About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum Testifies Before The Senate from Forbes Breaking News, published April 29, 2026. The transcript contains 24,510 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"Good morning. The committee will come to order. We're going to hear today from Secretary Burgum as we discuss the fiscal year 2027 budget from the United States Department of the Interior. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'll begin with my opening statement, followed by Ranking Member Heinrich's opening..."
[17:01] Good morning. The committee will come to order. We're going to hear today from Secretary Burgum
[17:08] as we discuss the fiscal year 2027 budget from the United States Department of the Interior.
[17:15] Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'll begin with my opening statement, followed by
[17:20] Ranking Member Heinrich's opening statement, and then we'll turn to Secretary Burgum for his
[17:26] opening statement, followed by questions from members of the committee. I want to note that
[17:33] today Senate Democrats are having their policy retreat. So for today's hearing,
[17:37] Ranking Member Heinrich has requested that we recognize Democrat senators based on order of
[17:43] seniority rather than being subject to the early bird rule, and we're happy to honor that. So
[17:47] Republican senators will be recognized based on their order of seniority for those who are here
[17:52] at the gavel and order of arrival for those arriving afterwards. But Democrats won't be subject to that
[18:00] one. And I'll begin. Mr. Secretary, President Trump campaigned on a promise to unleash American energy,
[18:10] and delivering on that promise runs directly through the department that you lead in so many respects.
[18:18] When you assumed office, you inherited a department that had been alienated against its own purpose,
[18:26] certainly against that particular purpose. Under your predecessor, the Biden administration did
[18:31] everything in its power to dampen energy production and narrow access to federal land. Lease sales
[18:41] were canceled or in many cases delayed. Permits were slow walked and in some cases revoked. The Biden
[18:49] administration didn't view the federal estate as a natural as a national asset to be actively managed.
[18:57] Instead, use was treated with suspicion and access became conditional, revocable and increasingly rare.
[19:06] We were sold a lie that demand could be managed from above, that supply would quietly adjust to
[19:11] political preference and that the consequences could be deferred. Predictably, supply chains drifted further
[19:19] overseas, leaving us more exposed to decisions made abroad outside of our control. Wildfire threats grew more
[19:27] severe and coordination remained fragmented and slower than the scale of the problem under today's
[19:35] circumstances required. The boom in artificial intelligence, coupled with the development of
[19:42] advanced manufacturing, proved just how untenable the previous administration's approach was.
[19:48] For these reasons, I was relieved to see that your FY 2027 budget request shows a dramatic departure from
[19:56] that approach. Under your proposed budget, there is a renewed emphasis on unleashing American energy
[20:03] and America's mineral dominance. Lease sales are being put back on a predictable schedule pursuant to
[20:10] the Working Families Tax Cut Act. Permits for oil and gas projects are no longer the insurmountable barrier
[20:18] that they once served as. Mining in the United States is gaining ground from coal to critical minerals
[20:25] that underpin modern manufacturing energy systems and the technologies shaping global power. These efforts
[20:33] will reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign adversarial nations, instead favoring American workers
[20:40] and American ingenuity. Mr. Secretary, you have many accomplishments already under your tenure,
[20:47] but you still have monumental tasks ahead and you're tackling those every day. Now, last year,
[20:52] more than five million acres burned, causing billions of dollars in damage and placing entire
[20:59] communities at risk. Interior's unification of federal wildfire programs into a single wildland fire
[21:07] service acknowledges that the current system hasn't been working as it should. For too long, responsibility
[21:14] has been split across agencies with overlapping authorities, with inconsistent priorities and no clear
[21:21] chain of command. I look forward to hearing more about your plan for how this structure will be used,
[21:28] how it will improve coordination and accelerate response while bringing accountability to a system
[21:33] that's too long fallen far short. Lastly, I want to commend you for your work in leading the country's
[21:41] commemoration of America's 250th anniversary, or as King Charles put it yesterday, the semi-quincentennial.
[21:50] It's a word that very rarely makes an appearance in the English language, and that's why we call it
[21:56] America 250. That's a lot easier to say. That effort forces us to look back at what made this country
[22:03] possible. We're a nation of builders, of producers, and those who refuse to accept limits imposed by
[22:10] circumstance or by our own reluctance. The decisions made in this department, in your department,
[22:17] sit squarely in that tradition. If we fail here, we fall behind. If we get it right,
[22:21] we shape our destiny on our own terms, for our own betterment, and the betterment of those who will
[22:27] come after us. I have utmost confidence in you, Mr. Secretary, and your ability to
[22:32] get the job done and get it done right. And I look forward to your testimony today.
[22:39] Thank you, Chairman. The budget proposal that we're discussing today tells us a lot about what
[22:47] this administration's priorities are. And I was very pleased to see that you have abandoned last
[22:53] year's proposal to get rid of many units of the national park system. But even though you've agreed
[23:00] to keep our park units, this budget request makes clear that this administration is not committed to
[23:06] keeping the park service intact. This budget would decimate the management of our national parks and
[23:14] monuments. And while you have said that the cuts are not targeting staff physically located at park
[23:20] units, the management of our parks relies on the entire workforce of the national park service. It
[23:27] doesn't matter whether a particular wildlife biologist or archaeologist or botanist or historian
[23:33] works at one specific park or supports multiple parks from a regional office. Eliminating those
[23:40] positions means that our national parks will go without the science-based management and conservation
[23:47] that they need and that the American people have frankly come to expect. And the damage that this
[23:54] proposal will do to our public lands doesn't end with the parks. At the Bureau of Land Management,
[24:00] which manages nearly half of our public lands, this administration would cut the land resources
[24:05] account by 48 percent. That's just a fact. The Wildlife Management Aquatic Resources Program by 70 percent.
[24:12] It would cut management of national conservation lands, including our national monuments, recreation areas,
[24:19] and national trails by 75 percent. And I would point out that those national monuments are major drivers
[24:26] of economic development in my state. I don't know anyone in New Mexico that thinks we spend too much money
[24:33] on wildlife. We may spend too much money on a war in Iran, but we don't spend too much money on wildlife.
[24:41] People often say that budget proposals in Washington are a statement of our values. You fund the things that
[24:48] you care about. What this budget proposal tells me is that this administration does not prioritize our
[24:54] national parks, our public lands, does not care about remembering and telling our nation's history,
[24:59] does not value our wildlife, and does not prioritize our tribal communities. It also tells me that this
[25:05] administration isn't serious about permitting reform because defunding the agencies that issue permits for
[25:12] new energy projects means that permits don't get issued, creating red tape rather than cutting it. Even the
[25:21] courts have said that the Department of Interior needs to stop illegally stalling wind and solar projects,
[25:26] and yet there are still no projects moving to construction. Instead of trying to appeal this
[25:34] recent decision or defy it, the Department of Energy needs to comply with the court's order.
[25:39] Start approving permits for clean energy projects on federal lands, and if there is any hope of Congress
[25:46] passing bipartisan permitting reform that the administration needs to make use of the permitting
[25:52] system that we have instead of trying to break it. I know the American people care about all of these
[25:59] things, and I am confident that the disregard this administration has for our public lands and waters
[26:05] will not be allowed to degrade and destroy our national heritage. Thank you, Chairman.
[26:11] Thank you. Okay, Secretary Burgum, we'll now turn to you for your opening statement and your
[26:18] written statement will also be admitted for the record. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the
[26:22] opportunity to be with you today and Ranking Member Heinrich and the distinguished members of this
[26:27] committee, and thanks for the opportunity to testify in support of the President's fiscal year 2027
[26:32] budget request for the Department of Interior and discuss what our team is doing to make America safer,
[26:37] stronger, more beautiful, and more prosperous. As all of you know, this Department of Interior touches the
[26:43] lives of millions of Americans across 14 time zones. We manage America's vast energy supply and natural
[26:51] resources. We honor federal trust responsibilities and our unique relationships with tribal nations.
[26:57] We deliver water to the West. We fight fires. We enforce the law. We steward our treasured wildlife
[27:02] refuges and national parks. Our efforts extend across the country to ensure border security.
[27:08] The Department of Interior manages 41 percent of the southwestern border and the safety of Indian
[27:14] country. This broad portfolio is part of America's treasured balance sheet. Tens of trillions worth of
[27:20] assets that belong to the American people and should be responsibly managed and conserved,
[27:26] and as the law states put to use for their benefit. While the prior administrations have handcuffed and
[27:34] locked Americans out of their land and water, the Trump administration is doing the opposite,
[27:38] responsibly unlocking both access and prosperity through recreation and sustainable use,
[27:44] including by our nation's hunters and anglers who we know financially support conservation more than
[27:50] any other groups. This budget reflects President Trump's priorities to pursue American energy dominance,
[27:56] deliver services more efficiently, uphold law and order, and make federal lands safe and accessible for all
[28:02] Americans, all of which will make life more healthy and more affordable for families across the country.
[28:08] Under this administration, Interior is committed to increasing energy development on our public lands and waters,
[28:14] reestablishing our position as dominant and critical minerals, and protecting our economic and national security.
[28:22] Energy dominance can be simply defined as the ability to sell energy to our friends and allies,
[28:27] so that they don't have to buy from those waging war against us, and those waging terrorism against us.
[28:34] Energy dominance also means that we have supply to keep energy prices home so Americans can prosper.
