled Tribal consultations on ``Workforce
    Optimization'' had even begun. This occurred amidst growing concern
    that these actions are prelude to a significant Reduction in Force
    (RIF), which has not been shared with Congress.
        What explanation can you provide for taking action to reduce the
    BIA workforce before engaging in Tribal consultation?
        Answer. The Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program (DRP) and
    Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) are voluntary and effective
    tools to allow Indian Affairs to implement workforce efficiency
    strategies. We conducted the DRP/VERA as many Indian Affairs employees
    expressed interest in this voluntary opportunity. Once consultation is
    complete and the written comment period has ended, Indian Affairs will
    develop a consultation summary before developing a reorganization plan
    for workforce efficiency. It is important to note the DRP/VERA
    implementation is distinct from a Reduction in Force.
        Question. How does the Department reconcile this legal and moral
    obligation to engage in meaningful government-to-government
    consultation with Tribes, particularly when these workforce reductions
    will directly undermine the already under-resourced BIA's ability to
    meet treaty and trust responsibilities?
        Answer. The Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program (DRP) and
    Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) are voluntary and effective
    tools and are distinct from broader reorganizations or workforce
    efficiency strategies. Critical occupations in areas including public
    safety which includes law enforcement, social services, and engineering
    positions for infrastructure, were exempted from participation in the
    DRP. Other areas like realty functions related to permitting were also
    excluded. As Indian Affairs moves forward with workforce efficiency
    planning following consultation, we will continue to evaluate
    appropriate program staffing levels.
        Question. Given the Department of the Interior's solemn obligation
    to uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities to
    Tribes--including the duty to conduct early, meaningful, and robust
    government-to-government consultation--why has the Department failed to
    schedule an in-person Tribal consultation in the Pacific Northwest, a
    region home to many federally recognized Tribes likely to be
    significantly impacted by the proposed restructuring of Indian Affairs?
        Answer. The Department has conducted nine total consultations,
    seven in-person and two virtual. All the in-person consultations
    (except Bismarck, ND) supported a virtual participation capability so
    that Tribal leaders could provide input at any of the consultations.
    Northwest Tribal leaders participated in multiple sessions both in
    person and virtually.
        Question. Further, will Tribes be provided a genuine and fully
    informed opportunity to engage in additional consultation once a
    detailed restructuring plan is available, rather than being asked to
    respond to sweeping changes they have not seen, through an expedited
    and seemingly procedural process that risks undermining the trust
    relationship and the Department's legal obligations?
        Answer. Tribal consultation will be conducted consistent with
    standards required by law and as needed to uphold the Department's
    trust responsibility. The Department will continue fulfilling its
    longstanding commitment to consult with Tribes as we work through
    designing and implementing program improvements and efficiencies.
        Question. Tribal law enforcement programs under the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) are critically underfunded and understaffed,
    especially in Public Law 83-280 States like Oregon where jurisdictional
    challenges complicate public safety efforts. The Department's proposed
    ``skinny budget'' recommends cutting $107 million from BIA Public
    Safety and Justice programs to ``reduce redundancies'' and ``improve
    accountability,'' a move that risks undermining the safety of Tribal
    communities and the Federal trust responsibility.
        Given and that the FBI proposed a similar reduction in funding for
    any program that could support this effort, how does the Department
    plan to ensure that the BIA Office of Justice Services can deliver
    meaningful improvements in accountability and service to Tribal
    communities facing chronic resource shortages?
        Answer. Reducing redundancies in management to make the service
    more efficient will allow available resources to be shifted to needed
    ``Boots on the Ground'' and prioritize the critical frontline vacancies
    across Indian Country. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice
    Services evaluating Central Office functions such as the Division of
    Drug Enforcement, Missing and Murdered Unit, and Internal Affairs to
    more respond to Tribal needs and emergency situations.
        Question. Will you commit to working with Tribes to fully assess
    and address Tribal law enforcement's true funding needs before
    implementing cuts that could further jeopardize public safety?
        Answer. The Department will continue to fulfill our longstanding
    commitment to consult regularly with Tribes as we work through
    designing and implementing program improvements and efficiencies.
        Question. Given that the Department's proposed Reduction in Force
    may disproportionately impact key personnel at the Bureau of
    Reclamation's (BOR's) Umatilla Field Office in Hermiston--which manages
    critical infrastructure such as McKay and Cold Springs Reservoirs,
    diversion dams, and pumping plants essential to the congressionally
    authorized Umatilla Basin Project, a unique collaborative effort
    involving the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
    the State of Oregon, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bonneville Power
    Administration, BOR, and local irrigation districts that supports both
    irrigated agriculture and fisheries restoration--what steps is the
    Department taking to ensure this office retains adequate staffing and
    resources to maintain reliable water delivery to farmers, support
    fisheries restoration efforts, and protect the economic health of the
    Umatilla Basin without disruption to irrigators, Tribal partners, and
    environmental restoration?
        Will the Department commit to consulting closely with the
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, local
    irrigation districts, and other stakeholders to assess and address
    current and future staffing or resource gaps at the Umatilla Field
    Office before implementing any additional reductions, to ensure the
    continued success of this vital collaborative project and prevent
    negative impacts on both agricultural and environmental priorities in
    the basin?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior recognizes the importance of
    managing infrastructure critical to the Umatilla Basin Project, which
    supports irrigated agriculture, Tribal partnerships, and fisheries
    restoration. The Department is committed to meeting its trust and
    treaty responsibilities and to working closely with Tribal, State and
    local partners and stakeholders as we move forward on implementing
    efficiencies as we meet our mission requirements.
        We note that the Umatilla Project sees an increase in the
    President's FY 2026 Budget compared to FY 2025 ($85K).
        Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, it is essential that our
    public lands remain in public hands, so they are accessible to all
    Americans, both now and in the future. Will you state your position on
    whether the Department has the authority for the disposal or sale of
    public lands without an opportunity for public input or without
    following the Federal land use planning processes required by the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act, and other statutory authorities?
        Answer. Quite simply, any sale or disposal of Federal lands under
    the current jurisdiction of the Department will be done in accordance
    with law.
        Question. I want to ascertain the Department's readiness for the
    2025 fire season:
        On May 21, 2025, what was the total number of wildland firefighters
    by bureau? What was the number of employees holding ``red cards''?
    Please include employees that have accepted employment offers as of
    that date, even if the first day of employment had not yet occurred.
        Answer. The Department is ready for the 2025 fire season. As of May
    21, 2025, Interior had a total 4,571 wildland fire personnel, including
    firefighters and support personnel who are critical to incident
    response and other important wildland fire management.
        The total number of employees qualified to respond to wildfires
    (i.e., those who hold ``red cards'') as of May 21, 2025, was 7,109.
    This number includes Interior's public safety personnel (e.g., law
    enforcement officers), as well as wildland firefighters and support
    personnel. It also includes personnel who support wildfire incident
    response as a collateral duty when called upon.
        Between January 20 and May 21, 2025, 2,504 people accepted offers
    of employment from Interior's wildland fire management program.
        Question. On May 21, 2024, what was the total number of wildland
    firefighters by bureau? What was the number of employees holding ``red
    cards''? Please include employees that have accepted employment offers
    as of that date, even if the first day of employment had not yet
    occurred.
        Answer. As of May 21, 2024, Interior had a total 4,839 wildland
    fire personnel, including firefighters and support personnel who are
    critical to incident response and other important wildland fire
    management.
        The total number of employees qualified to respond to wildfires
    (i.e., those who hold ``red cards'') as of May 21, 2024, was 6,454.
    This number includes Interior's public safety personnel (e.g., law
    enforcement officers), as well as wildland firefighters and support
    personnel. It also includes personnel who support wildfire incident
    response as a collateral duty when called upon.
        Between January 20 and May 21, 2024, 3,045 people accepted offers
    of employment from Interior's wildland fire management program.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. In order to have robust waterfowl populations in the
    United States that can be sustainably hunted, waterfowl need intact
    stopover and breeding habitat across the continent. The North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) supports this effort. When will the
    Department release frozen NAWCA funding?
        Answer. The Department is currently reviewing grant funding to
    ensure alignment with Administration priorities.
        Question. The President's proposed budget cuts include steep
    reductions in funding for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). How will
    the Bird Banding Lab continue to function amidst these cuts and the
    plan to fire approximately 1,000 USGS staff?
        Answer. The 2026 Budget does not request funding for the Bird
    Banding Lab in order for the bureau to focus on core mission
    activities.
        Question. The USGS partners with the Department of Agriculture to
    study Chronic Wasting Disease's (CWD) transmission and distribution.
    Given the drastic cuts to the USGS budget, how will the Department
    continue to manage the spread of CWD so that sportsmen know their local
    deer and elk populations are not at risk?
        Answer. The 2026 Budget does not request funding for the Ecosystems
    Mission Area in order for USGS to focus on core mission activities. The
    Department recognizes Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a significant
    concern to sportsmen and wildlife managers. The Department is committed
    to working with State and Federal agencies, and other partners to
    facilitate consensus-based actions to address CWD.
        Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stopped all
    international law enforcement activity that combats wildlife
    trafficking and poaching. What analysis did the Fish and Wildlife
    Service do before deciding to abandon all monitoring and prevention of
    zoonotic disease spillover caused by illegal wildlife trafficking and
    poaching?
        Answer. The FWS has not stopped law enforcement activity that
    protects wildlife and plan resources in accordance with the laws of the
    United States and international treaties. The FWS continues to
    implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
    of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which addresses issues related to the
    illegal trade of wildlife and plants within the CITES framework, and to
    participate in various CITES committees and working groups. At U.S.
    borders and points of entry, the FWS's Office of Law Enforcement
    (OLE)'s wildlife inspectors and K9 teams actively monitor and interdict
    illegal wildlife trade and zoonotic pathogens shipments, including
    those in transit. FWS wildlife inspectors ensure that shipments comply
    with Federal laws related to humane transport and conduct proactive
    enforcement operations with FWS special agents and interagency
    partners. OLE special agents and attaches continue to play a pivotal
    role in enforcing Federal wildlife statutes, protecting native species
    from exploitation, and training law enforcement officials at various
    levels, all while working to prevent zoonotic disease spillover from
    the illegal wildlife trade.
        Question. The Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
    contributes $17 million to the local economy and welcomed over 300,000
    visitors in a year--in large part due to the Festival of the Cranes.
    And every fall, the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge hosts the
    Dragonfly festival. Yet, neither of them has enough staff to operate
    the refuges, let alone host the festival, which brings visitors from
    all over the world. These refuges are crucial for habitat, wildlife,
    and local economies.
        Please provide a list of all terminated Fish and Wildlife Service
    Refuge System positions and locations, and a list of all remaining
    Refuge System positions and locations.
        Answer. The Administration's goal is to make the Federal Government
    more efficient and accountable. As I have previously noted, Department
    employees have not been terminated. Employees who have elected to
    participate in the Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program or Voluntary
    Early Retirement Authority have done so voluntarily. The Department
    looks forward to continuing to meet our mission while implementing
    workforce efficiency strategies.
        Question. Will you commit to working with my office to ensure that
    these refuges are appropriately funded and staffed to benefit local
    economies, promote tourism, and create jobs?
        Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring the National
    Wildlife Refuge System is appropriately funded and staffed to carry out
    its core mission. We would be happy to work with you to that end.

                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. The Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) line item in
    the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill helps fulfill Federal
    treaty, trust, and contract obligations to Tribes. In the Great Lakes
    region, the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission implements
    comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law
    enforcement programs.
        The Continuing Resolution did not allow the RPI line item to keep
    up with inflation and cost-of living increases. Shortfalls in funding
    have impacted the commission's conservation law enforcement division,
    which has led to a 45% warden vacancy rate within the Great Lakes
    Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission and has made it impossible to compete
    with State and Federal counterparts.
        Will your budget include funding for the Rights Protection
    Implementation to cover the current cost of full implementation?
        Answer. While future funding levels remain to be determined, it is
    notable that the Rights Protection Implementation line item has
    increased in funding by 22.2% (+$8.9M) during the most recent 5-year
    timeframe from FY 2019 through FY 2024.

                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
        Question. Mr. Secretary, 2 months ago Congress passed and President
    Trump signed into law the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2025.
    That bill included important funding for State and Tribal historic
    preservation offices (SHPOs and THPOs) through the Historic
    Preservation Fund. This funding enables these offices to fulfill their
    federally mandated duties, including supporting the listing of sites on
    the National Register, facilitating Historic Tax Credit projects and
    helping Federal agencies meet their obligations under the National
    Historic Preservation Act.
        However, the Department has yet to release a notice of funding
    opportunity (NOFO) for State and Tribal historic preservation offices
    to apply for these funds. For SHPOs, this situation has become dire:
    with many States' fiscal years ending in June, some State offices
    already have had to lay staff off. Important preservation projects are
    being delayed. As a result, States and Tribes face the possibility of
    losing parts of their history.
        I understand that the NOFO is currently awaiting approval at OMB
    and OPM. What steps will you take to make sure that the NOFO is
    approved immediately so that State and Tribal preservation offices can
    continue performing their critical--and federally required--work to
    preserve and protect our heritage? And can you commit to a date when
    our Nation's SHPOs and THPOs will see this year's NOFO?
        Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing with the Appropriations
    Committees, we are in regular communication with OMB on executing the
    funding provided in the FY 2025 appropriations act.
        Question. As you are aware, 2026 will be the 250th anniversary of
    the American Revolution and our Nation's founding. This event, the
    semiquincentennial, is a momentous occasion to celebrate our Nation's
    founding and the historic sites-like those in New York-that memorialize
    those events.
        For the last several years in preparation for this event, this
    subcommittee has appropriated funding within the National Park
    Service's Historic Preservation Fund specifically set aside for grants
    to sites associated with the Nation's 250th anniversary. The
    Semiquincentennial Grant Program has funded important preservation
    projects in New York like rehabilitation of Old Fort Niagara and
    restoration of the original meeting house of the New York Senate. The
    administration's ``skinny'' budget would essentially gut the Historic
    Preservation Fund, and if enacted presumably take with it this vital
    program.
        What do you envision as the Department of the Interior and National
    Park Service's role in facilitating the commemoration of the 250th
    anniversary of the Nation's founding? How does the Historic
    Preservation Fund-as the Nation's main source investment in
    preservation of historic places-figure into that vision?
        Answer. As the proud steward of America's treasured historical
    places, the National Park Service joins the Nation in celebrating the
    250th anniversary of American independence in 2026. From Independence
    Hall in Philadelphia to the Statue of Liberty in New York, at
    Revolutionary War battlefields from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown,
    and at monuments and memorials honoring our Nation's founders, national
    parks across the country will serve the American people by embracing
    our mission to provide opportunities for the enjoyment, education, and
    inspiration of this and future generations.
        As you noted, the Semiquincentennial grant program was created by
    Congress in 2020 to support the preservation of sites and structures
    listed on the National Register of Historic Places that commemorate the
    founding of the Nation. Appropriated funds support the physical
    preservation of a broad variety of cultural resources associated with
    the country's 250th anniversary. To date, $27 million has been awarded
    for 56 projects in 18 States, with another $7 million in awards to be
    distributed this year.
        The legislation establishing the America250 Commission emphasizes
    engagement in four cities with a significant NPS presence. The NPS is
    planning programs and events in these cities. A Community Volunteer
    Ambassador in each city will work with parks and communities to enrich
    efforts to educate and inspire. The NPS is also supporting and planning
    activities on the National Mall and in the Washington, D.C. area and at
    Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Many of the Signature Cities are also
    host sites for the World Cup, including places like Liberty State Park
    in New York City, adjacent to the Statue of Liberty.

