[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]