[28:41] We have eliminated burdensome ideological and counterproductive regulations that have undermined
[28:46] efficient land management, overstepped legal boundaries, constrained economic development,
[28:51] and we've done this while maintaining appropriate protections for our wildlife and the environment.
[28:57] Ongoing regulatory reform to cut red tape will continue to secure supply chains,
[29:01] unlock American energy, deliver better outcomes for the American people and tribal nations,
[29:05] and secure the financial returns in a sustainable way for the American people
[29:10] on their federally owned land and mineral assets. Those returns on those assets can help solve the enormous
[29:18] backlog of deferred maintenance that we have as a country that never seems to get funded
[29:23] through appropriations. Last month, the Department held record lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve
[29:28] in Alaska, generating record revenue, creating opportunities for those native Alaskans that live
[29:35] in the North Slope borough. And following Congress's direction in the Working Families Tax Cut Act,
[29:41] we are scheduling and holding energy lease sales according to the law to increase supply and lower costs for Americans.
[29:48] The Department estimates that revenues in 2027 will exceed nearly $20 billion. That makes the Department of
[29:55] Interior unusual across the federal budget in that we will have more revenue coming in than expenses going out.
[30:00] And we believe that as we can manage this Department in a way to have the revenue go up, to have more resources,
[30:09] to manage more financial resources, to manage our natural resources.
[30:15] So again, uniquely, the revenues this year in this budget will offset operational costs of the Department
[30:21] and think of us as a cash flow positive that contributes back to the American people and to the Treasury.
[30:27] The Department is also reducing costs by making our operations more effective and more efficient.
[30:34] This budget, as you have all read, includes three unification proposals. And I specifically say
[30:39] unification, not consolidation, because we're unifying without cutting corners, but we're unifying
[30:46] to improve efficiency. Two of those include unifications that are across departments coordinated by
[30:53] the White House and with the support of the multiple departments. And a further one is just within our
[31:04] own department. One of the two, the further strategic unification of wildland fire programs into the
[31:11] Department's new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. It considers the unification of the parallel and often redundant work.
[31:19] I mean, excuse me, that was the first one. The second one is the unification of the parallel and often
[31:24] redundant work of the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
[31:31] Mammal Protection Act, combining both of those activities into the Fish and Wildlife Service. So there's
[31:37] one place for people to go if they're trying to find out where a mammal or a fish might be endangered,
[31:44] as opposed to having to go to two separate agencies. The reunification of the department's two existing
[31:51] offshore minerals management bureaus is something that occurs just within our own department. But
[31:57] we're combining Bohm and Bessie back into a single entity in the Marine Minerals Administration,
[32:03] streamlining the governance of offshore energy and mineral resources will deliver greater value to
[32:08] the American public and ensure safe expedition orderly development of the Outer Continental Shelf
[32:13] energy and critical minerals resources, while keeping the revenue coming from those offshore resources,
[32:19] which was a concern of over a decade ago, into a separate organization. These unification efforts
[32:25] will streamline bureaucracy and make our work to fight fires, manage our forests, protect our wildlife
[32:30] and the environment, and manage our mineral resources all faster, smarter, and more effective. The budget also
[32:36] advances key administrative priorities, including upholding trust responsibilities, empowering Indian
[32:41] country, conserving America's wildlife and natural resources, and making public lands accessible to
[32:47] all Americans for hunting, fishing, recreation, and other uses. We are expanding efforts to cooperate
[32:53] with tribes and federal agencies to fulfill federal trust responsibilities by committing to open door
[32:58] engagement, transparency, and sustained communication with all 575 federally recognized tribes. In 2027,
[33:06] the department will also continue its commitment to advancing tribal sovereignty, promoting economic
[33:11] opportunities, reducing the probate backlog, and combating violent crime in the crisis of missing and
[33:16] murdered indigenous people. Millions of Americans visit interior managed lands each year, fueling a boom of
[33:23] outdoor recreation economy and supporting jobs and small businesses nationwide. It's estimated that the outdoor
[33:29] recreation economy is now reaching $1.3 trillion and employs 3% of the American public. The 2027 budget
[33:40] focuses on the continued maintenance and beautification of interiors assets. One big ask that I would have of this
[33:49] important committee is for your full support for the expeditious reauthorization of the Great American Outdoors Act
[33:56] Legacy Restoration Fund, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Trump in his first term.
[34:02] A reauthorization for an additional five years would again help us protect these important resources and
[34:08] tackle the growing deferred maintenance backlog. Through this fund the department invests in properly
[34:14] maintaining roads, bridges, water systems, visitor centers, and other assets so visitors can continue to
[34:19] safely enjoy our national parks and public lands for years to come. In addition, as we celebrate
[34:26] America's 250th, the budget focuses resources on visitor-facing operations at parks, wildlife
[34:32] refuges, and across public lands. This will help improve visitor experience, drive tourism, create jobs,
[34:37] generate revenue for our important partners in local interest communities, all while promoting
[34:43] responsible stewardship of our natural resources. This budget also includes a new proposal, the Presidential
[34:50] Capital Stewardship Program, for priority construction and beautification and deferred maintenance
[34:55] projects in and around the large national capital region to address years of inadequate maintenance.
[35:02] This program will support the President's Make America Beautiful Again agenda and projects will improve
[35:09] safety and accessibility, rehabilitate historic buildings and landscapes, improve infrastructure in the
[35:15] greater capital region, including our highways and underground infrastructure, and enhance the overall visitor experience in
[35:21] Washington, D.C. and the surrounding area. The iconic monuments, memorials, and landscapes supported by these projects will continue to be protected by the United States Park Police, a separate law enforcement group, one of five that are law enforcement groups that are part of Interior.
[35:35] The U.S. Park Police was founded by George Washington in 1791. Under prior administrations, this force had been essentially defunded. Under President Trump's leadership,
[35:47] the U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Park Police has expedited the hiring of more than 300 new officers to help keep our nation's capital and national parks safe and beautiful. This budget includes an increase of $111 million for these dedicated law enforcement officers, the equipment and the tools they need to operate to keep our national capital region fully staffed and safe.
[36:09] Simply put, this budget puts America's first and Americans first while ensuring peace and prosperity for our country's future. I deeply appreciate this committee's support for the department's mission and I look forward to working closely with each of you to advance the president's priorities. Thank you.
[36:27] Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Burgum. We'll now begin our five-minute rounds of questions and I will begin.
[36:33] Mr. Secretary, since January 1st, more than 23,000 fires have burned over 1.8 million acres nationwide.
[36:44] The failure of past administrations to conduct active land management has helped turn the West into a giant tinderbox. Under your leadership, changes are finally happening.
[36:57] I'd love for you to just sort of explain to us how the U.S. Wildland Fire Service will improve Interior's ability to mitigate risk and streamline operations and get the wildfire crisis under control.
[37:12] Thank you, Chairman. As this committee knows, there are four separate firefighting units within the Department of Interior.
[37:19] They are held within four of our bureaus. So we've got a separate one for the National Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management.
[37:31] In some cases, these are large. The Bureau of Land Management in many states manages forests larger than the U.S. Forest Service.
[37:38] The budget also includes the unification, represents the unification of the firefighting portion of the U.S. Forest Service, which currently resides under the USDA, to have that fifth firefighting group also come under this structure.
[37:55] So that's reflected in the budget.
[37:57] What we have across these five firefighting groups today is we've got courageous young men and women, well-trained and capable to go out and fight fires.
[38:06] Think of it as the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, the Coast Guard.
[38:10] But we don't have a Joint Chiefs of Staff. We find ourselves, when a fire doesn't understand the difference between state land, private land, is it BLM land, National Park Service land, fire doesn't care.
[38:21] But we get to the top of this chain, and without a Joint Chiefs of Staff, we don't have the ability to make decisions about deploying aircraft appropriately and expeditiously.
[38:31] And we haven't had leadership in some of these organizations. The leadership would be a hotshot firefighter on the front line, reports to a firefighter, but at some point in the chain, they report to a land manager that might be saying,
[38:44] hey, I'm constrained in my budget. I've got to fire here, but I've got to let it burn because I have no budget for being able to do any kind of forest management.
[38:53] Well, right next door, we might have someone else that says, no, it's 90 degrees out, the wind's blowing 70 miles an hour. We have to take an approach of extinguishing this fire.
[39:05] So we've got to focus on suppression. And we have another group that is focusing on containment.
[39:10] This happened to us last year, where we had fires that burned out of control, adjacent to each other on federal lands.
[39:17] So with this proposal, we have proceeded within our own department. We've hired a head of the National Wildland Fire Chief with great experience.
[39:26] He's been making the rounds with Congress. We're happy to set up meetings with any of you or your staff for him and myself or Depth Secretary to talk about this.
[39:35] But this is a much needed change. In addition to this unification, we're also taking a look at pay, retirement benefits.
[39:41] Retirement benefits. We've had folks that come, they get trained, they join one, and then they decide, oh, I get better pay in the other agency.
[39:48] I'm going to switch to that one. We've got to be unified across all of this.
[39:51] The support from the front lines is high, and I'd say the implementation that we're moving ahead on right now as we head into this season.
[40:00] It gives us the ability to say if we put out a secretary order, so now the wildland fire chief reports all the way up to the secretary's office to me, not someplace else, five different locations.