        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. We all want to get fire right because we
    are all impacted.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Murkowski. With that, the committee stands
    adjourned. And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                       APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Rounds, Merkley,
    Murray, Van Hollen, and Heinrich.

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

    STATEMENT OF MR. TOM SCHULTZ, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST
                SERVICE

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning. We call to order this
    meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies.
        Chief, it is good to have you here before the committee
    today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 Budget
    Request for the United States Forest Service. We appreciate you
    joining us. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to visit
    with you earlier about, not only the important work that the
    Forest Service does around the country, but what it means to us
    in Alaska.
        But it is a clearly an important role when we think about
    supporting our nation's timber and mineral industry, providing
    recreational opportunities to tens of millions of Americans,
    generating billions of dollars in economic output. So again,
    thank you for the chance to talk to you about many of these
    things, everything from wildfire, to timber, to recreation,
    workforce. It was good. It was a good conversation.
        The President's budget request proposes a drastic
    reorganization of our nation's wildfire capabilities. It
    transfers the bulk of the wildfire personnel and activities
    from the Forest Service to a newly created U.S. Wildland Fire
    Service located within the Department of Interior.
        So this subcommittee has always, always paid a great deal
    of attention to wildfire preparedness and suppression, we do it
    on a very bipartisan basis. This is one of those things that we
    all come to the table to talk about. And yet our forests
    continue to struggle. The costs keep escalating. And so I agree
    the problem calls out for new ideas, for greater efficiency,
    but I am concerned about the proposal that we have because it
    upends your agency and its relationship to fire and forest
    management.
        And for all I know, it may be a good thing. This may be
    exactly the right approach, but I would like to hear from you
    today about how the administration envisions this whole
    restructuring working, and really what it means to the Forest
    Service as an agency.
        At the same time that we are having this hearing, Secretary
    Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, is over at the Energy
    Committee in a Full Committee Hearing, and these are the same
    kinds of questions that he is getting. So I am going to have a
    chance--I think both of us are going to be popping in and out
    of various committees here this morning, but that is one of the
    things that I want to ask the Secretary about.
        The President has also set out an ambitious agenda on
    natural resources development, including focusing on increased
    timber production and mineral development from our nation's
    forests. Now, I am supportive of the endeavor. We want to be a
    partner in achieving many of these goals, but it is not you and
    I that are going to make that happen. It is going to be
    workforce capacity, and that is something that I continue to
    have concerns about.
        Turning to Alaska and resource development, I want to thank
    President Trump and you for recognizing Alaska's amazing
    natural resource potential. We have got our Alaska-Specific
    Executive Order. There are other EOs nationally that we can
    benefit from, including the one on timber.
        You know we have had this conversation, Alaska hosts two
    national forests, they just happen to be the largest in our
    country, and yet, the Chugach doesn't even have an allowable
    sale quantity for timber. The Tongass's is so dismal it
    probably ranks last in the nation. So whatever we can do to
    bolster our nation's timber production would be important to my
    home state.
        We have also got major mineral potential, but without some
    level of flexibility within the Roadless Rule, it is almost
    impossible to realize that. So we fight this view or this
    perspective that some have, that our state is just some giant
    national park, some wilderness area that needs to be viewed
    from afar and not to touched. So we want to work with you on
    some of these things.
        The Forest Service National Forest System also plays a very
    key role in recreation and tourism, of course. Record
    visitation levels to our public lands, we want to encourage
    that, but it is imperative that we not discount the economic
    impacts that this can have on the economies of our local rural
    communities. I think it is critical that the Forest Service
    assets, like trails and public-use cabins, visitors' center,
    have the staffing that they need to do right by these public
    facilities.
        We have really got to have a better understanding of the
    role that the Tongass plays in all of this. Forest Service
    really holds the key to the entire region's economy, as I
    shared with you, this is in part of the state where I was born,
    I spent my early years, right up until high school living in
    this southeastern area. It is all--every community is in the
    Tongass National Forest. We are surrounded by our national
    forest. I was born in the Tongass National Forest. Just 1
    percent of this part of the state is in private hands.
        National forest, and everything from local tour guide
    permits, subsistence activities, issuance of and maintaining of
    utility right-of-ways, economic development, these are all
    contingent on us having a Federal partner who is willing to
    work with the people and the industries who live and work in
    the region.
        A failure by the Service to maintain routine business
    operations, whether through inadequate staffing or budget, I
    think is an abdication of responsibility. And it doesn't do
    anything except punish the communities and the citizens who
    live in or near our national forests, and restrict their
    economic opportunities.
        I have shared the story with you of Mendenhall Glacier.
    This is managed by our National Forest Service. It is one of
    our most popular tourist attractions in Southeast Alaska,
    receiving over a million visitors in 2023 and more than 25,000
    visitors daily during the summer period. This is so critical to
    the City and Borough of Juneau. We have got a great working
    relationship with the Tlingit & Haida Tribes, they are there at
    Mendenhall with a co-stewardship agreement with the Forest
    Service. That is really important.
        I was there just a few weeks ago out at the visitors center
    and talked with one of your great Forest Service employees, and
    I have to tell you the morale is shot. People are trying to
    figure it out, and they are doing good work, and they are proud
    of the work that they are doing, but it is hard on them right
    now.
        I am also concerned about other aspects of the budget
    proposal, the proposed elimination of the State, Private, and
    Local Forestry as well as Forest Rangeland Research accounts. I
    get the fact that we have got to make some hard budgetary
    decisions as we are dealing with deficits, but I think that
    there are many members of this committee who feel strongly
    about some of the programs within those accounts. I for one
    don't understand the cuts to State and Volunteer Fire Capacity
    grants.
        This helps bolster the fire response in so many rural areas
    of the country. I think oftentimes the beneficiaries of these
    funds are the initial responders to fires that occur on Federal
    lands. So it seems to me that cuts like this actually run
    counter to the committee's continued push to increase our
    wildfire resilience and response.
        I am also concerned the budget proposes to reduce the
    Service's capacity to work cooperatively with states, tribes,
    and local governments on the issue of invasive species. And
    that is something again we talk a lot about on a bipartisan
    basis here, because invasive species don't recognize property
    boundaries. They don't care whether you are a red state or a
    blue state. We are seeing the threat of these invasive insects
    and pests threaten the health of our Nation's forests and
    grasslands.
        I think the Forest Service has been a great partner to many
    of the states and our local communities that face these
    threats, and the elimination of these programs in the Forest
    Service proposed budget has left the same states and
    communities struggling to understand how they are going to be
    able to do this alone.
        I don't want to just be all about complaining. I am noting
    the challenges that we have within the budget. I know you know
    it. And that is why I am pleased that you are here with the
    Forest Service. I am looking forward to just kind of having a
    shift in attitude about what is going on in Alaska. I want
    people back home to view the Forest Service as a willing
    partner, a partner with us in so many of these endeavors that
    are so important to our extraordinary public lands.
        I look forward to your comments here this morning, and
    again your continued partnership.
        And with that, I turn to my colleague from Oregon, the
    Ranking Member Senator Merkley.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And thank you, Chief Schultz. The Forest Service manages a
    lot of land, 193 million acres of national forests and
    grasslands, and we certainly have a lot of those forests in my
    home state. People say: Well, how did you get so many forests?
    Well, this is where God planted the trees, in my state of
    Oregon. And so we grow up hiking, camping, being in the forest
    every second we can, and so they are very near and dear to our
    heart.
        You have a responsibility to work with states and
    stakeholders to lead the research and develop the tools that
    improve the health of trees from the backcountry to the urban
    landscape, and to meet the challenges of invasive pests and new
    diseases, urban heat domes, and wildfires. Many of these
    challenges, they don't respect state boundaries; sudden oak
    death, bark beetles, wildfires, they are not local problems,
    they are national, and we need a national strategy.
        Now, the Chief of the Forest Service, it is an appointed
    position, not a nomination, so it is not confirmed by the
    Senate, and is typically filled by a person who has served in
    the Forest Service and who understands the motto of the Forest
    Service, Caring for the Land and Serving the People, which I
    believe you do.
        However, this administration is making it exceedingly
    difficult to achieve these worthy goals. There are folks in
    this administration who want the American people to believe
    that public lands are mismanaged, to cut personnel and funding
    so they will be mismanaged, and to sell them off to the highest
    bidder. That is hardly caring for the land and serving the
    people. That is more like serving the powerful and selling off
    the lands. That is certainly not the motto of the Forest
    Service.
        So here we have a budget that proposes to decimate a
    dedicated workforce, to slash established environmental
    standards, protect profits of oil and gas companies instead of
    protecting habitats and watersheds. This budget cancels funds
    to develop techniques to neutralize invasive species that
    threaten our forests. Cancels funds to help Federal officials,
    states, and private landowners partner together across a
    patchwork of jurisdictions to improve forest health. Cancels
    funds for removing decades-old unused logging roads that harm
    salmon runs, degrade watersheds, and cause landslides. Cancels
    funds for supporting collaboration between environmentalists
    and timber companies to ensure that logging and fuels projects
    meet all of a communities' needs.
        These are just a few of the many program cancellations and
    deep cuts in this budget. And I am certainly alarmed by the
    cuts to the wildfire programs. The administration has already
    frozen funds and threatened to impound funds for wildfire fuels
    reduction and Community Wildfire Defense Grants and this
    administration terminated probationary employees who held red
    cards, meaning that they had firefighting expertise.
        This administration forced voluntary separation on senior
    wildland fire staff, only to recognize they needed to scramble
    to hire some of them back with financial incentives just in
    time for fire season.
        I was briefed by Federal, state, and local officials on the
    upcoming wildfire season in Oregon, on May 30th, and the basic
    bottom line: this year is going to be hotter, and it is going
    to be drier than last year, if the forecast is right. Last year
    we had a record number of acres burn in my state. Those acres,
    the bad fires, came earlier. We were fortunate, therefore,
    because we had folks come from other states to help us out, and
    then later in the season we were able to send folks to help out
    in other states.
        But what happens if those fires are all happening all at
    once? And what happens if that longer, hotter, drier summer
    produces more fires than last year? Instead of investing more
    in wildfire prevention and firefighting, this budget slashes
    those investments. No funds for research on climate chaos to
    understand how to reduce wildfire risk. No funds to help
    volunteers in rural fire departments with training and
    equipment.
        Instead of slashing these programs, we should be investing,
    investing in good science, investing in good neighbor
    cooperation, investing in good management of our forests and
    watersheds. To reach these goals, one of the most effective
    programs we have is the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program. It brings together public officials,
    environmental advocates, timber industry, and local
    stakeholders to encourage effective forest management that
    reduces wildfire risk while delivering sawlogs to the mill.
        Now, this particular program is an example of solving a
    problem. One problem was very hard to get stakeholders who had
    opposing views into the room to work together. And another
    problem is that timber sales were all ending up in the courts.
        Well, this program has brought people together across the
    stakeholder community to work together, to work out what they
    refer to as prescriptions for the forest. The result has been
    more forest health and more sawlogs to the mill. It has been a
    win-win. And your budget kills the program. A major solution to
    two significant problems, and your budget kills the program.
        It is bipartisan. Senator Risch, Senator Daines, Senator
    Crapo, all Republicans, Idaho and Montana. Senator Wyden,
    myself, Senator Bennet, Colorado and Oregon. Bipartisan,
    ``Blue'' and ``Red'' working together to solve these problems,
    and your budget kills the program.
        That is disturbing, to say the least. What would we do if
    this budget actually became law. If we just implemented it the
    way it is, it would be massive damage to our forests. We have
    to do better. We have to continue important research, we have
    to continue meaningful collaboration with states and
    stakeholders. We have to have real investment in forest
    management. We have to have the right staff, the experienced
    staff who know what they are doing to deliver the right
    results.
        And everything I have done in life said: My success will be
    much better if I have a good team. When you fire the good team,
    as you have done with so many employees, you really head in the
    wrong direction.
        And the administration undermines the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, the hallmark promise we made to future
    generations to save natural places. This budget seems designed
    not to augment the work of the Forest Service and its motto,
    but to undermine the work of the Forest Service.
        Let us get back to the vision of caring for the land and
    serving the people.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley, thank you.
        And we will now turn to Chief Schultz. Again, welcome to
    the committee. Please provide us your thoughts for the next
    five minutes. Know that your full written statement will be
    incorporated as part of the record.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. TOM SCHULTZ