[40:11] One order saying this year, with this incredibly dry year in the West, we are under full suppression.
[40:17] If there's a fire, as of when that issue went out, secretarial order a few weeks ago, there's a fire, we're putting it out.
[40:23] We can't waste human resources, we can't waste financial resources, aviation resources this spring, hoping that some of these fires are going to go out on themselves.
[40:31] So this is a long overdue, it's been talked about for decades, long overdue. We're charging ahead.
[40:37] We would love to have the full support of this committee.
[40:39] Great. Thank you. And I like the joint chief's analogy. War on fires.
[40:46] President Trump's budget includes a provision to reauthorize the Legacy Restoration Fund, but with some needed reforms.
[40:55] Our land management agencies have a deferred maintenance backlog that adds up to more than $30 billion, with a B, which is an increase from when the LRF was created.
[41:07] This is in part because current law provides permanent funding to buy more land and to increase the federal estate, only growing the maintenance needs.
[41:18] And so if we don't catch up with that, we could get even farther behind.
[41:22] So, Mr. Secretary, as we discuss reauthorizing the Legacy Restoration Fund, will you work with us to make reforms to ensure that the deferred maintenance backlog decreases?
[41:32] Yes, absolutely, sir.
[41:34] And thank you also for your commitment on the Colorado River issues that we face.
[41:41] As you know, the outcome of ongoing negotiations will have a massive impact on Utah and on the West.
[41:50] Will you commit to being transparent and working with the upper basin and including providing maximum possible notice for actions impacting the Colorado River, specifically in the upper basin?
[42:01] Yeah, absolutely. And I'd say we've taken unprecedented action in this dry year.
[42:06] We've had the seven governors of those states of all upper and lower basin all been in my office, with the exception of one that had to remote in.
[42:16] We've had two video calls, including one with all seven western states governors on this thing.
[42:21] So it's not just the water managers. We're talking secretary to governors as we try to address these issues.
[42:26] And we'll keep that transparency and regular communication up.
[42:29] Great. Thank you.
[42:30] Senator Heinrich.
[42:31] Thank you, Chairman.
[42:33] First, I want to say I very much appreciate your testimony with respect to reauthorizing the Great American Outdoors Act Legacy Restoration Fund.
[42:43] That is one of the most ubiquitously bipartisan policies that this committee has produced in the last decade.
[42:55] So we look forward to working with you on that.
[42:58] I am concerned that over the last year we have seen a hollowing out of the Department of Interior.
[43:05] Nearly 20% of Department of Interior staff have been either pushed out or have left or have retired.
[43:14] And yet the department recently offered another round of deferred resignations.
[43:19] And I hear from my state on the ground about not being able to get messages returned, phone calls back, permits approved.
[43:31] So why is the department continuing to offer buyouts and deferred resignations when that only deepens our ability, the existing staffing shortages and more importantly, the ability for people to actually actively manage these landscapes?
[43:49] Well, first of all, I would just say that I reject the overall thesis that somehow we have, well, we haven't, no one's been pushed out.
[43:59] The only way people have left is with voluntary retirement programs.
[44:03] I have personal friends who feel pushed out.
[44:05] I understand people may feel that way, but the fact is that-
[44:09] I mean, when they got the fork in the road email, and I know that didn't come from you, it came from someone who's not even in the government anymore.
[44:17] People got the message.
[44:19] Yeah, and all of those initial doge things from the initial first weeks of the thing, those were all stopped by unions and courts, and they were all offered their jobs back.
[44:30] So us rehashing the history-
[44:32] But they got the message that they weren't welcome, and many of those people just moved on.
[44:36] And they were some of our most experienced folks.
[44:39] Well, it is true that across the federal government, that the federal government employees today, like they are in many state governments, have a massive number of people that are at or above retirement age.
[44:51] And so that's just- that's a case.
[44:54] And when people have taken the voluntary retirement, it also- we've got an organization, when you've got that many people stacked at the top, it doesn't create a lot of opportunity for young people moving up.
[45:04] So the flip side is people are saying, hey, now I've got an opportunity to stay and have a long career in this agency.
[45:10] But there- to your specific question about the recent thing, there was groups of people last year that did not have the opportunity to take the voluntary retirement.
[45:21] And that was a small group.
[45:22] I mean, across the- we started with 65,000 people.
[45:25] The group that were- that were offered and then considered this round were about 1,500 people that were never offered the opportunity last year.
[45:33] Of those that accepted it, we rejected over 500 of those, because we have the ability to say, yeah, if you take it,
[45:39] but we determine with a park superintendent that you're essential, sorry, you can't take the early voluntary retirement.
[45:46] But a number of those folks were working in areas like communications, like human resources, where we were substantially overstaffed.
[45:53] When we finally- when I got in, we couldn't even find out how many people worked in HR, how many people worked in comms, how many people actually worked in a park.
[46:00] There was no IT systems.
[46:02] Turns out we had over 2,000 people working in HR for 65,000 people.
[46:06] That's one HR person for every 30 team members.
[46:09] You know, that's off by a ratio of three to four versus a private sector company the same size.
[46:14] And I don't blame them.
[46:15] I blame the fact that we have underfunded, not just maintenance, we've underfunded IT so badly that people don't even have the tools to do their job.
[46:22] But we're working to fix that as well.
[46:25] And so this is the last round of voluntary that we're doing as this group.
[46:29] There'll be about 1,000 people that'll take early retirement, but none of those are related to frontline jobs in parks.
[46:35] We will end up-
[46:36] Secretary, I'm running out of-
[46:38] We will end up with more people working in parks.
[46:40] We've burned 80% of my time, so I appreciate your response.
[46:43] I want to jump to one more issue before my time has expired.
[46:46] Last week a federal judge determined that wind and solar companies are likely to prevail in their lawsuit against the Trump administration's policies blocking those energy projects.
[46:58] The judge placed a preliminary injunction on your department implementing policies designed to block new energy projects coming online.
[47:06] Will you comply with that judge's order?
[47:10] First of all, we disagree vehemently with a District DC judge's view that somehow having appropriate reviews of energy projects on our internal procedures is going to be-
[47:25] Well, appropriate reviews are one thing, but the chairman used the phrase, permits were slow walked.
[47:32] We're not seeing permits move off your desk.
[47:36] Permits are being slow walked.
[47:38] So, there was an injunction, are you going to comply with that judge's order?
[47:41] The solicitor's department will respond to any act of litigation, but as I said, we disagree-
[47:47] We disagree with this and-
[47:48] Well, I'll just be very blunt.
[47:50] If you want-
[47:51] If permitting reform is a priority, the permitting system has to work.
[48:00] And if you want members of my caucus to support permitting reform, we have to know that balls and strikes are going to be called, that there is not a thumb on the scale of this system.
[48:13] If-
[48:14] If-
[48:15] The confidence does not exist right now, Secretary-
[48:17] Well, I would say I would be thrilled if there was going to be unanimity about not having the thumb on the scale, because we just came out of four years-
[48:24] So, let's do that together.
[48:25] We came out of four years of that, and as we try to get back to a balance-
[48:29] Both sides are likely to say, like, their side had the thumb on the scale here, our side had the thumb on the scale there.
[48:36] Let's make this a system where you can't do that.
[48:41] I think that would be fantastic.
[48:45] Love to have your support to do that.
[48:48] But to be clear on this court order, it's absurd to me that a court would say that we can't review projects.
[48:56] That's basically what it says, and that's an internal executive branch element to be able to do that.
[49:02] You can review projects, but at some point you have to make a decision.
[49:05] We've got six projects that have gone through the entire review.
[49:08] They have EISs and EAs that are ready to go.
[49:11] They're all just lacking your signature.
[49:14] That's not review.
[49:15] That is, by definition, slow walking.
[49:17] Senator Parasso.
[49:20] Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[49:21] Thank you very much.
[49:22] I'm grateful for you to be-
[49:25] I just want to thank you for all you're doing.
[49:27] I want to briefly thank you and your team for offering efforts to amend the Rock Springs RMP.
[49:33] I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for continuing to work with the stakeholders in Wyoming toward a plan that considers the state's priorities.
[49:40] So thanks for all of that.
[49:42] I did want to talk about the overpopulation of wild horses.
[49:46] There are about 7,000 wild horses in excess in southwest Wyoming.
[49:51] This overpopulation has a terrible impact on the health of the landscape.
[49:55] The Biden administration canceled and delayed horse gathering for two years.
[50:00] Mismanagement greatly set Wyoming back in the Bureau's mission to responsibly manage the wild herds in the west.
[50:07] 2025, Bureau of Land Management announced a plan to remove over 3,000 wild horses in this area of Wyoming, and Congress has already provided the funding to do it.
[50:18] On Friday, April 24th, just last Friday, the BLM field office announced that they won't be able to start these gatherings until August of 2027 due to pending litigation.
[50:30] Can you just describe what's going on and bring us up to date?
[50:33] Well, certainly, Senator, you understand the tremendous issue we have, not just in Wyoming, but in other western states where we have a growing and out-of-control wild horse and burrow issue, which is affecting the landscape, affecting ranchers, affecting the economics of local communities.
[50:54] We, of course, this has been a long-standing problem that was made worse, as you described, during the prior administration from not doing things like horse gathers, but whether there's horse gathers, there's fertility treatments, there's sales that are subsidized to families, there's all kinds of approaches, but we are doing everything we can to get back to the lawfully required level of these things.
[51:21] But it is one of the serious issues that we have in the West right now.
[51:25] I appreciate it.
[51:26] I'm wondering if you'd be willing to start rounding up the horses based on what's called the appropriate management levels while the Rock Springs RMP is being amended as a possibility.
[51:35] Yes, absolutely.
[51:36] I wanted to move to the Colorado River Basin.
[51:38] It's something that's a great concern to all of us on the committee, specifically the seven states of the upper basin, you know, includes Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
[51:49] And currently, the upper and lower basins still not come to a consensus agreement through negotiations to determine the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
[51:59] We need a short-term and as well as a long-term solution that provides Westerners the water certainty that we need.
[52:05] On April 17th of this year, the Bureau of Reclamation published its 24-month study showing that Lake Powell will reach critical elevation as early as this summer.
[52:17] The Bureau is planning on releasing an additional 6,600,000 to 1 million acre-feet of water from Flaming Gorge, which is of great interest to me.
[52:26] Does the Bureau have any plans in the works to restore the water being released in Flaming Gorge?
[52:33] Well, as we work through essentially the emergency situation we have and the orders that went out recently in April were related to the 20-year compact, which had a drought response procedure.
[52:46] So we're following those in the final year of this 20-year compact.
[52:50] That's what we're following as we do that.
[52:52] Certainly, the refilling of Glen Canyon is going to take additional moisture coming from someplace.
[52:59] Obviously, we would love to recharge the whole system, so happy to work with the upper basin and everybody we can.
[53:04] But we have a situation where we've got more water allocations than we have water.
[53:09] And so it's going to be a challenging year, and we're seeing that in the inability for the seven states to come to any kind of agreement.
[53:15] Well, we appreciate it.
[53:16] I mean, you look at the history of this, and now we're about 103 or 104 years into this compact.
[53:20] It was based on a misunderstanding of how much rain they would expect, what kind of moisture they were expecting.
[53:25] When they came up with that, they used wet years, which was a mistake in their calculations over 100 years ago.
[53:30] And then they never foresaw 40 million people drawing from this, whether it's Las Vegas, whether it's Phoenix.
[53:37] So they made some early mistakes that we now are in this situation having to deal with.
[53:41] I understand that the lower basin met with the Bureau just last week.
[53:46] Is the department still committed to the seven-state basin solution, and would the agency be willing to meet with the upper basin as well?
[53:53] Yes and yes.
[53:55] In terms of permitting, Congress currently, as you know, engaged in serious conversations about permitting reform.
[54:02] What do you view as a top priority in permitting reform?
[54:05] Well, I believe that having permitting reform is unleashing the capital.
[54:10] There's an estimated $1.5 trillion that's been approved by states, universities, small businesses, corporations,
[54:17] that's waiting for a permit at the state, local, or federal level.
[54:20] And we can supercharge our economy, get back to building great things in this country.
[54:25] And part of that is we have to figure out a way to not use the creep of regulations that were not passed by Congress,
[54:32] whether that was particularly around ESA or NEPA, to basically weaponize regulations that did not come from Congress to stop or delay or hold up projects.
[54:44] Thank you.
[54:45] Thank you.
[54:46] Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[54:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[54:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[54:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[54:53] When you were before this committee earlier, you were asked information about who's been fired, who's been retired, et cetera, et cetera.
[55:02] We did not get that information from you.
[55:05] And subsequent to that, I think a number of us wrote letters to you asking for this information.
[55:10] And you had a department that has had that had around 70,000 employees.
[55:14] Is that correct?
[55:15] It was hard to find out the exact information, but the closest we could come to was it was around 65,000 a year ago.
[55:23] Okay.
[55:24] So that's a lot of employees.
[55:25] And so my question remains, how many people have been fired to early retirement?
[55:30] Where are we in terms of the number of employees that you have?
[55:35] And I know that a whole bunch of them work for the Park Service and, you know, all of those kinds of areas that have been tremendously cut.
[55:43] So why don't you provide us with that information today?
[55:46] I'd be happy to get back to you on the number of people that have taken early retirement.
[55:52] The number earlier voluntary retirement.
[55:55] You use the word fired.
[55:56] The only time anyone would have been fired from the organization is if they somehow had an action.
[56:03] So we're talking small number of people that would have actually been fired.
[56:07] You mean that if people were fired, they actually were fired for cause?
[56:11] Is that what you're saying?
[56:13] Yes.
[56:14] So since you were asked this last time, it's been about a year.
[56:17] Why are you not prepared to give us this information today?
[56:20] And especially the people who are working for our National Park Services, etc.
[56:25] These are the people who interact with the public.
[56:29] And I'd like to know what kind of cuts have been imposed on those services as a result of cuts to the workers workforce.
[56:39] Well, the goal, of course, is to have no cuts to services and no cuts to hours and no cuts whatever,
[56:46] because we had so many people working for the Park Service that didn't work in a park.
[56:50] It was after it took us two months to find out a number roughly, the estimate was roughly about 26,000 people that were working for the Park Service.
[56:58] But understand, the HR systems that were never funded were so disparate and so, I mean, there was just no information.
[57:05] We couldn't even find out.
[57:06] We still today are trying to find out about 2% of the 65,000.
[57:10] We don't know which units they're attached to.
[57:13] There was so much hiring where people were working from home, that when they're working from home,
[57:19] sometimes in a location we're sending a check that's nowhere near a national park.
[57:24] I find it totally unacceptable that you don't know what's going on in your own department.
[57:32] But of critical interest to me are the people who are employed at Interior that actually deal with, for example, with the Park Services.
[57:42] So, you know, we still don't have that information.
[57:45] Let me get on to another question.
[57:47] Earlier this year, I joined a number of my colleagues in sending a letter to you,
[57:51] expressing concern about efforts for the National Park Service to erase history on sites that discuss things such as Native American history and slavery.
[57:59] For example, the removal of the slavery exhibit at the President's House in Philadelphia.
[58:05] And your response, which I only recently received yesterday,
[58:09] fails to answer any of the questions we asked.
[58:12] And instead, you stated, quoting you,
[58:15] the NPS is entrusted with preserving and interpreting our nation's heritage
[58:20] and must ensure Park interpretive materials accurately reflect American history and not partisan ideology.
[58:28] Mr. Secretary, is slavery a partisan ideology?
[58:34] Let me start with the examples that you have.
[58:38] If you'd care...
[58:39] I would say that the question I'm asking you is a yes or no question,
[58:43] because you said you're removing this information because you don't want any ideology.
[58:48] I'm responding to the statement that you made at the beginning of your remarks, which is false.
[58:52] How about answering the question that I asked you right now, is slavery a partisan...
[58:56] Your question is based on a false premise.
[58:58] Is slavery a partisan ideology that require the removal of information on slavery on your part?
[59:04] You're basing this question on the idea that somehow something has been removed.
[59:08] I would invite you or your staff to go to the website.
[59:12] You can see the information that is still there.
[59:14] Some of these examples that are floating around the media that are saying things have been removed,
[59:18] they haven't been removed.
[59:19] In the case of Philadelphia, there's a weird injunction where we can't put the new signage up.
[59:24] And yet, what is on the new signage, which is not hiding any points of our history, is available for anyone to read.
[59:33] And I would invite you to read the language that we have and see if it's objectionable to them.
[59:41] And of course, it is not an ideology.
[59:44] So is your answer slavery is not a partisan ideology?
[59:49] So your answer is no, it's not a partisan ideology.
[59:51] There's a double negative there.
[59:52] But I would just say that the characterization that somehow there was a desire to whitewash history
[59:59] and hide aspects of our history is just simply false.
[1:00:03] And all someone has to do, rather than-
[1:00:05] Why is it that you just can't say, no, that slavery is not a partisan ideology?
[1:00:09] What about information in your parks relating to the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II?
[1:00:17] Is that partisan ideology that required the removal of such information?
[1:00:22] I don't believe any of that information has been removed.
[1:00:25] So I'm not, we're having a theoretical discussion.
[1:00:27] We should talk about-
[1:00:28] Oh, I believe that this kind of information was removed.
[1:00:31] So if none of this is happening-
[1:00:33] If it has been, I'd like to have-
[1:00:34] Excuse me, Mr. Secretary.
[1:00:35] I'd like to have specific examples of where it's been removed.
[1:00:37] Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, please.
[1:00:39] Yeah, wrap it up if you can.
[1:00:40] I am glad to hear that none of these kinds of pieces of information are being removed.
[1:00:44] But I basically, Mr. Chairman, have serious concerns about what is happening in the interior and all of the programs that relate to Alaska Natives, American Indians, and Native Hawaiians, and all of those kinds of programs and what's happening to the cuts to those programs.
[1:01:01] I have serious concerns about your leadership at the interior.
[1:01:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:01:05] Senator James.
[1:01:06] Senator James.
[1:01:10] Secretary Burgum, good to have you back up on the Hill.
[1:01:12] I want to talk about our national parks.
[1:01:15] And Angus King and I are the co-chairs of the National Park Subcommittee.
[1:01:18] We don't even actually call ourselves the ranking member or the chairman.
[1:01:22] We're always co-chairs in the spirit of bipartisanship.
[1:01:24] And our national parks should always be one of the most bipartisan issues we have here on Capitol Hill.