        Mr. Schultz. Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and
    other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify today.
        Established in 1905, the Forest Service is the Nation's
    foremost Federal forestry organization. The Forest Service
    manages 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands covering
    193 million acres in 43 states and Puerto Rico. The Forest
    Service also works with communities, state, local, and tribal
    governments, forest industries, and private forest landowners,
    managing for multiple uses.
        Big picture, America's forests provide timber, clean air
    and water, forage, and energy production. They support local
    economies through employment, trade, recreation, tourism, jobs,
    and livestock grazing. Alongside our partners, the Forest
    Service will continue to conserve and sustainably manage the
    nation's forests and grasslands.
        Recent analysis shows that in fiscal year 2023, the Forest
    Service programs contributed approximately 390,000 jobs and $45
    billion in GDP. This includes recreational visitor use,
    hunting, fishing, energy and minerals development, forest
    products, and livestock grazing.
        I am grateful to serve as the 21st Chief of the Forest
    Service. I recognize that I am the first chief who did not come
    from or work previously within the Agency, but I hope you will
    see, as I do, that that is a strength; I have more than 27
    years of land management experience, and I am a lifelong user
    of public lands.
        Working for state agencies in Montana and Idaho has given
    me a perspective on the role of the states in managing public
    trust lands and how that differs from goals and objectives in
    managing Federal lands. My experience in the private sector at
    Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets and
    the role that raw material availability, quality, and price
    play in being able to support a profitable forest products
    industry.
        The fiscal year 2026 President's Budget refocuses Forest
    Service efforts on active forest management, critical minerals
    permitting, recreation, and energy development. In addition,
    the budget request emphasizes efficient and effective fire
    management by consolidating the Federal suppression response
    apparatus into the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service under the
    Department of Interior.
        The Forest Service was founded on and understands the
    utility of our national forests. The production of timber,
    lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood products is vital for
    our country's well-being. The President's executive order on
    the expansion of timber production emphasizes the importance of
    timber production and how forest management can support
    American lives and communities.
        The fiscal year 2026 Budget Request supports this executive
    order by maintaining our ability to support the forest products
    industry and shifting the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
    to the National Forest System. This shift will better align the
    practical data needs for both public and private forest
    management.
        Our public lands offer some of the best recreational
    opportunities in the world, and many are on Forest Service
    lands. Recreational access is a cornerstone of our public
    lands, and I want to increase opportunities for people and
    communities to benefit from them.
        However, the Federal Government and the Forest Service
    cannot support this alone. We need additional support from
    partners and our communities to fund this ever-increasing use
    of public lands. This is an all-hands opportunity that must be
    supported to ensure continued availabilities of lands. We have
    82,000 volunteers that support the Forest Service in clearing
    trails and maintaining recreation sites.
        Livestock grazing on Federal lands is integral to ranchers
    across the United States, especially in the West. Grazing is
    permitted on nearly 40 percent of the 193 million acres of
    National Forest System lands across 27 states. We administer
    permits for approximately 5,500 permittees, with 1.3 million
    acres authorized for cattle, and 800,000 AUMs for sheep.
        Access to critical minerals is essential to contribute to a
    stable supply of energy for current and future generations,
    while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and
    productivity. National forests are a bountiful resource for
    minerals, and work hard along with the BLM, to manage leasable
    minerals from the National Forest System.
        We carry a fiduciary responsibility to the American public.
    We must steward tax dollars wisely, so we are examining how to
    best optimize our workforce and our expenditures to ensure that
    we are focused on field-based operations that are essential for
    meeting our high-priority objectives.
        To this point, the 2026 Budget Request reduces or
    eliminates some aspects of the Federal funding from the Forest
    Service budget to ensure stewardship of American taxpayer
    dollars and to better balance the appropriate roles of Federal
    and State governments. It is not our intention to degrade the
    services of states and local governments, but we must change
    the reliance on the Federal Government to fund or deliver these
    services.
        In alignment with restoring Federalism, we encourage
    increasing state authority to fund management of state and
    privately owned forests, community preparedness, and public
    risk mitigation activities. Communities across the country
    depend on national forests and grasslands, and I will work
    tirelessly to support those communities by partnering to
    actively manage the National Forest System for multiple uses.
        We maintain our commitment to strengthening relationships
    with the industries, the ranching families, the mining
    industry, communities, and conservation groups to deliver on
    our multiple-use mission as we have for the last 100 years.
        Thank you for inviting me to be here today, and thank you
    for your ongoing support. I will be glad to answer your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Schultz
        Chair Murkowski, Ranking Merkley, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the President's FY
    2026 Budget request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
    Forest Service.
        The fiscal year 2026 President's Budget for the USDA Forest Service
    requests $2.1 billion in discretionary appropriations for base
    programs. The 2026 Forest Service Budget is focused and strategic,
    making trade-offs for efficiency and alignment around the highest
    priorities for National Forest System lands. The Budget proposes the
    elimination of multiple programs and significant funding reductions in
    programs that remain, with the objective of better allocating Federal
    resources and addressing the Federal deficit and debt while delivering
    on our core mission to sustain the health and productivity of our
    Nation's forests and grasslands. These critical changes will put the
    agency on a sustainable path while ensuring our National Forests and
    Grasslands provide the goods and services expected by the American
    people.
        The FY 2026 budget request focuses on crucial investments that will
    help the Forest Service conserve and manage national forests and
    grasslands sustainably. It will also support local economies through
    jobs, trade, timber production, recreation access, energy development,
    and livestock grazing.
        The production of various forest products, such as timber, lumber,
    paper, bioenergy, and other wood products (timber production) is vital
    for the country's well-being. Executive Order 14225, Immediate
    Expansion of American Timber Production, emphasizes the importance of
    timber production and how forest management and wildfire risk reduction
    projects can protect American lives and communities. The FY 2026 budget
    request supports Executive Order 14225 by sustaining the forest
    products program at FY 2025 levels.
        To ensure domestic production of critical minerals and to
    contribute to a stable supply of energy for current and future
    generations while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and
    productivity, the Forest Service works together with the DOI's Bureau
    of Land Management to manage leasable minerals on National Forest
    System lands. The FY 2026 budget continues to support the Forest
    Service Minerals and Geology Management program.
        Livestock grazing on Federal lands is crucial for ranchers across
    the United States, especially in the West. This practice has been part
    of land management for generations, providing food for the American
    public, and preserving working landscapes, conserving natural
    resources, and the communities that depend on them. The FY 2026 budget
    ensures that livestock grazing continues to meet many of the Forest
    Service's multiple-use objectives.
        To improve efficiency and Federal response, the FY 2026 budget
    removes duplicate efforts in Federal Wildland Fire Management by
    consolidating the Federal suppression response apparatus into a new DOI
    bureau. The new U.S. Wildland Fire Service will unify logistical and
    support functions such as dispatching, training, information
    technology, reporting, financial management, and contracting. This
    organization will provide initial attack, large fire response, and
    facilitate hazardous fuels mitigation operations (both mechanical and
    prescribed fire) for all Federal land management agencies enhancing the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal wildfire response capacity.
         the president's fy 2026 budget request for specific priorities
        The following investments align with and enhance the agency's
    efforts to modernize the wildland fire management system:

      --Forest Service Operations: Requested amount reduces support
            services salaries and facility leases to streamline Agency's
            management structure and right size the real property
            footprint. Some funding and associated capacity will shift to
            the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service in DOI to meet business
            support requirements associated with the combined fire
            organization.

      --Forest and Rangeland Research: The account was eliminated, except
            for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) which was moved to the
            National Forest System account and the Joint Fire Science
            program which would be moved to the DOI as part of the new U.S.
            Wildland Fire Service. The shift of the FIA program will ensure
            that it is aligned with the practical needs of forest
            management for timber production, continuing to sustain its
            longstanding census of forest resources and conditions to the
            National Forest System.

      --State, Private, and Tribal Forestry: The discretionary account was
            eliminated to ensure fiscal responsibility with American
            taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate roles of
            Federal and State governments. In alignment with restoring
            federalism, we encourage increasing State authority to fund the
            management of State and privately- owned forests, community
            preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities.

      --National Forest System: The 2026 Budget proposes $1.297 billion to
            fund the National Forest System focusing support on field-based
            operations, which are essential for meeting high-priority
            agency objectives. With this level of funding the Forest
            Service will prioritize activities related to timber sales,
            recreation, environmental analyses, law enforcement, critical
            minerals permitting, and grazing allotment management. This
            prioritization will ensure public safety on National Forest
            System (NFS) lands, timber production and range management
            activities critical for rural economic development and
            restoration of NFS lands and increased domestic production of
            critical minerals to support national defense and
            electrification needs. The $175 million previously within the
            NFS account for hazardous fuels mitigation will be requested by
            DOI in support of the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service to perform
            and or facilitate mechanical and prescribed fire operations on
            NFS lands.

      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance: The 2026 request necessitates
            a significant rightsizing of Forest Service facilities (both
            administrative and recreation), roads, and trails.
            Prioritization will be made in alignment with the
            Administration's priorities, with funding going towards
            infrastructure that facilitates timber production, hazardous
            fuels removal, mineral extraction, and emergency response.

      --Wildland Fire Management: The 2026 request will transfer the Forest
            Service Wildland Fire Management appropriations to DOI for the
            creation of the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. This new DOI
            bureau will absorb the Forest Service Wildland Fire Management
            response program, including over 11,000 firefighters, 3,000
            operational fire support personnel and leadership, and over 400
            business support personnel.

        Through Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) (Public Law 116-152)
    funding, the Forest Service continues to repair and upgrade vital
    infrastructure and facilities in the National forests and grasslands
    through the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and
    the FY 2026 budget requests it's reauthorization for another 5 years.
        The GAOA also permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF), with which the Forest Service invests in conservation and
    recreation opportunities in public and private lands through the Forest
    Legacy Program and Federal Land Acquisition. The FY 2026 request
    proposes an amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
    expanding it to include a new Priority Deferred Maintenance program to
    address priority deferred maintenance projects at DOI bureaus and the
    Forest Service. For the Forest Service, this LWCF Priority Deferred
    Maintenance program will prioritize deferred maintenance projects that
    support and facilitate high-priority objectives associated with timber
    production, emergency response, and recreation activities. The funding
    would be spent predominantly on roads, bridges, and facilities,
    including those critical to housing employees and ensuring visitor
    safety.
        In closing, the President's FY 2026 Budget request proposes a
    landmark restructuring in Federal wildland fire to ensure an efficient
    and effective combined response apparatus managed by the DOI for all
    Federal lands. The FY 2026 Budget request underscores our commitment to
    focusing on investments that prioritize the products from and access to
    the American public wants from their national forests. We are getting
    back to the basics of managing our National forests for their intended
    purposes of producing timber, clean water, recreation, and other
    necessities for the American taxpayers.
        We look forward to working with this subcommittee to fulfill the
    President's economic goals and our key responsibilities for the long-
    term benefit of the Nation's forests and grasslands, and for all
    Americans. I will be glad to answer your questions.