[1:01:29] They're the gems of our public lands.
[1:01:32] And Montana is blessed to have some of the crown jewels as part of the Park Service.
[1:01:37] You won't find a topic that brings Congress together more than supporting our national parks.
[1:01:42] I'm very glad to see President Trump fully support the reauthorization of the Legacy Restoration Fund for this year's budget.
[1:01:51] Behind me is a direct quote from President Trump's budget brief from OMB.
[1:01:57] Congress must take the direction of President Trump, reauthorize this by America's 250th anniversary.
[1:02:03] And last time I checked, that's scheduled for July 4th.
[1:02:06] Senator King's and my hugely bipartisan America the Beautiful Act does just that.
[1:02:12] And our support is only growing.
[1:02:14] Secretary Burgum, as of this morning, we have 52 co-sponsors, evenly divided.
[1:02:19] We bring them on like Noah's Ark, two by two.
[1:02:21] We've got 26 Republicans.
[1:02:23] We've got 26 Democrats.
[1:02:25] We've got perfect equilibrium right now as we go forward.
[1:02:28] My question for you, Mr. Secretary, do you agree that we must reauthorize the Legacy Restoration Fund?
[1:02:34] And will you work with me to get that bill on President Trump's desk by July 4th?
[1:02:40] A hundred percent agree.
[1:02:41] Absolutely.
[1:02:42] Myself and the entire department will work with you.
[1:02:44] This is an essential piece of legislation.
[1:02:46] And I agree with your timeline.
[1:02:48] This would be a gift to the United States of America to pass this again before our 250th birthday celebration on the 4th.
[1:02:54] Thank you, Senator.
[1:02:55] And thank you, Senator King, for your co-leadership on this.
[1:02:57] Thank you.
[1:02:58] I know when President Trump signed the Great America Outdoors Act under his first presidency,
[1:03:06] many called it the greatest conservation win in 50 years.
[1:03:10] We want to keep that moving forward.
[1:03:12] And thanks for your support, Mr. Secretary.
[1:03:13] I want to talk about rural water.
[1:03:15] It's the lifeblood of rural communities.
[1:03:18] Here in Washington, D.C., we get like over 41 inches of rain a year.
[1:03:22] I think a little more than Seattle does, believe it or not.
[1:03:25] Back in where we're from, in North Dakota and Montana, our average rainfall up on our high line, it can be, you know, 12 to 15 inches a year.
[1:03:33] It's a semi-arid environment.
[1:03:35] I'm working on numerous bills to fund and build safe drinking water and expand irrigation for communities in eastern Montana.
[1:03:42] My Lower Yellowstone River Native Fish Conservation Act will ensure farmers and ranchers are not strapped with a financial burden of federal endangered species management.
[1:03:53] My Fort Peck Water System Realization Act will ensure the completion of a water system in northeastern Montana.
[1:04:00] And I'm soon going to release a bill to begin construction of the Dry Red Water Rural Water Project.
[1:04:04] I know these are kind of in the weeds, but I will tell you what, as you know, Mr. Secretary, somebody who's been the governor of North Dakota,
[1:04:10] these projects are absolutely lifelines for our ag community and, frankly, just to have clean water to drink.
[1:04:17] These are sometimes third-world kind of problems, believe it or not, we have in some of these underserved areas across states like Montana.
[1:04:24] To help towns like Circle, Montana, Jordan, Montana.
[1:04:29] All of these will need your support and funding to complete.
[1:04:32] I've also worked on the St. Mary Project and the Milk River Irrigation System to have the necessary funding to fix and upgrade a hundred-year-old infrastructure on the High Line.
[1:04:42] Here's my question.
[1:04:44] Yesterday, I sent you a letter asking you to utilize an unspent reclamation funding from our historic working families tax cuts to support the St. Mary Project.
[1:04:56] Would you work with me to get the money to the High Line to help our farmers, our ranchers, and our communities?
[1:05:03] Well, first of all, thank you for sending the letter.
[1:05:07] I heard about the letter that has come in, and great that we've got some unspent dollars.
[1:05:12] Would look forward to visiting with you and talking with you and working with your staff about the merits of that project.
[1:05:18] But it sounds like a good one.
[1:05:20] Yeah, it is, and we're depending on unspent funds like that to be a lifeline to keep us going there in these Arab parts of our state.
[1:05:30] Secretary Burgum, we had a good discussion when you were in Montana about completing our last Indian water settlement.
[1:05:38] In fact, last night we had an amazing event at the White House.
[1:05:42] We had many of our Supreme Court justices there.
[1:05:45] Justice Gorsuch is one of them there, who certainly is one of the leading thinkers on tribal rights and tribal water rights that go back to the treaty,
[1:05:54] certainly that predated statehood in our great states.
[1:05:57] I cannot stress enough the need for the Northern Montana Water Security Act to pass and get signed into law,
[1:06:03] yet this year it's the last water compact we have.
[1:06:06] As we say out west, whiskey's for drinking, but water's for fighting.
[1:06:11] And we've got to get these issues solved.
[1:06:13] Montana's High Line is one of the largest spring wheat producers in the country.
[1:06:17] If we don't finish this settlement, that production's at risk.
[1:06:20] President Trump, thankfully, has been a champion for our farmers and our ranchers
[1:06:25] and completing the Fort Belknap water settlement will be a feather in the cap for this administration.
[1:06:32] Secretary Burgum, I don't think we can wait any longer.
[1:06:34] They are sticky, tough issues to resolve.
[1:06:37] Sometimes century-old fights were very, very close.
[1:06:40] And I credit the leadership of Fort Belknap that tribal politics can get very, very interesting back home.
[1:06:49] The tribe is the first one to admit that.
[1:06:51] They have found a path forward here, taking some courageous steps to frame a water settlement that we can agree with.
[1:06:58] I couldn't agree with it.
[1:06:59] For ten years I had to tell them I can't agree with what you're doing because you're conflating a couple issues.
[1:07:03] They cleaned it up and said it's going to be about water only.
[1:07:06] I said, now you've got an ally here to get this done.
[1:07:09] So we can't wait any longer.
[1:07:11] I want to work with you, Secretary Burgum, to get it done this year.
[1:07:14] Thanks again for all you're doing in your leadership at Interior.
[1:07:18] Grateful for your service.
[1:07:19] Well, we know President Trump loves to get deals done.
[1:07:21] Sounds like you've teed one up.
[1:07:22] We look forward to that.
[1:07:23] And I would just say, on behalf of Senator Hoven and I,
[1:07:26] anytime you want to put up a chart that shows that North Dakota's the number one spring wheat producer in the country,
[1:07:32] happy to do that, even though that isn't the title,
[1:07:34] I think that the shaded counties actually would demonstrate that fact.
[1:07:37] Secretary Burgum, you know, I'm making these ass of you.
[1:07:40] I also know my audience here.
[1:07:42] So anyway, and I was going to say go cats, I'll say go Bison.
[1:07:45] Thanks.
[1:07:47] Senator King.
[1:07:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:07:50] Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your endorsement.
[1:07:53] Do you also, I wasn't clear, are you in favor of the America the Beautiful Act?
[1:07:58] I'm sorry, Senator King, I just got past a note, so...
[1:08:02] No problem.
[1:08:03] Your endorsement of the refunding of the LRF, do you also endorse the America the Beautiful Act of Senator Daines and I?
[1:08:12] Yes.
[1:08:14] Yes.
[1:08:15] Okay.
[1:08:16] That's great.
[1:08:17] I appreciate that.
[1:08:18] I take it from your testimony earlier, you're in favor of a bipartisan permitting reform project here in the Senate.
[1:08:26] Is that correct?
[1:08:27] Absolutely.
[1:08:28] I want to share with you, as one who has been involved in these discussions for 10 years and a former developer, so I know all about permitting reform or have experienced the frustrations.
[1:08:41] The most significant obstacle to getting that done is you.
[1:08:45] It's your role in, as Senator Heinrich said, putting her thumb on the scale of multiple solar and wind projects that are sitting on your desk.
[1:08:56] I can tell you, again, as one who's been in the center of all these discussions, there will be no permitting reform until this administration decides it's going to stop playing one side, allowing one side to go forward and not the other.
[1:09:15] We'd be foolish to pass permitting reform that allowed fossil projects to move with more alacrity through the system and theoretically would allow renewable projects only to end on your desk or on somebody else's desk or with some kind of action by another agency.
[1:09:32] So I want you to understand, I'm in favor of permitting reform, but not until this administration stops the role that you've been playing thus far.
[1:09:42] And I understand about the prior administration, that's a good argument for quitting this arrangement where one administration says no to certain forms of energy and the other says no to the other.
[1:09:55] We've got to stop that and make the permitting process neutral, fact-based, consistent and predictable.
[1:10:02] Do you understand?
[1:10:03] Yes, I do.
[1:10:04] I appreciate that.
[1:10:06] And I think that we can make some progress on permitting reform, but again, I can assure you there won't be the votes.
[1:10:12] Unless we can have some assurance and, you know, it would, it would really help if you would move those permits that are sitting on your desk.
[1:10:22] That would be a gesture of good faith because my concern is you're not following a court order.
[1:10:27] We could pass a statute and you wouldn't follow that either.
[1:10:30] So indicate, show us that you're committed to this even handed process by moving those permits that are sitting on your desk for solar and wind.