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief. Let me begin. You have
    noted that you are the first chief who hasn't kind of come up
    through the ranks, but I would agree with you, your observation
    that there can be great value with that. I think you have an
    awareness of what some may describe as a finicky relationship
    between the Forest Service and many of the states.
        In some areas of the country Forest Service is a great
    partner. Others, they are viewed as this absentee landlord that
    is just kind of a pain. You have taken it upon yourself to
    visit many of our national forests, to meet the people, to look
    at the forests themselves, but to really gain a better
    understanding of the state, of the agency that you are charged
    with leading right now.
        So I mentioned in my opening that some of the folks that I
    am coming in contact with are concerned. They are telling me
    morale is down. They are worried about how they are going to be
    able to provide for that--not only continued public service
    when it is something like the Mendenhall Visitors Center, or
    just making sure that we have trails that are maintained so
    that that visitor experience is there.
        Or as I am talking with folks in the timber industry
    saying, you know: Are we really going to see anything different
    coming forward with this administration? So this is a pretty
    broad question, but can you give me your sense as to how the
    Forest Service is viewed overall right now, and if there are
    any common themes that you are picking up on that you are
    saying: All right, this has got to be my job number one coming
    into this position?
        Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. So job number one for
    me is to lead the Agency. There are a lot of competing
    objectives, a lot of demands from the public, whether it is
    timber, whether it is minerals, whether it is recreation----
        Senator Murkowski. That is because we are multiple-use.
        Mr. Schultz. That is right.
        Senator Murkowski. If it was just timber, it would be an
    easy job, but it is not.
        Mr. Schultz. That is right. Absolutely. My job in leading
    the Agency, though, is to be connected with both the Agency and
    the decision-makers, right, so that is where I have focused.
    And I have been out to Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. So I have
    been in this role about 13 weeks, and I have been out--every
    other week, I go out to the field to visit with people.
        So your question about morale, it varies. And what I find
    is that in many cases, the more information people have, the
    better they feel. So there has been an increase in information
    flow from myself and others, and as we have provided additional
    information, we have seen morale has increased. But it is not
    perfect, I mean, for sure, it is not. We have patches where I
    think the more information people have, the better they feel.
        And I can tell you, on the districts that I have visited,
    where we have employee engagements, typically the feedback post
    those engagements is positive. But I have not been--we have,
    you know, 154 forests, and I have probably been on, in the last
    3 months, maybe I have been on 14, or you know, 12 to 14
    forests.
        So it is a slow process to get out and meet with people.
    But I can tell you, the more those engagements that are direct
    and I can share my thoughts and ideas with people, that things
    are improving, and people see there is some hope in terms of
    what the future looks like. I think some people are excited in
    terms of where we can go and how we can better deliver service
    to the public, and how we can align and do things differently.
    I mean, that is a big focus right now.
        A lot of the reductions that have been discussed in the
    Forest Service and how we are looking to restructure, and this
    was initiated, you know, over a year ago. And that was
    initiated because of some of the hole that we had in our
    budget. We had about a $750 million hole based on some
    decisions that were made on hiring. We hired a bunch of
    permanent employees with one-time money. So the Forest Service
    has known for quite some time that there was some reckoning
    that was coming in terms of a restructuring effort.
        So regardless of broader issues across government, the
    Forest Service has a necessity to restructure the Agency to
    better align with the budgets that we do have, even current
    budgets, let alone the 2026 budget.
        Senator Murkowski. So let me, let me ask on that. And you
    have given me your commitment in private, but I am just going
    to ask you to reaffirm it here. You have said you have been out
    to multiple regions, we need your commitment that you are going
    to be coming North to visit both of Alaska's key national
    forests?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am, this summer.
        Senator Murkowski. Very good. We will welcome you there.
    And so then when you are talking about budgets and
    realignments, and you know, I have mentioned some of the
    reductions in force, and what we have seen, we have got a very
    strong executive order that I referenced in my opening
    comments, to be told by an administration that they want to
    unleash one state's resource opportunity, we are excited about
    that, but we also understand that again, in order to do so, it
    requires people to execute that.
        So can you give me the assurance that what we are seeing
    with the workforce reduction initiatives that are underway in
    the Forest Service are not going to delay, or impede, or
    obstruct the implementation of the President's executive order?
        Mr. Schultz. Madam Chair, what I can tell you is I can't
    guarantee there won't ever be any impacts, but I can tell you
    if we do have impacts, we will correct those as we learn
    information. We have a focus on maintaining all of our rec
    sites and our administrative sites, keeping them open to the
    public. It may not be 100 percent of the time if we have some
    reduced hours, but we are currently laddering people around the
    Agency to make sure we fill critical vacancies.
        So to your point, we have had some people in the field at a
    district, at a forest level leave, and we have identified those
    critical vacancies to fill. We are actually moving people
    around to fill those critical positions. So where we do have
    impacts, which there are impacts when people leave, we are
    trying to fill those as quickly as we can. So we are doing that
    in an ongoing basis right now.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I appreciate that, but I also
    recognize that all employees within the Forest Service are not
    necessarily fungible. In other words, if you are losing an
    individual in the Mendenhall area who is trained in dealing
    with bear avoidance with the public that is coming in off of
    the buses, and I take somebody from a headquarter in, I don't
    know, I am making up a town, Indianapolis, and put them out
    there, I don't want that situation.
        And I am hoping that, again, we are looking at this and
    recognizing that it is not just moving bodies, but it is
    ensuring that we have that level of expertise.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Let me turn to Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I am glad to hear, Chief, that you are going to be
    visiting several forests in Alaska this summer. I want to ask a
    similar question but start from the point of view of, you know,
    the Santa Fe National Forest manages the vast majority of the
    headwaters of the Pecos Watershed, which is one of the most
    important watersheds in the State of New Mexico.
        And for decades, this is a community that has really worked
    very hard with very few resources to try to recover from
    historic pollution and protect that resource from future
    pollution. This is a river that supports traditional farming,
    recreation, fishing, fisheries, and many other--many other uses
    that are economically critical to that community. But we still
    have legacy pollution from a pretty disastrous mine spill some
    30 years ago. And I know I communicated with you recently. I
    sent you a letter inviting you to visit this community, and
    meet with my constituents. Is that something that you can
    commit to doing?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So my
    staff is looking at that request, and we are trying to figure
    out if we can make that work. That is something we are actively
    working on right now.
        Senator Heinrich. I hope you can make that a priority. I
    think it is really helpful to get that community perspective.
    And you know, there are, there are vast differences between
    communities that call our national forest home, gateway
    communities in our different states. And so I would very much
    welcome you to join us in New Mexico for that. And I will make
    any logistics that you need help with a priority.
        I am all for making government more efficient, but one of
    the things I am concerned about is that there are some things
    that DOGE seems to be making less efficient. And one of those
    has been contract approvals and that seems to be having real
    consequences in the Service, trash piling up at recreation
    sites, bathroom challenges, equipment not getting replaced in a
    timely way.
        I sent you and Secretary Rollins a letter on this
    yesterday, but can you give me a sense, why is it taking so
    long to get simple things, like a contract extension for
    custodial services authorized?
        Mr. Schultz. So Madam Chair, and Senator Heinrich, so what
    I will tell you is initially when we first started looking at
    some of the existing contracts that we had for prior
    obligations, there was a process we had to get in place. And I
    think we have worked through all of the existing obligations.
    There shouldn't be anything that is hung up there. When it
    comes to new obligations, we as the Forest Service instituted
    our own policies and procedures in addition to review from the
    Department and from the efficiency folks.
        So we have put a process in place to make sure that it is
    thorough and responsive. When it comes to certain things like
    toilets and cleaning up toilets, which has been a huge issue
    that I have weighed in on in numerous cases, we have figured
    out that process, and some of that is on the Forest Service for
    the process that we put in place has kind of slowed some things
    down. But it is something that we have addressed, and there
    should not be toilets that are not being cleaned at this point
    in time. So if you are hearing about that, please let me know
    because we have really jumped on this issue.
        And in contracting in general, I think there is a review in
    place for contracts, grants, and agreements; it is not just
    contracts, it is all three of those. And that is something we
    are looking at how we make that process more efficient. But
    there is a very thorough review. You are, you are absolutely
    right.
        And is it different than it has been historically? Yes, it
    is, because there is more attention to detail in those
    contracts. But we are looking to make that process more
    effective and more timely than it has been over the last month.
    But it is something that we have a new process we just
    instituted about a month ago, and we are working on making that
    better.
        Senator Heinrich. I understand the need for analysis and
    review. I just want to make sure that we are not, you know,
    adding layers of bureaucracy in the name of efficiency.
        The Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes in New
    Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona these are institutes that offer
    unique opportunities for dedicated research in forest science
    and watershed health. They represent the future of science for
    our forest management. Yet, this plan cuts the Institute's
    budget by more than 50 percent, and that is just not a number
    that they can swallow in a single year. Why did you decide to
    reduce the funding for the institutes this year, and what is
    your plan for them in fiscal year 2026?
        Mr. Schultz. Okay. So I think, first of all, the fiscal
    year 2025 Budget is what your question is, I think, on the
    first one. So we did cut $3 million for fiscal year 2025. So
    for the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERI)
    budget, they currently have $23 million on hand in prior
    appropriation dollars. So that was part of the consideration.
        So we are trying to align the 2025 Budget as we move toward
    the 2026 President's Budget. So we are moving in that
    direction. So the why is, we are trying to align this year's
    2025 Budget with where we are going in 2026. In 2026, it does
    not include resources to provide funding for SWERI, so there
    are resources this year, they are reduced, but next year in the
    2026 Budget there are none. That is correct. And that is tied
    to R&D's overall look?
        And the reason that R&D is treated differently in the 2026
    budget, there is going to be a greater reliance on the states
    and the universities. So a lot of the land grant universities,
    and as a member of the Advisory Board at the university.
        Senator Heinrich. That institute is at Highlands
    University?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, I understand. Yes, sir. My point is,
    though, that the funding in the future is going to have to come
    more from those universities themselves and other grant
    opportunities. The Forest Service is going to be shifting its
    funding away from R&D, in general, in the budget.
        Senator Heinrich. I think that is a mistake. And I think
    these institutes have really provided the Forest Service an
    enormous amount of science at a time when management has needed
    to change because conditions have been changing. And so I hope
    that as we approach the appropriations process that we consider
    this President's budget as it should be considered, advisory.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chief Schultz, it is good to see you here today. In recent
    years, timber sales in the Black Hills National Forest have
    steadily declined, placing significant strain on timber product
    manufacturers. The U.S. Forest Service has been unable to
    justify these harvesting shortfalls in the Black Hills, and as
    a result, local timber businesses have been forced to absorb
    additional shipping costs to source timber from more distant
    locations.
        To address this issue, I have introduced the Timber
    Harvesting Restoration Act, which would require superintendents
    of National Forest System units to submit harvesting
    improvement reports to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture if
    they have consistently fallen well below the annual allowable
    sale quantity outlined in their forest plans. Sawmills in the
    Black Hills have borne the brunt of these shortfalls. In
    response to the reduced timber supply, some producers have been
    forced to scale back operations or close sawmills altogether.
        My question today, sir, is I have been encouraged by the
    administration's plans to increase the speed and scale of
    timber production on federally managed lands. Can you highlight
    any specific actions or plans the Forest Service has to improve
    the situation in the Black Hills National Forest?
        Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Senator. Yes, so this has been a
    high priority. I have been familiar with the Black Hills issues
    for years. And I have actually been involved with shutting down
    a sawmill that was tied to lack of available solid timber, so I
    understand the issues firsthand.
        In particular, at the Black Hills, there was a meeting
    probably six weeks ago with industry, with conservation
    entities, with the Forest Service to develop a plan, a short-
    term plan and a long-term plan. And my understanding is that
    within the next two weeks that short-term plan should be coming
    forward that will lay out a strategy for the next 12 months,
    what that plan is going to look like. And then beyond that,
    there is a longer-term plan being developed looking at the
    opportunity for stewardship contracts, Good Neighbor Agreement
    contracts.
        We have also detailed a person from a forest in Region 6 to
    the Black Hills to assist, that has been very effective, and
    assist the timber staff there. So it is something that is front
    and center for us. I am familiar with the issues. I know the
    industry players as well as the entities that are working to
    help us.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you for that. Let me talk about
    accountability a little bit. Are you planning on, in your new
    plan, to have accountability measures that the Forest Service
    would be able to use to review whether or not the regional
    staff are effectively following through on the timber
    harvesting improvement plans that would be put in place?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, we are.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. In response to the executive order
    titled, ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,''
    the Forest Service has proposed a national timber strategy
    aimed at increasing domestic timber production by 25 percent
    over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, under the strategy,
    Region 2, which includes South Dakota, is projected to increase
    timber production by only 2 percent.
        How are those regional percentages determined, and how will
    the strategy address the immediate need of the timber industry
    in the Black Hills, where timber availability put up for
    harvest by the Forest Service has declined drastically over the
    last 5 years, outside of what the Forest plan was in the first
    place?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, that initial analysis was based on
    having $200 million available to allocate across the country,
    and what they did was they looked at from 2020 through 2024 in
    terms of outputs, so they used that as a guide to allocate $200
    million across the National Forest System. So they are trying
    to allocate funding where there is a greater likelihood of
    outputs.
        So that is not a drawn-in-the-sand line. That is only--that
    is based on those additional dollars being brought to the
    table. So we have an existing program that already exists
    today. That $200 million is in addition to our existing
    funding. So we are exploring other options. We are exploring
    options working with the State of Wyoming under a broader Good
    Neighbor Agreement, where they would actually manage some of
    the National Forest System lands in partnership with the Forest
    Service.
        We are looking at a long-term stewardship agreement that
    could be administered and provide less cost to the Forest
    Service. So those numbers right there, that is additional
    outputs tied only to a preliminary thought on allocation of
    funds. It is not a constraint. It is saying that if we had this
    $200 million and we allocate it like this, based on our current
    cost structure, that is what the additional output would look
    like, but that is not drawn in the sand.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Thank you. And one last question.
    Chief Schultz, concerned landowners in Western South Dakota
    have contacted my office regarding minor fence line disputes
    between producers and Federal officials. My understanding is
    that such disagreements are relatively common in areas with a
    high concentration of Forest Service land. I believe landowners
    deserve a fair notice and a review process when disputes with
    the Federal government arise. How do you plan to address these
    concerns and make sure that landowners are treated fairly in
    such cases?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I appreciate the question. So a
    couple things, one, when we are aware of specific issues, we
    will address those specific issues, but I have also reached out
    to some of the trade associations that work with the ranching
    community to better understand what some of their priorities
    are, and we are working with them to understand how we can,
    from a policy perspective, approach things more from a
    communication across the country, and then when there are
    specific issues, we will deal with those on a case-by-case
    basis.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Not necessarily turning it into a
    criminal action?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Merkley [presiding]. Well, thank you very much. We
    appreciate your questions, Senator Rounds.
        My first question we submitted to you in advance so we
    could get a crisp answer because many people have been very
    concerned about the teams that we have ready to fight in the
    upcoming forest fire season. How many permanent firefighters do
    we have on board today, and how many seasonal firefighters do
    we have on board?
        Mr. Schultz. So in terms of--Senator, in terms of the
    firefighters we have hired to date, we have just under 11,000
    that we have brought on board, and those are GS-9 and below, so
    that is our primary firefighting force. Our goal is to have
    about 11,300 at full capacity, so we are actually a little bit
    ahead of where we were last year at this time in terms of our
    overall hiring of our firefighting force.
        Senator Merkley. It was pointed out to me back in Oregon
    that a lot of the folks who have signed up for the firefighter
    season are actually also accepting positions in other places
    because they are applying multiple places and getting multiple
    acceptances. Are we pretty confident that those 11,000 are
    going to show up?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes, we are confident.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. And the other concern has been, not
    just the front line, but also the management teams, the complex
    incident management teams, how many teams do we believe we are
    going to be able to deploy, and how does that compare to a year
    ago?
        Mr. Schultz. So currently we have 37 teams nationally, and
    those are not all Forest Service teams. About 50 percent of the
    personnel on those teams are staffed by Forest Service
    personnel. There are also Department of Interior personnel.
    There are also states that also support those teams. So we have
    37 today, and approximately a year ago we probably had closer
    to 42 teams.
        Senator Merkley. And are you working to get to that 42
    number?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. I think that the team discussion is
    a broader discussion. There has been a decline in team
    participation for years. And I think part of it is just--a lot
    of people do that as an additional duty. It is not a primary
    responsibility. So I think there are opportunities to talk
    about, on an ongoing basis, how we better structure teams, and
    does that become a more permanent role, or do we continue to do
    it with volunteers; because right now team participation is
    largely based on volunteers.
        Senator Merkley. What we had heard back home was that we
    lost a lot of folks who participated in these teams due to the
    firings and the early retirements that were offered. And is
    that a piece of why we are at 37 instead of 42?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, so keep in mind, like, 50 percent of
    the personnel are just Forest Service. There are other
    personnel that are also contributing to this. I don't know the
    extent that that has had the impact, but what I can tell you is
    we have had about 1,400 people take DRP that had fire calls.
        We recently reached out to ask them if they had an interest
    in coming back, and we just opened that up about a week ago.
    The Secretary has been very clear that she wants them to come
    back if they have an interest, and we are going to work through
    that process. So the numbers are still in flux. We will know
    more over the next week to two weeks.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am going to turn to a chart
    that I have had the team prepare, and this chart is really all
    about state, private, and tribal forestry grants. And the chart
    suggests a number of questions.
        So what we are seeing here is that we had a continuing
    resolution for fiscal year 2025, but all of the items that are
    in red have been dramatically reduced in the numbers you
    submitted to us. They have been cut in half, and that amount of
    money, $43.25 million, has been moved down to program salaries.
        Now, these are formula grants by and large, with one
    exception. That is the landscape scale restoration. The rest
    are formula grants. They are very easy to distribute. Of these
    three that are formula that have not been reduced, have those
    funds been provided to the states?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, they are in the process of being
    provided to the states. I don't think they have been fully
    provided to the states yet.
        Senator Merkley. So they have not been. And I can assure
    you, because we are hearing from all the states, saying: Hey,
    we need these grants, where are they in order to keep the
    rhythm of our programs alive? But can you commit to me today
    that those funds for those three programs, will go out?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. Our intention is to have all three
    of those grants go out here shortly.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And then the ones that are in
    red that have been cut in half, why have they been cut in half?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, so as you look at the 2026 budget, I
    alluded to this earlier with the SWERI discussion, we are
    moving toward a budget that does not have funding for those, we
    shifted that funding to salaries and expenses, we have the
    Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), we have to pay for the DRP
    cost. So when people leave, there is that accrued leave that
    has to be paid out, so those funds are being shifted to pay for
    the DRP cost.
        Senator Merkley. Can you explain to the public what a DRP
    is?
        Mr. Schultz. So that is the Deferred Resignation Program.
    That is where people voluntarily leave the Agency and it is
    kind of like a severance package.
        Senator Merkley. So the picture this is painting is $43
    million is being shifted, $43.25 million is being shifted out
    of state grants, it is being shifted into program salaries
    because the plan, as you have laid out for fiscal year 2026, is
    to shut down all of these programs?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. I can tell you, vast disagreement
    with this strategy. First of all, I think it is a violation of
    the trust between Congress and the Forest Service, because
    Congress laid out a vision, a Continuing Resolution, and you
    are not continuing the programs. You are cutting them in half.
    And you are doing it and shifting funds saying: We know what is
    going to happen in fiscal year 2026, we are going to shut down
    these programs.
        Well, the Executive Branch is about executing the programs,
    and I don't anticipate that Congress is going to shut down
    those programs. So isn't it kind of a betrayal of the
    relationship to be cutting programs in half in preparation for
    shutting them down completely, when the vision has not been
    laid out by Congress to do so?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think what we recognize is that, in
    terms of the specific language in our appropriation, there is
    some flexibility in how we do this, and we do know that we have
    a need to cover the cost of the DRP payments. So we can't go
    into a deficit spending model, and so we thought that was the
    most prudent way to go about doing this.
        Senator Merkley. I am over my time, so I am going to defer
    to Senator Murray. But I will just note the idea of shifting
    from real work on the ground to paying personnel expenses and
    doing a lot less work on the ground is absolutely not in
    concert with the vision laid out by Congress in the bill.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley. And I
    agree with you 100 percent. Thank you for outlining that.
        Let me go to this. As everyone knows, we are approaching
    wildfire season. In my home State of Washington, wildfires are
    a constant threat, as you well know. And when we invest in fire
    prevention, we save lives, we save entire communities. One of
    the most important investments we make is in the people who do
    that work. But President Trump is throwing all of that work
    into jeopardy right now. He has pushed out nearly 7,500 skilled
    employees across the Forest Service, either by firing them
    outright or pressuring them to leave under threat of losing
    their job later down the line.
        That includes at least 500 Forest Service employees in the
    Pacific Northwest. But we hardly know the full scope of the
    damage because the administration won't share critical
    information with us. I have spoken with countless Forest
    Service workers from Washington State who loved their job. They
    played an important role in fighting those fires and are gone
    now. Thanks to Trump.
        Setting aside the proposal for a consolidated firefighting
    agency, this budget proposes a $1.4 billion cut, that is 40
    percent, to the Forest Service non-fire programs at a time when
    our nation's trees, from our backyards to the backcountry, are
    under stress, and we need to step up the pace of forest health
    and resiliency to withstand these catastrophic wildfires.
        On top of all that, the Forest Service has illegally
    withheld Federal funds to help reduce wildfire risk and is
    currently not distributing $97 million to support state, rural,
    and volunteer fire departments. That is a huge threat to our
    communities I represent in Washington State, who have told me
    personally this administration is putting them in danger by
    gutting our ability to respond to wildfires.
        So Chief Schultz, I do appreciate your service to our
    country. I realize you are not making all the decisions here,
    but I have a number of important questions today, and I hope
    you can provide this committee with the information that we do
    need.
        Now, as I mentioned, I am profoundly concerned about this
    administration's reckless decision to mass fire and push out
    essential Forest Service employees across the country. The
    administration claimed that no firefighters have been fired,
    but the reality is, on the ground, we have lost workers whose
    jobs are absolutely essential. Nearly every single Forest
    Service worker supports fire operations in some capacity.
        Trail maintenance crews, for instance, ensure access to
    routes remain clear for firefighting personnel and equipment.
    Biologists conduct essential environmental assessments that
    inform prescribed burns and fuel reduction strategies. Other
    support staff, ecologists, engineers, maintenance workers, camp
    managers receive firefighter training, and they are actually
    mobilized during peak fire season to bolster our frontline
    firefighting crews.
        So Chief Schultz, was there any formal analysis conducted
    to determine the potential effect of the mass firings for
    wildfire preparedness?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Murray, thank you for the question. So
    I will try to just clarify a few things. So in terms of a mass
    firing, we didn't have a mass firing.
        Senator Murray. I am talking about across the board,
    pushing people out, early retirement, doing all those things.
        Mr. Schultz. All right. I just want to clarify. So we did
    have two rounds of that Deferred Resignation Program, and that
    was about 4,200 people that left voluntarily. And then we had
    another----
        Senator Murray. Because they didn't know what was coming,
    right?
        Mr. Schultz. Right. They didn't know what was--I don't
    disagree with you. And we had another 600 that took voluntary
    early retirement. So there was no--in terms of there were
    incentives for people to leave, now, in terms of--we did not
    know who was going to leave, obviously, it was a voluntary
    process.
        So what we have done is, when they did leave, we have been
    moving people to, you know, we called that lateral movement.
    And we have been doing that across the Agency, and we have
    moved probably close to 600 or 700 people to fill those
    critical vacancies.
        When it comes to the fire piece specifically, we had, I
    think I mentioned earlier, about 1,400 people that had fire
    quals that did leave. And we have reached out to those folks to
    secure their services this fire season to see if they want to
    come back on a voluntary basis to function on their team----
        Senator Murray. This just seems really ridiculous that it
    was done this way, which was my question, actually. Was there
    an analysis done before this was all done, to realize the
    impacts of these people that you are now trying to find and
    bring back?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, so we could not do the analysis
    because we didn't know who was going to leave because it was
    voluntary., right, we didn't go handpick the----
        Senator Murray. Well, I want to get on, but I will just say
    the stakes are life and death here, and this really raises
    serious alarms about this Agency being ready for this critical
    fire season.
        Now, let me move on. Interior Secretary Burgum recently
    told this committee that on-the-ground wildfire operations
    would not be affected by the administration's staffing cuts
    across various agents. But we know that is not true. In the
    Mount Baker--Snoqualmie National Forest, one firefighter
    barracks recently and abruptly lost power. And it stayed
    without power not for a few hours, or a day, but for weeks.
        Why? Because the maintenance workers in that forest had
    been pushed out the door, there was no ability to put even a
    small purchase on a credit card because the card limit was
    drastically decreased, and there was no one left to process a
    basic contract to get that repair done. This is what happens
    when administrative staff disappear, it is not just an
    inconvenience, it directly affects whether firefighters have a
    safe place to sleep, whether they have power, whether they can
    be deployed effectively.
        Maybe Elon didn't care about the maintenance crew, but
    turns out they are pretty important. And this is not an
    isolated incident. I have heard so many stories: Administrative
    staff responsible for coordinating travel for crews when a fire
    breaks out, gone; people who made sure fire response teams had
    their fuel and supplies ready, they are gone. And all of this
    is happening as we now head straight into what is going to be a
    dangerous fire season in Washington State.
        So Chief Schultz, tell us, do you believe the Forest
    Service is ready for wildfire season given this absence of
    critical administrative and support staff; do you believe they
    are ready?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. Yes, I do
    believe they are ready. And then some of the credit card issues
    you are talking about, we have adjusted those. We have had
    increases in cards, and we have been moving people into lateral
    positions to ensure critical vacancies that we are clear that
    we can fill those.
        Senator Murray. Well, I can just tell you from on the
    ground, it feels like we are not prepared for this wildfire
    season. You just said we were. We will see what happens, but I
    fear I am going to be right.
        Do I have time for one additional question? Thank you.
        Now, the President supposedly wants to increase timber
    output from Federal lands by 25 percent. But here is the
    problem: This same administration is simultaneously cutting
    budgets, delaying funding, freezing hiring, and reducing staff
    at the Forest Service, the very agency that is responsible for
    that work. So how exactly is that going to work? Who is going
    to consult with the tribes? Who is going to lay out the sale
    plans? Who is going to mark the timber? Who is going to manage
    compliance and issue contracts when field offices have been
    literally decimated?
        Is the expectation--Chief Schultz, is it really the
    expectation that these fewer people with fewer resources, less
    support, can somehow deliver work at a faster pace and with
    greater complexity? How is that realistic?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So I
    think it is an iterative process. We don't have all the answers
    today, but in terms of how we are going to get there, we are
    going to again fill critical vacancies. We are also going to
    have to lean on partners differently. So the states, in
    Washington they have a very aggressive Good Neighbor Programs
    for the----
        Senator Murray. Yes, the states are being relied on for
    just about virtually everything. And I got to tell you,
    firefighters don't sit, as my partner from Oregon knows, they
    don't sit in one state.
        Mr. Schultz. That is right. But to your point, though, we
    are going to be working with partners in a different way. We
    are going to have different kind of contracting terms, that we
    are going to have, looking at longer term contracts.
        Senator Murray. Well, that begs the question. So do you
    have some kind of plan for this that is going to be executed
    over the next year? Because the wildfire season is here right
    now, and critical employees are not in place.
        Mr. Schultz. So when it comes to the wildfire season, yes
    ma'am, we do have the critical folks in place. When it comes to
    administering the timber program that you are talking about we
    are building that right now.
        Senator Murray. Yes.
        Mr. Schultz. So that is part of what we are doing, is we
    are building that process, those interim operating plans. We
    are working on that right now. Yes ma'am.
        Senator Murray. When will we see that?
        Mr. Schultz. You know, I would suspect in the next couple
    months we will have that whole plan figured out, how we are
    going to execute that for the next 4 years. That is what we are
    working on right now.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And welcome, Mr. Schultz. I know you have got lots of
    experience in forestry and natural resource management in some
    of the Western states like Idaho and Montana, and my colleagues
    here on the dais all have large national forests in their
    states. But forest management looks a little different coming
    from a state like mine, of Maryland, and so I am going to spend
    a little time just describing how we do benefit from what you
    do at the Forest Service.
        So in Maryland, the forest industry is our fourth-largest
    industry in the state. It is actually larger than the seafood
    industry. That surprises a lot of people. I hope you have had a
    chance to have some of our great Maryland crabs and Old Bay.
    Our forest industry contributes about $3.5 billion to the local
    economy. That is about 5,000 jobs involved. So compared to
    Idaho, where 40 percent of the state's land mass is federally
    owned national forest land, Maryland is almost 40 percent
    forested, with three-quarters of those forested lands under
    private ownership.
        And the amount of privately owned forest land in the state
    means that forest management needs are different, and it means
    that the Forest Service has been a key partner in supporting
    those private landowners in the State of Maryland.
        As Joe Hansen, who is the Board President of the Maryland
    Forest Association, said, and I quote, ``Private lands and
    their management are absolutely crucial to the forest industry
    in Maryland. Technical assistance to these landowners from the
    Forest Service's state and private forestry budget is passed
    through the Maryland Forest Service, allowing DNR, Department
    of Natural Resources, foresters to work with private landowners
    to help them understand their options and make wise decisions
    for the management of their forest lands.''
        Mr. Schultz, this has been very important to our small
    forestry businesses that support our economy. The next
    generation of landowners needs to remain confident that markets
    for forest products will exist in the future for financial
    return to justify their management costs today. That is where
    wood product innovation comes in. In Western Maryland, a
    company called InventWood is in the process of setting up a
    factory that will mass-produce wood that is stronger than
    steel. This company was founded on research conducted at the
    University of Maryland with funding from the Forest Service.
        The Forest Service wood innovations program and related
    research supports projects like InventWood and advances the
    onshoring of the next generation of Made in America building
    materials, which is critical to the supply chain here in
    Maryland and across the country.
        I should say we have also seen benefits from the urban
    forestry initiatives in cities like Baltimore. A great example
    is the Stillmeadow Peace Park in West Baltimore. Through the
    Forest Service's urban forestry program, the Stillmeadow
    Community Fellowship, which is a local faith-based community,
    was able to restore 10 acres of urban forest land and create a
    workforce development program to train Baltimore youth to enter
    the forestry industry, and creating important opportunities as
    well as environmental benefits.
        And finally, our forestry is key to our decades-long effort
    to protect the Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure and an
    important economic engine for our region. In 1988, this has
    been decades in practice and implementation, an MOU was signed
    between the USEPA and the U.S. Forest Service, committing the
    Forest Service, through its state and private forestry program,
    to support Chesapeake Bay's restoration effort.
        So in very different ways, the work of the Forest Service
    is very important to the State of Maryland, which is why I am
    extremely concerned that these accounts that I am referencing
    were zeroed out in the President's budget. I can tell you I
    will be working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to
    make sure that we preserve and support these efforts.
        But I understand the budget that you submitted, but I just
    want to ask you, if you will commit to working with me and my
    colleagues in the State of Maryland to make sure that the
    Forest Service remains an important partner in our efforts?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes sir. I think I want to point out,
    too, I think there is some confusion on the Wood Innovation
    Grants. That is a very popular program, and that will continue
    in this budget. That money would transfer to, basically, the
    Department of Interior under the component that we transfer the
    fuels program with. It is about $175 million. So about 30
    million of that is the Wood Innovation Grant funds, so that
    program would continue on, it would just be administered
    through the Department of Interior, and we would coordinate
    with them to administer that program.
        So the University of Maryland, which is a land-grant
    university, and they do a lot of great work there. Yes, sir.
    And that is something that would continue under this budget.
        Senator Van Hollen. I will take a look at that. I also do
    just want to express my concerns, and I know Senator Heinrich,
    and maybe others, raised the issue about the Forest and
    Rangeland Research Account funding.
        Mr. Schultz. Sure.
        Senator Van Hollen. And I understand you mentioned that,
    you know, a lot of that work could be done at universities,
    like University of Maryland. As you know, a lot of the programs
    at University of Maryland, the one I referenced, was actually
    funded through the Forest Service, so if you cut out that
    account, they are not really in a position to do it, especially
    when, as I am sure you are aware, universities are seeing their
    budgets cut, and they are actually this administration is
    blocking a lot of research to our colleges and universities
    around the country.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you. But I look forward to working with you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        So Chief, I mentioned in my opening comments the concerns
    about the shift of wildfire management operations by proposing
    to merge the BLM and Forest Service operations into this U.S.
    Wildland Fire Service based over in the Department of Interior.
    And again, I want to understand more about this. I do think it
    makes sense to be looking for efficiencies, how we battle our
    wildfires, how we deal with them in this country is
    exceptionally important to all of us.
        And so as we are learning more, it is important for us,
    from the appropriations perspective, to understand how we can
    best make this thing work, because I don't want to be building
    an airplane literally and doing this reorganization when, to
    Senator Merkley's point, you have got horrible wildfires going
    across our country, and they don't care whether or not we are
    ready.
        So just a little, almost generically, in terms of the goals
    of the consolidation--I am assuming this is about greater
    efficiencies. This is helping to be better stewards of our
    taxpayer dollars, but how do these goals really bolster the
    ability of our country to respond to the fires?
        And I want to ask particularly about the National
    Interagency Fire Center. You are obviously very familiar with
    it. It has been beneficial to interagency coordination for
    wildland fire. How is this consolidation going to impact that
    center that is based there in Boise? Are we going to need to
    detail additional people there? Can you just speak to more
    granular level on what this proposal really will do?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So the
    intent of this consolidation really is to improve efficiencies,
    as you alluded to. It is improved communication and
    coordination, even how we do training, even though we have
    interagency training standards, not all of the agencies train
    to the same degree and the same requirements to move up through
    the system.
        So the intent really is to standardize things across the
    board and have a unified firefighting force that would do both
    initial attack and extended attack on these programs. The
    budget also proposes to move the fuels programs. There has been
    a lot of discussion here about mitigation of wildfire and the
    fuels work that needs to be done. That would also move as well
    in this process.
        So currently, the fuels program is administered by the
    firefighting workforce that we have, so those folks would all
    move to this new agency. This agency would both do the fuels
    work as well as the firefighting work on initial attack and
    extended attack. We don't have the details all worked out yet.
    We are not talking about this summer, we are talking about in
    the future, in the next year. But this is something that we are
    committed to working through with the Department of Interior to
    work through this.
        The other piece to keep in mind right now is you talked
    about National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). So NIFC has a
    representative from the Forest Service. There is a
    representative that is already there in Boise, so we don't need
    to move people there. We already have a representation there,
    but also you have four different bureaus within Department of
    Interior that are there. You also have the Association of State
    Foresters has a representative that represents the state
    interests.
        So the intent is to really consolidate that so they are
    working under the same administrative structure, so that there
    is just greater coordination, communication as we administer
    the firefighting program.
        Senator Murkowski. So when you have got--I am trying to
    understand kind of what is left with the Forest Service, if you
    move this out, and then when you have management decisions,
    say, for instance, with wildfire thinning, some of the
    resiliency activities, those stay within National Forest
    Service, right?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. So would the Wildland Fire Service
    have any responsibility for making decisions in that area? And
    if so, what happens if you have got a disagreement over a
    proposed action, how do you mediate or manage this? Or maybe
    you don't have a conflict because it is clear lines? Or is that
    something that still has yet to be thought out?
        Mr. Schultz. So Senator, it is what we do with the states
    today. We have agreements with the states. We have master
    agreements.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Mr. Schultz. We also have agreements with other local
    government cooperators, and in those agreements you lay out
    expectations in terms of how we are going to pay for fires, how
    we are going to communicate on fires. So ideally what you would
    have is the Forest Service would have some type of master
    agreement with this entity that would create the clarity of
    expectations so that when the fire season came you could
    anticipate that.
        And if there are issues that come up, which there are
    issues that come up every year you would work towards fixing
    those over the next years in the future.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. So we would do after-action reviews and those
    things to identify any issues that were not fully worked out in
    any particular year, and we do that every year. We review the
    fire season and identify what concerns or issues that we might
    have and work through them.
        Senator Murkowski. But I guess I am thinking about it, so
    you have got the response, you have got that end of it, but if
    you are looking at a--if you are looking at an area where you
    know you need to do--you need to go in and do thinning, you
    want to go in and do some controlled burns within our national
    forest, that is not necessarily on the wildland fire side. That
    is kind of the management side.
        And again, I am trying to understand: What is left of the
    Forest Service after we move this out? What are you managing?
    To me, when I am thinking about management of a forest, I am
    thinking about what it means to be able to reduce the threat
    from invasive species and disease, to reduce the threat by
    doing some thinning, because that is not kind of like your fire
    management plan for the season. How do you divide that up?
        Mr. Schultz. So Senator, I think there are two questions
    there, and one is: What is left of the Forest Service?
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. So we would have still timber.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. We would have recreation, we would have
    mining, we would have grazing, all those forestry.
        Senator Murkowski. But in order to have healthy timber, you
    know you need to talk about thinning.
        Mr. Schultz. That is right.
        Senator Murkowski. You need to talk about invasive species
    and disease.
        Mr. Schultz. Right. And we do that today. You think about,
    we have Good Neighbor Agreements with the states.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. So it is not uncommon that a state will come
    in and do timber sale administration on Forest Service lands.
    So imagine a similar type of concept where we are working with