[1:10:41] I think that would be a real, I can tell you that would be a major step forward in getting to the place where we can do permitting reform.
[1:10:48] Energy dominance, you use that term three or four times, if $4.30 gas and almost $6 diesel is energy dominance, I'd rather go back to what we had before.
[1:11:02] What's going on now because of the illegal war in Iran is drastically affecting our national security and it will continue to do so and affecting the people of America.
[1:11:14] And it seems to me that the situation we're in now is a real lesson in the importance of weaning ourselves from fossil fuels.
[1:11:24] Because we can produce all the oil we want, but as you well know, oil is a worldwide commodity and the price is not set in Maine or North Dakota or Texas.
[1:11:35] It's set on a worldwide basis and that's exactly what we're suffering from now.
[1:11:40] So I believe and I would like your view that a more diverse energy source, particularly one that's based on resources that we control rather than a worldwide price, would be beneficial to the country.
[1:11:57] Your thoughts?
[1:11:58] Well, I think having secure supply chains is essential, but the idea that somehow going down a path of wind and solar makes things more affordable is just not factually true.
[1:12:13] Why is that not?
[1:12:14] Wind and solar are the lowest cost energy sources today by a factor of about two.
[1:12:19] I disagree because we have no ability to dispatch wind and solar and so if you're going to have wind and solar as part of the mix and the over rotation to those and then prematurely shutting down base load.
[1:12:36] Nobody is saying prematurely.
[1:12:38] Every state that has a renewable target has electricity prices about 50% higher than other states.
[1:12:44] Nobody is saying shut down renewable, sorry, base load prematurely.
[1:12:48] Your state is 35% wind and this year almost 300 megawatts of battery storage is being installed in your state of North Dakota, which has the effect of mitigating the intermittency issue with wind and solar.
[1:13:02] That's happening all over the country.
[1:13:04] The expansion of battery capacity in the last 18 months has been absolutely fantastic.
[1:13:10] And so this idea that wind and solar aren't base load, they are base load if they're sufficient storage, and the storage is definitely coming even in North Dakota.
[1:13:21] And I don't understand why you continually say wind and solar aren't reliable, et cetera, they aren't base load, when your own state, you're the sixth highest wind source state in the nation.
[1:13:35] And it's saving you from the cost, the currently exorbitant cost of fossil fuels.
[1:13:41] In North Dakota, we expanded base load as opposed to shrinking base load at the same time that we're adding renewables.
[1:13:50] But understand, there are times in North Dakota when the wind does not blow.
[1:13:54] Of course.
[1:13:55] And the sun doesn't shine.
[1:13:56] That's when batteries and storage come in.
[1:13:59] The battery numbers you're talking about in terms of megawatts relative to the massive amount of energy we have.
[1:14:07] The battery storage worldwide, even though it could be doubling, but right now it's less than an hour's worth of storage worldwide.
[1:14:14] I mean, like an hour's worth of power on all the batteries in the world added up.
[1:14:18] Well, I'm not talking about worldwide.
[1:14:19] I'm talking about the United States and the vast expansion of battery capacity.
[1:14:24] In California, they are finding that the duck curve is being leveled out because they have excess capacity during the day.
[1:14:30] They put it in storage.
[1:14:31] And when it nighttime comes or the wind doesn't blow, storage operates.
[1:14:35] And it's a very cost-effective solution that is expanding dramatically.
[1:14:40] So I understand about base load.
[1:14:42] I used to be in the energy business.
[1:14:44] But I also understand about storage and intermittency and dealing with intermittency.
[1:14:49] And I also understand about the importance of having indigenous resources rather than depending upon a worldwide commodity that's crushing the American people right now.
[1:14:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:14:59] I guess the last thing I would just say is, and I understand, Senator King, that you understand more about this than most of the people in the Senate.
[1:15:05] But then I don't understand why, if it's low cost, why we had to have massive taxpayer subsidies to produce it.
[1:15:12] Because once the working families tax cut bill was passed last year and the subsidies ended,
[1:15:17] most of these projects dropped off the queue because you talked to the companies that were building them,
[1:15:22] then they were harvesting tax credits, not generating electrons.
[1:15:26] And so the market doesn't support your statements.
[1:15:28] I think a fair response would be, let's end energy subsidies generally.
[1:15:33] We're now paying $30 billion a year in subsidies to oil and gas.
[1:15:37] Let's eliminate them, eliminate those for renewables.
[1:15:39] I hear that talking point, but no one can ever produce what the, is there some?
[1:15:43] I'd be glad to supply it for you.
[1:15:45] It's tax breaks for the oil industry going back to 1906,
[1:15:49] including the oil depletion allowance and a specialized depreciation.
[1:15:54] But I'll supply that for you.
[1:15:56] Thank you, Senator King.
[1:15:58] These are all reasons why we ought to focus on permitting reform.
[1:16:01] And the ongoing effort for permitting reform makes sense from both ends of the political spectrum.
[1:16:06] Senator Hyde-Smith.
[1:16:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:16:09] And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here and being the secretary you are that I have so much confidence in.
[1:16:14] And I appreciate the very good job that you're doing.
[1:16:17] The Department's fiscal year of 2027 budget request that we're talking about today includes a plan, as you say,
[1:16:24] to unify the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement into the Mining Minerals Administration.
[1:16:35] I commend the Department's efforts on doing that and to approve the efficiency across all three of the agencies.
[1:16:43] I think it's just such a smart idea.
[1:16:46] But it is also important that the Department continues to build on and prioritize that safety of the offshore oil and gas workforce.
[1:16:56] I represent Mississippi.
[1:16:57] We're on the Gulf of America.
[1:16:59] We have so many constituents that work in this area.
[1:17:02] And I can list family after family that's been affected by things that have happened out there as they were at work.
[1:17:11] But, Mr. Secretary, how does the Department believe this plan will maintain and improve the safety of offshore rigs?
[1:17:21] And will you speak also to the status of the 11th National Outer Continental Shell Programs?
[1:17:28] I have a nephew that works in the Gulf, so this is very important to me.
[1:17:32] Well, first, in terms of leasing program, we're happy to follow the law in terms of actually holding lease sales and having that be a predictable thing.
[1:17:41] Because when it's predictable, then companies can do their research.
[1:17:44] They can invest their capital.
[1:17:46] That helps communities.
[1:17:48] That helps suppliers.
[1:17:49] It helps everything.
[1:17:50] And it helps, of course, our energy security as a nation.
[1:17:52] So, following law.
[1:17:54] In terms of the two organizations coming together, Bohm and Bessie to the Marine Minerals Agency, those folks are often co-located.
[1:18:04] They were arbitrarily divided, you know, some years ago.
[1:18:08] They often are co-located in the same places, work together.
[1:18:11] We believe that we can both, on both safety and on regulations, improve the efficiency of how we deliver that.
[1:18:17] And the people in both these organizations are excited about the opportunity to work as one again.
[1:18:22] We've kept the revenue portion out, which was part of the criticism from when these originally separated, because there was a concern that somehow where the revenue was being accounted for was influencing how people are doing safety inspections.
[1:18:34] So that, so there's no conflict of interest.
[1:18:37] Revenue goes to a separate organization honor the regulatory and safety teams when they're traveling to an offshore rig.
[1:18:45] We can have, we essentially can have more people available to do inspections than what we have right now, because before we had the duplication of two different groups.
[1:18:55] So it is, I think, just a smart step forward in terms of delivering on both environmental protection and safety for the workers.
[1:19:02] Thank you, because it is critical for my state.
[1:19:07] Turning to the National Park Service.
[1:19:09] I want to thank the department for the work that you've done to install a new superintendent in the Vicksburg National Military Park.
[1:19:17] You know, that's one of the most visited sites in the entire country, and we're very proud of that.
[1:19:22] And I appreciate your efforts to make sure that continues.
[1:19:26] We look forward to his leadership working with him to continue improving one of Mississippi's greatest attributes that we think.
[1:19:35] Additionally, Mississippi is home to the largest portion of the Natchez Trace Parkway.
[1:19:41] Along the trace, there is no shortage of areas to sightsee, hike, and camp.
[1:19:48] The trace, much like the rest of Mississippi, continues to see the fallout from the 2023 drought and pine beetles that devastated the trees across our states.
[1:20:00] Any highway, any area of the state that you go to, we can normally find evidence of that.
[1:20:06] But as the Park Service continues to work through backlogs, what is the status of maintenance along the trace?
[1:20:13] And how can we work together to improve cleaning up along this very important parkway that we drive 50 miles an hour on and no faster?
[1:20:23] Senator, as you know, and as the chairman has stated, you know, we've got a massive backlog on deferred maintenance.
[1:20:32] And part of that relates to roads.
[1:20:34] One of the things coming into this job, those that know me and having served as governor, as governor, you have a Department of Transportation.
[1:20:42] You become governor on day one, you can go to the head of the DOT and go, how many miles of road do we manage?
[1:20:48] How many miles do we snowplow?
[1:20:49] How many of those need to be repaired?
[1:20:51] How many of those are at this level of condition of a thing?
[1:20:54] We have more roads across national parks and wildlife refuges and BIA than many states.
[1:21:01] I'd say most states.
[1:21:03] I mean, we, we, 20% of the federal land, all those roads then are federal roads.
[1:21:07] And we don't have the, we've had, this department has never received the funding to maintain those roads the way they need to.
[1:21:14] Then we'll have a washout, like in, you know, the state of Washington or something.
[1:21:18] Then we're running around chasing emergencies, no standard emergency funds.
[1:21:21] We should just count on the fact that we're going to need what we need for maintenance.
[1:21:25] And we need to count on having emergencies.
[1:21:27] So the underfunding, the chronic underfunding of federal assets and resources within the interior is a chronic issue.
[1:21:33] Passing, you know, the LRF to allow us to have the, to tackle some of that deferred maintenance would be awesome.
[1:21:40] And would free up dollars.
[1:21:42] It's the fastest way that any of you that have got deferred maintenance in your states.
[1:21:46] I mean, and of course we heard there's a lot of support for reauthorizing LRF, but, you know, let's go because that will give us the ability to tackle that.
[1:21:54] We're also trying to set up what I'll call a DOT.
[1:21:57] I want to have a head of all the roads across all these federal agencies, one person like I do for wildland fire, so that we can actually start to have the data.
[1:22:05] So then we would know, you know, how to prioritize the repair of these, of these roads, not just in emergency conditions, but to make sure they never get in bad shape in the first place.
[1:22:14] Thank you very much.
[1:22:16] And I'm out of time.
[1:22:17] Senator Cortez Masto.
[1:22:20] Thank you, Secretary.
[1:22:21] Thank you for being here.
[1:22:22] Let me first say, I appreciate the work around the unification of the wildland fire services and the federal agencies.
[1:22:29] I think it's necessary, and I am hopeful to get a proposal and some specifics.
[1:22:35] So if your office is willing to brief us, me, on this issue, that would be very helpful.
[1:22:41] I just had a meeting with my fire chiefs, and there's concern about our wildfires in the West, particularly going into a season when there's a lot of drought.
[1:22:50] And we want to make sure our federal partners are there with our state and local.
[1:22:53] So would you be willing to come and brief or send somebody to brief?
[1:22:56] Yeah, absolutely.
[1:22:57] I'd be happy to do that and critical for your state right now.
[1:23:01] Yeah, thank you.
[1:23:02] Let me jump back to the permitting and solar projects.
[1:23:06] Are you willing to process solar and wind project permits?
[1:23:12] Yes.
[1:23:13] Okay.
[1:23:14] So prior to the injunction, there was news reports indicating that some projects had begun moving through the permitting process, but your department didn't share a list of those.
[1:23:25] Are you willing to give us a list of those that have already started moving through that process of solar and wind and any type of renewable?
[1:23:31] Yeah, happy to share whatever public information is available relative to status on permitting.
[1:23:37] And I think one of the things on permitting reform, which would be great, was basically have allow companies across all kinds of permits, whether it's water permits, whatever it is, to be able to get to a dashboard and know where they stand.
[1:23:49] That would be helpful because I will tell you, I've met with many developers and are struggling to figure out how to advance through the process since you issued that July 15th memo.
[1:23:59] I am also hearing from developers that are being told they have to be represented by Republican lobbyists if they want their projects approved.
[1:24:05] I think that's totally inappropriate.
[1:24:06] I hope that's not the case.
[1:24:07] So whatever transparency you could provide to us would be beneficial, I think, all around, including to those developers.
[1:24:13] Yeah, I agree.
[1:24:14] Thank you.
[1:24:15] I'm going to jump to the Colorado River because obviously this is important for us in the West as well.
[1:24:20] In the midst of this historic drought, two weeks ago your Bureau of Reclamation announced that they were taking action to ensure that Lake Powell does not reach dead pool by transferring water from upstream.
[1:24:32] We just talked a little bit about that.
[1:24:35] This, let me just talk a little bit about this could reduce in the drought and the water shortage we're seeing.
[1:24:42] It could reduce hydropower generation at Hoover Dam by up to 40 percent.
[1:24:47] And that would increase costs for, what, 1.5 million people across Nevada, California, and Arizona at a time when prices are already sky high.
[1:24:56] Yeah.
[1:24:58] So I guess my question to you is knowing this is occurring and knowing what is happening along the Colorado River and what we need to do as basin states to focus on conservation and smart water programs, why does the materials budget cut funding for the Bureau of Reclamation by 22 percent?
[1:25:15] And why does it zero out all water smart programs that fund water recycling, reuse grants, drought response, and water energy efficiency programs?
[1:25:26] The, the obvious, there's an obvious concern about having less hydropower at a time when we need, we need energy addition, not energy subtraction or energy transition.
[1:25:37] There's an obvious issue there.
[1:25:39] Of course, the amount of water that's in the system that, you know, originates part of that were, again-
[1:25:45] Well, I know all of that, but why would you cut the programs that are necessary to keep the water in the system?
[1:25:50] Well, I think looking at, looking at some of those programs, again, it's a question of what's the federal share versus the state share versus the local share.
[1:26:00] The, some of those programs that are in there are debated, you know, again, we've got-
[1:26:04] Well, let me just say, we met with your, there were several of us based in state senators and we just met with the individuals with your Bureau of Reclamation who, by the way, are doing an incredible job.
[1:26:14] Thank you.
[1:26:15] I think it's a tough job that they're dealing with right now.
[1:26:16] Thank you.
[1:26:17] But they recommended to the, to us, uh, senators from the basin states that Congress invest more in desalination plants, regional water reuse facilities, and agricultural conservation.
[1:26:29] Yet your budget is cutting all of that.
[1:26:31] So how, how are we supposed to believe that you really are going to focus on how the, the concerns that we have along the Colorado River right now?
[1:26:40] Well, I, I think that there is certainly is, and I challenged the governors when we were on the call recently with each of them, uh, because many of these states are, you know, fast growing.
[1:26:50] They've got, you know, tremendous resources, some of record hundreds of billions.
[1:26:53] So is what I'm hearing is you're trying to say that the state should pick up the, the, the load.
[1:26:57] They should put more money into address the Colorado River issues and conservation.
[1:27:01] Well, I, I think as we look across the nation and as former governor, I never, I never went to work as a governor and thought the federal government should be the one that paid for all the water in our state.
[1:27:09] I never.
[1:27:10] So you're saying it should transfer the state.
[1:27:11] Okay.
[1:27:12] That's helpful.
[1:27:13] Let me, I don't, I'm not, I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying it's gotta be a, it's gotta be a balance.
[1:27:16] But if a state, if a state that is, that wants more water rejected, rejected building nuclear, rejected building additional electricity, rejected building natural gas, and then rejected building desalination.
[1:27:29] And then says that the upper basin ought to release more water when they had, they've had opportunities to actually work on supply with the enormous resources these have in these large economy states.
[1:27:39] Well, let me just say this.
[1:27:40] It's like, it doesn't all come back.
[1:27:41] Let me just respond to you real quickly.
[1:27:42] It doesn't all come back to the federal budget.
[1:27:43] Because I heard you say this earlier.
[1:27:45] Let me just very, very clear.
[1:27:46] So everybody knows this in the, in, in this room and that's listening online.
[1:27:50] In Nevada, out of the 15 million acre feet of water along the Colorado River at the time of the agreement, we only got 230,000 acre feet of water.
[1:27:58] That's all Nevada has.
[1:28:00] And we've done a pretty damn good job of conservation, of reusing our gray water.
[1:28:06] We recycle 100%, close to 100% of our water.
[1:28:10] We've done everything we possibly can and we still not, do not use our allotment.
[1:28:15] And all we're asking is everybody else to do the same thing.
[1:28:18] So if you're looking for a state that is a model on how to do this, it is Nevada.
[1:28:23] And so I am asking you and, and everyone else to start looking at internally within their own conservation opportunities.
[1:28:31] And that's where the federal government came in.
[1:28:33] That's where the federal government, we all agree, working together, including in the bipartisan infrastructure package,
[1:28:38] to put dollars in there to help these states look at conservation and smart water programs.
[1:28:43] And you've just cut those all out.
[1:28:45] And that's my concern.
[1:28:46] If we are going to address this issue, you need to work with us and not work against us and not play favorites.
[1:28:52] I know my time is up.
[1:28:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:28:55] I just want to, I want to say Nevada has done a great job on conservation as have some of the other lower basin states.
[1:29:00] And we, we, we commend that work.
[1:29:02] But in terms of Nevada not receiving their full allocation, nobody's picking on Nevada.
[1:29:06] As was stated at the beginning by Senator Barrasso, you know, when this whole thing got set up,
[1:29:11] there was more water allocated than there's ever been water in the Colorado River.
[1:29:15] So every state can say they didn't get their allocations because we, we took a pie that wasn't as big as we thought it was.
[1:29:21] And we've been dividing it up for decades.
[1:29:23] And, and now we're, we're facing the music of that, of that reality.
[1:29:26] But I do appreciate the collaboration of the, of Nevada has done some amazing, amazing work.
[1:29:31] And it is an example.
[1:29:32] I mean, we built a big economy in Southern Nevada with very little water.
[1:29:36] And so way to go.
[1:29:37] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:38] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:39] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:40] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:41] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:42] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:43] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:44] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:45] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:46] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:47] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:48] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:49] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:50] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:51] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:52] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:53] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:54] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:55] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:56] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:57] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:58] Senator Hoven.