    this entity that has money for fuels, which they could do
    prescribed fires, they could do mechanical treatments, but they
    would be working for the Forest Service.
        And to your point, the Forest Service would still be the
    one making those decisions, but we would be leveraging those
    resources in Interior to get that work done on the National
    Forest System. That is how I would envision that would work. It
    would have to be a coordinated.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. I always worry, though, when we are
    leveraging resources in another department and you have the
    potential for conflict. I am well over my time. But you can
    tell I am very interested in understanding more, I get what you
    are saying, that you are still working through some of these
    details.
        Mr. Schultz. Right.
        Senator Murkowski. But know that we want to be part of
    these discussions in fully understanding the direction.
        Let me turn to Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. So I am going to ask
    the team to put the chart back up. One line in this is Forest
    Health Management, which you told me a few minutes ago that,
    yes, you are going to be distributing those grants to states. I
    am glad to hear that. But also, the chart shows that you are
    planning to zero out the program in fiscal year 2026, assuming
    this is what you are proposing. We will see what Congress does.
        But in that regard to Forest Health Management, I must say
    that we have challenges like sudden oak death, which there is a
    variety that could threaten Douglas fir trees; are you familiar
    with that particular disease?
        Mr. Schultz. I am not, sir. No.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I know that Douglas trees also
    continue on into parts of Idaho and parts of Montana, but a
    huge concentration in Oregon. That is why we have programs like
    Forest Health Management, it is to detect risks to our forests,
    to do the research, and to deploy the resources to try to take
    on those challenges. Why would you propose zeroing that out?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think, again, part of this whole
    budget is to try to figure out what we can afford to maintain,
    and what makes sense to either have another entity do it. And
    for instance, on the forest health discussion, a lot of states
    have their own forest health programs above and beyond funding
    that comes from the Federal Government. And I know the industry
    does a lot of their own forest health monitoring as well. So if
    there is an opportunity for others to step into that space, I
    think that is what we would try to coordinate with that on.
        Senator Merkley. Do you have any studies that have shown
    that that work being done in other venues is sufficient to
    address the risk to our massive Federal forests?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I am aware there is a lot of private
    companies that do this work in the United States and elsewhere,
    that they use satellite technology to address, to identify
    forest health issues. So outside of what the Forest Service
    does or funds, I can tell you there is a lot of work going on
    in the private sector that could facilitate some of this being
    done.
        Senator Merkley. So let me just note that what I am hearing
    is that there is a lot of key work done in this line, very
    relevant to our Federal forests that cannot be obtained from
    other sources. I think we need to take a very close look at
    that. But if you have any studies which show that work that is
    being replicated elsewhere, we would certainly be interested in
    seeing it.
        I want to turn to the next line, which is State Fire
    Capacity Grants, and the one after it: Volunteer Fire Capacity.
    And these are also being--you have said you are going to
    distribute these funds this year, great. But these funds, the
    first one, the State Fire Capacity Grants goes to the state
    level and helps them with the programs they have, some of those
    programs are going to be shut down if they don't have the
    grants to continue them.
        The second one, the Volunteer Fire Capacity, this is very
    much about small rural fire stations. And when we have
    lightning storms, we have the possibility of a hundred fires
    being lit at once. And getting our rural teams out fast, and
    they are normally volunteer teams to put those out before they
    become a larger fire, particularly a fire that might be whipped
    up by the wind and grow very rapidly, is extremely important.
    So in what world does it make sense to devastate the ability of
    rural fire stations to tackle fires early?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, so I think in terms of the strategy,
    you are talking about is a relevant strategy, and Oregon has
    actually been a leader in rangeland fire protection
    associations. As you are fully aware, Eastern Oregon, they use
    that model to put out a lot of wildfires, and a lot of that
    funding, in many cases, is provided by other entities, states,
    and even, like in Idaho, we have rangeland fire protection
    associations. Some of those costs are borne by the lessees and
    permittees themselves that do that work.
        So what we are trying to suggest in this budget is that
    there needs to be a shift in how these programs are funded in
    the future, and there is going to be a shift again in the
    budget to put greater reliance on the states and local
    government to cover those costs on their own without that
    direct Federal support.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I think I hear in that a lot of: We
    hope somebody else will do this work when we quit doing it,
    because it is very important work. I think you are well
    familiar with the state budgets in Idaho and Montana, and I
    think your wish that somehow they are going to come up with
    funds to do things, is unrealistic in the context of many other
    challenges those State governments are facing.
        So there has been a Federal-local partnership, and
    certainly it is very relevant because the local areas help us
    fight the fires on Federal forest land. And I appreciate the
    rangeland associations you are speaking to, but not all of our
    forests are rangelands. Many of them depend on crews in highly
    forested areas that are local fire stations, and those crews
    are actually having more and more difficulty recruiting
    volunteers because many of those volunteers are, essentially,
    to put it bluntly, getting old, and we are having a much harder
    time recruiting younger folks.
        It is a tougher economy, often both parents working, so on,
    and so forth. So I think it may actually be an area that is
    going to need more support rather than less.
        I do have more questions, but I know my time is up, so I
    will be submitting them for the record. But these are very
    important issues for us to wrestle with as a committee.
        And let us turn to my colleague.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
        Chief, glad you will be in North Dakota in August to meet
    with some of our grazers. Very important on the national
    grasslands, and that the Forest Service is in the process of
    updating the Little Missouri National Grasslands Travel
    Management Plan, that will affect, in North Dakota, Billings
    County, Golden Valley County, Slope County, McKenzie County.
        So we appreciate that work and look forward to working with
    you closely on it. Will you commit to not only consult with the
    State of North Dakota, but specifically our Ag Commissioner,
    Doug Goehring, who is very knowledgeable, is a farmer himself,
    and rancher, and works very closely with the grazers? Would you
    be sure to include him in your consultation?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes, we will. You bet.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chief. And then also, are you
    committed to making sure that travel management plan works for
    our grazers and for our energy industry?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chief. Another area actually
    that the Agency has been doing some really good work is in
    noxious weed control. The Deputy Chief, Chris French, has been
    outstanding. He has been out to North Dakota a number of times,
    he has been very responsive, and has done an excellent job of
    helping us with noxious weed control, which is something that
    has historically not been the case.
        And so I really want to commend him, the Agency, and ask if
    you will continue that commitment to that very important work.
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, if I look correctly, I think there is
    about $1.3 million that is going to be allocated for this year
    that will be forthcoming soon, and we will continue that work.
    Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. I really want to commend you on that, it is
    incredibly important and it doesn't matter whether it is
    tourism, or agriculture, you name it, for the health of the
    grasslands. And historically, we have had to just fight tooth
    and nail to get it, and you all have been good. And I just
    encourage you to continue that. And again want to express my
    appreciation.
        Another issue is the prairie dogs. And you know, we
    understand in the park, you know, they want prairie dogs, and
    folks like to have them around, all that kind of thing, but
    they still have to be managed so that they don't completely
    encroach on the grazers' allotments. And I have been out to
    some of those, I guess you could call them pastures, but it
    looks like the moon.
        I mean, they dug--and there is not a blade of grass left.
    It is just a bunch of holes. It is dangerous to, you know, if
    livestock goes over it. It is terrible. And the idea that we
    can allow these prairie dog counts to grow and create that kind
    of situation that actually is detrimental to the environment.
    And so are you committed to helping us control, or manage, I
    should say, the prairie dog population in a common-sense way?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. I think I have looked at. And it
    looks to me that over the last 5 years we have allocated about
    $500,000 to help with some of the management of the prairie
    dogs. You are right, they can be devastating to the range
    productivity. It is a threat for livestock, you know, like you
    said, stepping in a hole or something. So it is something we
    definitely need to work with.
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, and just reasonable buffers, I mean,
    just reasonable buffers between what is ranched and all that
    kind of thing, and then where you want the prairie dogs for
    tourism or whatever, right?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. That is a common sense. And then the last
    thing I would bring up to you is access. The grazers have got
    to have access on those section lines to get out, in order to
    move their cattle and do all those things. And so would you
    work with us on section lines in making sure that, whether it
    is the energy industry, grazers, or even folks that are out
    there for tourism, all that kind of stuff, have reasonable
    access in the grasslands on the section lines?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. All right. Again, thank you. Look forward
    to working with you. Appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Schultz. You bet.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        Mr. Schultz. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Hoeven. If there is no further testimony, or
    questions at this point, questions can still be submitted for
    the record, and then we would ask that those are due by June
    18th. And then we would like a response, if possible, within
    two weeks, if that is something you could do.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. All right. Thank you very much.
                    Questions Submitted to Hon. Tom Schultz
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
        Question. The Forest Service has a statutory responsibility to
    assist and support healthy ecosystems across jurisdictional lines, not
    just within the 193 million acres of the National Forest System.
    However, it is clear that the Administration sees no value in State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry grants because the President's FY2026
    Budget proposes to fully eliminate them. States and landowners put
    these resources into forest stewardship, fuels reduction, and forest
    health, which are important due to the interconnected nature of the
    checkerboard landscape.
        Did you speak directly to any state foresters about this funding
    elimination?
        Answer. The discretionary account was eliminated to ensure fiscal
    responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the
    appropriate roles of Federal and State governments. In alignment with
    restoring federalism, we encourage increasing State authority to fund
    the management of State and privately-owned forests, community
    preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities.
        Question. Without Federal support, how will States have the
    resources to partner with each other and the Federal Government on
    forest health and risk reduction that crosses jurisdictional lines?
        Answer. The Budget request anchors to a return to federalism and
    encourages increasing state authority to fund the management of State
    and privately-owned forests.
        Question. What is your plan for confronting a new pest or disease
    we haven't dealt with before without research or funding the Federal
    Government can provide to States for containment, particularly issues
    that cross jurisdictional lines?
        Answer. Secretary Rollins made an Emergency Situation Determination
    on over 112 million acres of National Forest System Lands using
    authorities provided through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act. In designated areas, the Secretary authorized emergency actions
    including removal of hazardous fuels, harvest of trees to control
    insects or disease, replanting in fire impacted areas and several other
    actions. In response to the Secretary's direction, the agency is
    increasing our forest management efforts that will result in more
    timber and hazardous fuels mitigated from the National Forests,
    improving forest health and providing the ability to address emerging
    issues on National Forest System lands through existing programs and
    authorities.
        Question. For State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance,
    where do you expect communities and volunteer fire departments to find
    funding overnight to replace these grants?
        Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget eliminates funding for the
    State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal
    responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the
    appropriate roles of Federal and State governments. The Administration
    seeks to restore federalism by encouraging States and local partners to
    fund their wildfire preparedness activities in alignment with local
    priorities.
        Question. The President's FY2026 Budget proposes to completely
    eliminate Federal funding for forest research. Even if the private
    sector or universities fill in some gaps, the findings won't be fully
    open and freely available to anyone to pick up a good idea and turn it
    into tomorrow's innovations or improve silviculture practices on their
    property.
        How will the United States be able to meet the challenges of future
    stressors and changing conditions on our forests without Federal
    science?
        Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland
    Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars
    and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest Service's
    responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest System lands.
        We recognize that sound decision-making must be informed by
    science. We will continue to support research aligned to the Agency's
    land management focus through the Forest Inventory and Analysis
    program. In addition, per the FY 2026 Budget proposal, the Joint Fire
    Science Program would continue to be supported in the proposed
    Department of the Interior Wildland Fire Service.
        Question. The 81 Experimental Forests in the Forest and Rangeland
    Research program produces invaluable science and tools necessary to
    manage forests across all ownerships. The President's FY2026 Budget
    proposal to eliminate funding for Forest and Rangeland Research will
    shut down long-term observations and studies at these experimental
    forests, putting at risk decades and decades of data and investigation
    for understanding the forest ecosystem and forest contributions to our
    communities, and to predict future forest conditions used by Federal
    and State managers, private landowners and industry.
        How does the Forest Service plan to support the continuation of an
    experimental forest network and the information it provides for both
    management of National Forest System lands and non-federal lands by
    eliminating all research funds?
        Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland
    Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars
    and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest
        Service's responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest
    System lands. Experimental forests and ranges will remain in the
    ownership of the agency and will be managed in accordance with the
    Administration's priorities.
        Question. I am concerned that the Administration is planning and
    implementing staffing reductions in these Research programs now in
    service to the President's FY2026 Budget proposal before Congress has
    acted on it.
        Will you commit to continuing to operate all of the research
    stations, labs and experimental forests funded in fiscal year 2024
    without interruption until you are instructed otherwise by
    Appropriations law?
        Answer. For FY 2025 operations, the President is acting within his
    authority under the ``Full Year Continuing Appropriations and
    Extensions Act, 2025'' to revise spending within the amounts provided
    by Congress.
        Question. The President's FY2026 Budget proposes to eliminate the
    International Program and Trade office. It is through this Office's
    work that the Forest Service meets its statutory responsibility for
    enforcing the Lacey Act's regulation of wildlife and plant trade, to
    prevent illegal logging overseas and protect domestic producers and
    markets. The Office also promotes American wood products globally and
    supports U.S. companies in the face of tariffs imposed by other
    countries. Since 2019, they have provided the critical forensic
    analysis for over 130 cases of illegal imports brought by Homeland
    Security and other enforcement agencies.
        Without Lacey Act enforcement, the wood identification and
    screening center, or the programs that work internationally to keep
    illegal logging from occurring in the first place, how will the Forest
    Service protect the U.S. timber industry from an influx of illegal
    lumber?
        Answer. The FY 2026 request provides for sustained support for Law
    Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) operations, the lynchpin of our
    Lacey Act enforcement capacity on and off National Forest Lands. The
    Agency will continue to deliver on its statutory Lacey Act enforcement
    responsibilities.
        Question. If International Programs and Trade is eliminated, how
    will the Forest Service address wood export barriers like the European
    Union Deforestation Regulation and Chinese bans on softwood logs from
    the United States?
        Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility
    with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate
    role of the United States in international natural resources efforts.
        Question. I am frustrated that while the Administration claims to
    be focused on efficiencies, the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration program, a proven, bipartisan model that delivers healthier
    forests and stronger communities and avoids costly, dragged out
    litigation, is eliminated in the President's FY2026 Budget.
        Will you confirm for the record that you are moving forward with
    funding the existing Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
    projects in 2025 at the full funding level of $31 million?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If Congress once again funds the program in FY2026, will
    you carry out our direction and fund Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration projects?
        Answer. We will implement programs within the bounds of the
    appropriations bill's legislative text and the Administration's
    priorities.
        Question. A major aspect of the President's FY2026 Budget is
    removing firefighting responsibilities from the Forest Service and
    creating a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the
    Interior. It is difficult to seriously evaluate this proposal from an
    Administration that is jeopardizing our wildfire preparedness by firing
    staff, threatening to cut funding from State, local, and volunteer fire
    departments, and intentionally managing by imposing chaos and fear.
    Because we are already into fire season there should be absolutely no
    further disruption imposed on wildland fire response. This proposal is
    just a proposal and must not be acted upon without an explicit change
    in law.
        Yes or No--Will you commit not to proceed with any changes to
    Federal wildland fire management during fire season?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Yes or No--Will you commit to follow our clear and
    longstanding Appropriations law that funds these two agencies
    separately, and work with Congress on a careful and deliberative
    legislative process for making any changes?
        Answer. We will implement programs within the bounds of the
    appropriations bill's legislative text and the Administration's
    priorities.
        Question. What obstacles to achieving important forest resilience
    work could occur if the Budget proposal separating fire management from
    land management becomes law?
        Answer. The new organization will focus on response to wildfire but
    will assist both the DOI bureaus and the Forest Service in delivering
    critical land management actions. A coordinated effort across Federal
    agencies has always been critical to effectively managing our Federal
    lands. This consolidation builds on that tradition and will continue to
    leverage our multi-agency approach to Federal land management outside
    the boundaries of wildland fire response. In particular, the Forest
    Service will work with the U.S. Wildland Fire Service (USWFS) at DOI to
    build a comprehensive hazardous fuels program to deliver both
    commercial and non-commercial wildfire risk reduction benefit. USWFS
    leadership will work with the Forest Service to ensure effective, risk-
    based hazardous fuels management on FS land, improving on the
    uncollaborative and siloed approach in the last administration that
    produced competing and uncoordinated hazardous fuel management
    strategies.
        Question. Were you and your senior career staff, who have fought
    wildfire over their careers, consulted on this proposal?
        Answer. USDA staff and policy officials have worked closely with
    Administration leadership and the Department of the Interior on the
    proposal.
        Question. Who in the Administration is spearheading the Wildland
    Fire Service proposal? To whom should Congress, the States, and other
    stakeholders direct our questions?
        Answer. This is an interagency process and questions can be
    directed to USDA or DOI.
        Question. We have heard proposals and musings from this
    Administration in support of selling or otherwise disposing of Federal
    lands. Americans are adamantly opposed to this. A poll by the Trust for
    Public Land found that 74% of Americans oppose the closure of public
    lands and 71% oppose selling public lands to the highest bidder. The
    President's FY2026 Budget includes reference to a ``land transfer
    initiative'' to transfer national forest lands to States and Tribes,
    including all existing Job Corps sites.
        Will you commit to us today that the Administration will not change
    the status of statutorily created special management areas, national
    recreation areas, national monuments, or other special management areas
    on National Forest System lands?
        Answer. The Forest Service will continue to work within the
    Agency's and President's authorities for all land management
    activities.
        Question. Under what current authorities would the Forest Service
    implement this ``land transfer initiative'' proposal?
        Answer. The Forest Service currently has limited conveyance
    authorities such as those under the Small Tracts Act.
        Question. Is additional statutory authority, through legislation,
    required to institute the ``land transfer initiative'' proposed in the
    President's FY206 Budget?
        Answer. The Administration will continue to work with Congress on
    any additional authorities needed for the larger initiative.
        Question. What is the list of proposed sites for disposal
    (including their location, size, and current use) that constitute the 1
    million acres being considered for the ``land transfer initiative''
    proposed in the President's FY2026 Budget?
        Answer. It is important to note that the Federal estate is
    considerable and at its current size challenging to manage within the
    financial resources available. The lands transfer initiative included
    in the FY 2026 Budget would right-size the Federal estate and reduce
    Federal costs for land management and asset maintenance. It will return
    these lands to the governments closest to the people who use them--
    local governments that understand and respect the needs and desires of
    their communities far better than the Federal Government. The
    Administration continues to develop this initiative and will release
    further details as appropriate.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
        Question. The Wood Innovation Grant Program has been funded through
    the United States Forest Service's (USFS) Hazardous Fuels account in
    previous years, including covering the cost of at least 16 USFS staff
    to manage these programs. In the FY2026 budget proposal, the
    Administration proposes to move the Hazardous Fuels account and funds
    from USFS to Department of Interior (DOI). In the hearing, you stated
    that the Wood Innovation Grant Program will continue at DOI as a part
    of this transfer, funded at about $30 million. However, the information
    currently available in the President's Budget does not support that
    statement, as there is no mention of continuing the Wood Innovation
    Grant Program at DOI as a part of the proposed Hazardous Fuels account
    transfer.
        Can you confirm for the record, consistent with your statement
    during the hearing, that the Wood Innovations Grant Program would
    continue to be funded at roughly $30 million?
        Answer. Wood Innovations is not a standalone funded program but
    rather has historically been funded through annual congressional
    funding directives. It continues to be a priority of the Administration
    and is expected to be part of the Department of the Interior's ongoing
    implementation of the hazardous fuels program that is transferred from
    the Forest Service.
        Question. How will you budget for the USFS staff needed to continue
    the management of the grant program?
        Answer. The agency will focus staff on delivering the priorities of
    the Administration.
        Question. In 1988, the USFS committed to supporting the
    implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program's restoration efforts by
    signing an MOU with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through
    its State, Private, and Tribal Forestry Program, the USFS has had an
    office with permanent full-time staff located in the EPA's Chesapeake
    Bay Program Office since 1992. This office has led efforts to maintain
    forest health, including urban forests, and to restore riparian forest
    buffers throughout the 64,000 square miles of the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed. The USFS has been instrumental in many of the Chesapeake Bay
    Program's successes in restoration progress. In the hearing, you
    acknowledged extensive layoffs, delayed resignations, and early
    retirements have the reduced the USFS workforce.
        Given USFS staff reductions and elimination of the State, Private,
    and Tribal Forestry budget accounts, how will the USFS continue its
    commitment to support and collaborate with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay
    Program?
        Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility
    with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate
    roles of Federal and State governments. The budget request anchors to a
    return to federalism, which is a priority for the Trump Administration,
    and encourages increasing State and local governments' authority to
    fund the management of State and privately-owned forests, community
    preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities in alignment with
    local priorities.
        Question. How many USFS employees are currently working full-time
    in the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program's Office?
        Answer. As of July 2025, we have one employee working fulltime in
    the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program office in Annapolis.
        Question. How many USFS employees who were working on the
    Chesapeake Bay Program have left because of layoffs, deferred
    resignations, or early retirements since the start of the current
    administration?
        Answer. Since the start of the current administration, we had one
    employee leave the Chesapeake Bay Program through the voluntary
    Deferred Resignation Program.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. The Forest Service projected last year that it would
    treat 4 million acres for hazardous fuels in Fiscal Year 2025. Please
    provide the number of acres so far treated this fiscal year for
    hazardous fuels, divided by treatment type (i.e. prescribed fire,
    mechanical treatment, etc.), month, and state.
        Answer. Please see attachment 1 to this QFR.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hazardous Fuels Activties on National Forest System Lands (Acres, FY25 to Date)
        State & Type of Activity    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Oct        Nov        Dec        Jan        Feb        Mar        Apr        May        Jun        Jul       Total
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama........................  .........  .........      1,823      8,245     45,038      6,600     12,559      2,954  .........  .........     77,219
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mechanical & Other.............  .........  .........  .........        230  .........        255  .........  .........  .........  .........        485
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      1,823      8,015     45,038      6,345     12,559      2,954  .........  .........     76,734
    Alaska.........................        173          3  .........  .........  .........          176
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          3
        Prescribed Fire............        173  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        173
    Arizona........................     41,802     43,343      5,562     10,988      7,154      3,068      8,653      9,375     13,027      9,273    152,245
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      3,868      7,639      1,093         15      4,990      1,199        398        751      5,682  .........     25,635
        Prescribed Fire............     36,658     21,016        882     10,973      2,164      1,869      8,255      8,624        915  .........     91,356
        Natural Wildfire Meeting         1,276     14,688      3,587  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      6,430      9,273     35,254
         Objectives................
    Arkansas.......................        224      1,720        183      1,218     47,563     81,401     60,943      1,118        681      2,860    197,911
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        224      1,720         14        497        676  .........      1,258      1,118        681      2,860      9,048
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........        169        721     46,887     80,232     59,686  .........  .........    187,695
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,169  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,169
         Objectives................
    California.....................     29,234     15,577     10,586     11,670      4,432     10,388      3,905      7,674      1,350      1,022     95,838
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........     16,111      6,819      3,919      5,275      2,575      7,740        522      6,380      1,337      1,022     51,701
        Prescribed Fire............        247      8,758      6,667      6,395      1,857      2,648      3,383      1,294         13  .........     31,262
        Natural Wildfire Meeting        12,876  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     12,876
         Objectives................
    Colorado.......................      4,668      2,822      4,579      4,808      4,161        400      3,383      6,943        221  .........     31,985
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      2,749        671      1,115        312        992          7         96      3,953        221  .........     10,116
        Prescribed Fire............      1,919      2,151      3,464      4,496      3,169        393      3,287      2,990     21,870  .........  .........
    Florida........................        595  .........  .........      9,847     24,465      5,384         17      2,798  .........  .........     43,106
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        595  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         17  .........  .........  .........        612
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........      9,847     24,465      5,384  .........  .........  .........  .........     39,696
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,798  .........  .........      2,798
         Objectives................
    Georgia........................  .........        130      2,579  .........      8,607      2,077        553  .........        463     14,409
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........        130  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        463        593
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      2,579  .........      8,607  .........      2,077        553  .........  .........     13,816
    Idaho..........................     79,391    117,245     60,053      7,333      2,103        179      7,915      4,880      1,668      1,856    282,624
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      7,571      7,978        209      1,840      1,757        168      5,422        533      1,013      1,856     28,348
        Prescribed Fire............      4,090      9,231        599         43        346         11      2,493      4,347        655  .........     21,816
        Natural Wildfire Meeting        67,730    100,035     59,245      5,450  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    232,460
         Objectives................
    Illinois.......................         76         30  .........        199        180     13,229      3,243  .........  .........  .........     16,958
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........         76         30  .........         99        180  .........        808  .........  .........  .........      1,194
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        100  .........     13,229      2,435  .........  .........  .........     15,764
    Indiana........................  .........         89  .........         15  .........      2,420      2,818  .........  .........  .........      5,342
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........         89  .........  .........  .........        127        427  .........  .........  .........        643
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........         15  .........      2,293      2,391  .........  .........  .........      4,699
    Kentucky.......................  .........         80  .........  .........      1,551      3,349  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,980
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........         80  .........  .........      1,551      3,349  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,980
    Louisiana......................  .........        952      3,719     11,268     13,196     15,228     18,644      1,268      2,980  .........     67,255
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........        952      3,719     11,268     13,196     15,228     18,644      1,268      2,980  .........     67,255
    Maine..........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........            9  .........  .........  .........          9
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          9  .........  .........  .........          9
    Michigan.......................      1,789      1,494        692        970      1,362        618      8,310      5,087      2,368        228     22,918
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      1,720      1,456        508        659      1,287        587        800      1,831      1,569        228     10,645
        Prescribed Fire............         69         38        184        311         75         31      7,509      3,256        799  .........     12,272
    Minnesota......................      3,019        925      2,557      1,926        374        166        935      2,417      4,225      1,379     17,922
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      2,609        887      1,869      1,926        374        166        901      1,582      4,225      1,379     15,917
        Prescribed Fire............        410         38        688  .........  .........  .........         34        835  .........  .........      2,005
    Mississippi....................  .........         18      2,677      1,726     12,370     15,286     40,886      8,719  .........  .........     81,682
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........         18      1,094         46        304      1,352        481        323  .........      3,618
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      1,583      1,680     12,066     13,934     40,406      8,396  .........  .........     78,064
    Missouri.......................      1,602        426      1,018      5,460        227     38,647      4,660      1,496        752  .........     54,288
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        664        426      1,011      2,103        225      2,603      2,098      1,496        752  .........     11,378
        Prescribed Fire............        938  .........          7      3,357          2     36,044      2,562  .........  .........  .........     42,910
    Montana........................     13,799     10,243     18,429      8,020      1,376      3,173      5,394     15,052      1,289      7,576     84,351
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........     10,164      1,773      3,023      6,994      1,024      1,852      2,238      8,738      1,289      7,576     44,671
        Prescribed Fire............      3,304      6,831      2,254      1,026        352      1,321      3,156      6,314  .........  .........     24,558
        Natural Wildfire Meeting           331      1,639     13,152  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     15,122
         Objectives................
    Nebraska.......................         39     11,201          2         16        743  .........      2,029      4,931  .........  .........     18,961
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........         39     10,690          2         16  .........  .........  .........      4,931  .........  .........     15,678
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........        743  .........      2,029  .........  .........  .........      2,772
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        511  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        511
         Objectives................
    Nevada.........................        831     10,185          5        175         39        256          8  .........      1,534         19     13,051
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        831      1,953  .........  .........  .........  .........          8  .........      1,534         19      4,345
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........          5        175         39        256  .........  .........  .........  .........        475
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........      8,232  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      8,232
         Objectives................
    New Hampshire..................        262  .........  .........         51         33         43         73         50  .........  .........        511
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        262  .........  .........         51         33         43  .........         31  .........  .........        419
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         73         19  .........  .........         92
    New Mexico.....................     11,733      1,201        827        950      1,785         77      3,040        239      3,704      1,026     24,582
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      2,077        198        447        900        488         77      3,040        239      3,690        936     12,092
        Prescribed Fire............      9,656      1,003        380         50      1,297  .........  .........  .........         90     12,476
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         14  .........         14
         Objectives................
    New York.......................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        200         91  .........  .........  .........        291
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        200         91  .........  .........  .........        291
    North Carolina.................  .........  .........  .........        943        977        966      2,588  .........  .........  .........      5,474
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        943        977        966      2,588  .........  .........  .........      5,474
    North Dakota...................      2,230  .........      1,947         48  .........  .........  .........      2,329  .........  .........      6,553
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      2,230  .........      1,857  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,087
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........         89         48  .........  .........  .........      2,329  .........  .........      2,466
    Ohio...........................         39         62  .........  .........  .........      1,966        927         22         19  .........      3,035
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........         39         62  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         22         19  .........        142
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,966        927  .........  .........  .........      2,893
    Oklahoma.......................  .........  .........  .........        183      5,409  .........     10,799  .........  .........  .........     16,391
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,034  .........  .........  .........      1,034
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        183      5,409  .........      9,765  .........  .........  .........     15,357
    Oregon.........................     93,987     30,537     57,601      8,774     30,222      6,051     11,528     18,876      3,567      7,065    268,208
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........     15,048      7,335      7,986      3,001     21,561      5,921      8,258      8,897      3,045      7,065     88,118
        Prescribed Fire............      5,833     23,153     13,115      4,367        612        130      3,270      9,979        522  .........     60,980
        Natural Wildfire Meeting        73,106         49     36,500      1,406      8,049  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    119,110
         Objectives................
    Pennsylvania...................  .........        151        315        187        484        754        599      2,248        106  .........      4,844
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........        151        315        187        484        754        599      2,210        106  .........      4,806
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         38  .........  .........         38
    Puerto Rico....................          7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          7
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........          7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          7
    South Carolina.................      1,587         39         37      2,144     10,865      1,231      3,235      3,587      1,116        625     24,466
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........         39         37        991         15        633        455        234      1,116        625      4,146
        Prescribed Fire............      1,587  .........  .........      1,153     10,850        598      2,780      3,353  .........  .........     20,321
    South Dakota...................        450        454  .........         87      4,570      1,497      2,457      1,243  .........  .........     10,758
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........        228        454  .........  .........        200      1,060  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,942
        Prescribed Fire............        222  .........  .........         87      4,370        437      2,457      1,243  .........  .........      8,816
    Tennessee......................      1,543  .........  .........         64  .........      7,915  .........  .........  .........  .........      9,521
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      1,543  .........  .........         64  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,606
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,915  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,915
    Texas..........................  .........      1,207      2,225      5,566     27,796     10,222     53,649      1,798  .........  .........    102,463
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prescribed Fire............  .........      1,207      2,225      5,566     27,796     10,222     53,649      1,798  .........    102,463
    Utah...........................      5,465      9,398        303      3,321      3,365      1,751      1,002     19,100        272      1,058     45,035
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      4,715      7,963         76      3,237  .........        642        577      9,300        272      1,058     27,840
        Prescribed Fire............        750      1,128        227         84      3,365      1,109        425      9,800  .........     16,888
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        307  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        307
         Objectives................
    Vermont........................          8  .........  .........         20  .........        204        240         91         24  .........        587
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........          8  .........  .........         20  .........        204  .........         12         24  .........        268
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        240         79  .........  .........        319
    Virginia.......................         44  .........         15        377  .........        638      1,939  .........         41  .........      3,054
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........         44  .........         15        377  .........        111        145  .........         41  .........        733
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        527      1,794  .........  .........  .........      2,321
    Washington.....................      7,996     16,041        520        269        140      4,505      5,252      1,636      1,123      1,468     38,949
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      2,792        449  .........        188  .........      4,021         10        833      1,123      1,468     10,883
        Prescribed Fire............      5,204      7,992        520         81        140        484      5,242        803  .........  .........     20,466
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........      7,600  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,600
         Objectives................
    West Virginia..................  .........  .........  .........         32  .........        411        641  .........  .........  .........      1,084
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........  .........  .........  .........         32  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         32
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        411        641  .........  .........  .........      1,052
    Wisconsin......................      1,028        316        334        838      1,388      1,092        803      1,664         62         15      7,540
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      1,028        316        290        747        854      1,091        700        893         12         15      5,945
        Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........         45         91        534          1        103        771         50  .........      1,595
    Wyoming........................      1,126      3,440     91,365      4,955      2,553        192      2,219      1,865      3,098         59    110,871
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mechanical & Other.........      1,027      2,548        664      4,112        459        192  .........        432        482         59      9,975
        Prescribed Fire............         99        709        771        843      2,094  .........      2,219      1,433      2,616  .........     10,784
        Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        183     89,930  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     90,113
         Objectives................
            Grand Total............    304,747    279,328    269,953    112,692    264,528    239,507    287,471    130,011     43,226     35,991  1,967,455
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Hoeven. And with that, then the hearing is
    completed. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Baldwin, Senator Tammy, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Question
      Submitted by...................................................
      106............................................................
    Burgum, Hon. Douglas, Secretary, Department of the Interior:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          68.........................................................
        Questions Submitted to.......................................
          102........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          59.........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          66.........................................................

    Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................
      51.............................................................

    Fischer, Senator Deb, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      52.............................................................

    Gillibrand, Senator Kirsten, U.S. Senator from New York,
      Questions Submitted by

    Heinrich, Senator Martin, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, Questions
      Submitted by

    Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator from Oregon:
        Questions Submitted by

        Statement of

    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
        Opening Statement of

    Rounds, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      53.............................................................

    Schultz, Hon. Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          116........................................................
        Questions Submitted to.......................................
          137........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          109........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          114........................................................

    Van Hollen, Senator Chris, U.S. Senator from Maryland, Questions
      Submitted by

    Zeldin, Hon. Lee, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          8..........................................................
        Questions Submitted to.......................................
          51.........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          1..........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          6..........................................................

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................
      93.............................................................
    Alaska Issues....................................................
      100............................................................
    Alaska Resources.................................................
      72.............................................................
    Bureau of Indian Education Schools...............................
      89.............................................................
    Chesapeake Bay...................................................
      84.............................................................
    Critical Minerals................................................
      86.............................................................
    DOI:
        Efficiency...................................................
          94.........................................................
        Reprogramming................................................
          95.........................................................
    Federal:
        Appropriations Process.......................................
          96.........................................................
        Land Management..............................................
          83.........................................................
    Fiscal Year 2025 Funding.........................................
      75.............................................................
    Great American Outdoors Act......................................
      75.............................................................
    Hurricane Ridge..................................................
      79.............................................................
    Indian Affairs...................................................
      81.............................................................
    Ice Age Trail....................................................
      90.............................................................
    Insular Affairs..................................................
      95.............................................................
    National:
        Monuments....................................................
          90.........................................................
        Parks

        Park System..................................................
          74.........................................................
    Norcross, GA Water Science Center................................
      92.............................................................
    Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge..............................
      92.............................................................
    Oklahoma Law Enforcement.........................................
      87.............................................................
    Ocmulgee National Park Initiative................................
      93.............................................................
    President's FY 2026 Budget Request for Specific Priorities, The..
      116............................................................
    Productivity.....................................................
      78.............................................................
    Public:
        Lands........................................................
          78.........................................................
        Lands and National Parks.....................................
          79.........................................................
        Safety and Justice...........................................
          100........................................................
    Reorganization...................................................
      102............................................................
    Tribal Law Enforcement...........................................
      77.............................................................
    United Stated Geogocial Survey...................................
      91.............................................................
    Wild Horses......................................................
      77.............................................................
    Wildland:
        Fire.........................................................
          81.........................................................
            Budget...................................................
              101....................................................
    Workforce Efficiencies

    Working Together.................................................
      71.............................................................

                                   [all]