[1:29:59] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:00] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:01] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:02] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:03] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:04] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:05] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:06] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:07] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:08] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:09] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:10] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:11] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:12] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:13] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:14] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:15] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:16] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:17] Senator Hoven.
[1:30:18] oil. You're aware of that? Yes. Okay. We believe, I believe, that this project will double the life
[1:30:25] of our coal-fired electric industry, double the life, and probably more than double the amount
[1:30:31] of oil and gas we've produced. So far, we've produced about six billion barrels of oil. You
[1:30:36] know very well, having been governor there, and we're generating about 1.1 million barrels a day,
[1:30:43] but that number's going down. So the whole point here is that we need to use enhanced oil recovery
[1:30:49] to start increasing that number from 1.1 million barrels a day back towards the 1.5 million we
[1:30:56] were producing, and hopefully take it beyond, and not just produce six billion more barrels
[1:31:01] of oil and, you know, millions of cubic feet of, billions of cubic feet of natural gas for this
[1:31:07] country, as well as for export. And we need enhanced oil recovery to do that. We can't punch enough
[1:31:15] wells to increase, we need to have an enhanced oil recovery. We only produce about 10 to 12% of
[1:31:24] the oil that's in the shell. You're aware of all that, right? So now we've put together to jumpstart
[1:31:31] and to really make this Crack the Code 2.0 in the Bakken happen, a large-scale demonstration project.
[1:31:38] It's $157 million, and that comes, $76 million is being invested by five different oil companies
[1:31:45] that are involved, $45 million from the state of North Dakota, the state of North Dakota stepping up,
[1:31:50] and now Department of Energy is stepping up with $36 million. So that's $157 million large-scale
[1:31:58] demonstration project to take CO2 from our coal-fired electric plants and to not only double their life,
[1:32:04] but to double production in the Bakken. Now my questions for you are, one, do you support this
[1:32:11] project? Two, will you help us accomplish it? And three, why is it important, not just for North Dakota,
[1:32:19] but for this country? Well, the answer was yes, I would support it. And Senator Hoeven,
[1:32:24] you've always been a champion of innovation. As you noted, there's a big opportunity here for not only
[1:32:29] to increase production, but to take care of the concerns that some have about emissions. Your
[1:32:35] Crack the Code 2.0 does both of those things simultaneously. So that's fantastic. And it's
[1:32:42] important because, again, when we find ourselves dependent on those that are waging war against us,
[1:32:48] funding, you know, Russia funds their war against Ukraine and Europe with their oil sales. Iran funds
[1:32:53] terrorism. It's not really Iran. Now it's the IRGC that's a terrorist group with an oil field,
[1:32:59] funding attacks on their neighbors. It destabilizes the world, creates a risk premium that raises the
[1:33:04] cost for everyone. And the U.S. is in a position today, you know, to sell energy to our friends and
[1:33:10] allies so they don't have to buy it from people that are waging war and terrorism against us.
[1:33:14] And if we make this, and of course, there's an incredible need for electricity, isn't there? For
[1:33:20] data centers, for AI, and just to be competitive in a global economy to keep prices down for consumers.
[1:33:27] And if this works in North Dakota, just like when we developed the Bakken in terms of hydraulic
[1:33:33] fracturing and directional drilling, it's going to work in the Permian, and it's going to work in the
[1:33:38] Eagleford, and it's going to work in the Marcellus. It's going to work across the country, isn't it?
[1:33:42] Yes.
[1:33:42] So wouldn't that, isn't that what energy dominance is all about?
[1:33:46] Well, it is. It's also, it is about winning the AI arms race. And to win the AI arms race,
[1:33:50] we need electricity because we, you know, we're leading in chips, we're leading in software.
[1:33:54] China's beating us in terms of their ability to generate more electricity. They added 93 gigawatts
[1:34:01] of coal last year to their grid. This is a, it's an opportunity for us here in the U.S. to,
[1:34:08] because one of our, one of our quickest ways to produce more electricity is to capture all this
[1:34:13] low-cost natural gas we have, convert that to power. And, you know, converting electricity to light
[1:34:18] and heat has been a wonderful thing. We've never been able to convert electricity into intelligence
[1:34:23] before, and that's going to have a remarkable productivity impact on the whole economy when we've
[1:34:28] got more low-cost intelligence, not just low-cost energy.
[1:34:31] Thanks, Mr. Secretary, and thanks for your leadership. Appreciate it.
[1:34:35] Thank you.
[1:34:36] Senator Padilla.
[1:34:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
[1:34:39] thank you for being here. I do have a couple of energy and water issues I'm going to get to
[1:34:45] in a second, but my first topic I want to raise is in the area of conservation. As we discussed prior
[1:34:52] to your confirmation and during your confirmation hearing, I take tremendous pride in the Chukwalla
[1:34:58] National Monument, and specifically the boundaries that were crafted working together with energy
[1:35:05] developers, with conservationists, with hunters, with tribal leaders, and many others. That's why
[1:35:11] we have such broad bipartisan support for this national monument. Now, during your confirmation
[1:35:16] hearing, I asked you, and you committed on the record, to meet with tribal representatives to understand
[1:35:21] this particular monument and its history and its significance. The five tribes that are involved with it
[1:35:26] have since created an inter-tribal commission. Have you had a chance to meet with them? And if not,
[1:35:33] will you commit to meeting with them? I haven't personally had a chance to meet with them, but I will
[1:35:38] recommit to meet with them. I'd certainly be interested in hearing their point of view.
[1:35:42] Okay, that's important to me because there's chatter about maybe not Chukwalla or maybe Chukwalla being on
[1:35:48] a list of monuments that you are looking to revisit and possibly undo. For the record, I'll remind us all
[1:35:57] that Mr. Steve Pierce, the presumptive BLM director, sat in that very seat just a few weeks ago and committed
[1:36:04] to honoring the monument designations, and I certainly hope that you do as well. Moving on to the next topic,
[1:36:11] so I want to associate myself with comments from Senator King, first of all, and his advocacy for the role of
[1:36:18] wind and solar in a comprehensive energy portfolio package. California is a proud example of how you can
[1:36:24] increase renewable energy sources together with battery storage technology. And by the way, throw in some
[1:36:31] aggressive energy efficiency policies and you can bring down emissions, bring down costs, and improve the
[1:36:39] resiliency of the grid. I think you're very well of the potential for that combination, Mr. Secretary.
[1:36:45] I also want to associate with myself with the concerns raised by Senator Cortez Masto when it comes
[1:36:50] to water. California also prides itself in its long-standing water efficiency and conservation efforts
[1:36:57] more than doing its part. I don't think you meant to suggest that states that are growing, whether it's
[1:37:02] growing a population or growing in an economy, should not seek to partner with the federal government or
[1:37:08] count on the federal government as a partner in meeting both our energy and our water needs.
[1:37:14] Now one more comment before my first question. I got to tell you, it's pretty damn frustrating when I
[1:37:21] hear and read about this administration's approach to offshore wind, particularly off the coast of
[1:37:28] California. It makes no sense for an administration that wants to be energy dominant as electricity prices
[1:37:35] are skyrocketing and demand growth is increasing to pay developers to stop building energy projects that
[1:37:45] could add more electrons to the grid. Now off the coast of California, it's not just offshore wind
[1:37:51] opportunities. You're seeking to now promote offshore drilling off the coast of California and elsewhere.
[1:37:58] So I'll remind us all colleagues, the national commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and
[1:38:04] offshore drilling report. You remember Deepwater Horizon in 2010 that made specific recommendations
[1:38:11] on the roles and responsibilities of the former MMS being separated into three entities with clearly defined
[1:38:19] statutory authorities. But the president's budget proposes to combine BOEM and BSEC returning us to the
[1:38:27] clearly inadequate regulatory structure that we had prior to Deepwater Horizon. You're also proposing to slash
[1:38:34] a lot of important entities. How is it that you want to significantly increase offshore oil drilling
[1:38:42] while ratcheting in the regulatory and safety mechanisms to keep our environment, our economy, and our people safe?
[1:38:51] Well, first of all, we're not ratcheting anything in. We're not reducing whatever that you're describing. That's not happening.
[1:38:59] Mr. Secretary, the proposed budget slash combined funding for the environmental protections and enforcement
[1:39:05] by a third, almost $50 million out for operation safety and regulation funding. Again, this comes at a time when you're trying to push for more offshore oil drilling.
[1:39:14] With the combining of BOEM and BSEC, which are today co-located, we've got lots of redundancies. We can actually
[1:39:23] increase the number of inspections. We can increase safety. We can maintain everything that we can do
[1:39:28] to do all the things that you're describing. And the report post Deepwater Horizon was about that the
[1:39:34] money that was flowing in was somehow potentially corrupting the people that were doing the regulatory
[1:39:39] and the safety work. That is still in a separate. It was broken into three organizations. We're only merging
[1:39:44] the two, unifying the two together, where we can gain those efficiencies without any sacrifice to what
[1:39:50] we're doing. And I would, you know, ask your staff, talk to the people in those in BOEM and BSEC. They're
[1:39:55] excited about getting back together, working together, and doing a great job. Then why also cut ONNR by almost 16 percent?
[1:40:04] When we cut places that just do business processing, part of that is because we've got,
[1:40:08] we've invested too much in people and not enough in the IT side of things. And the idea that anytime
[1:40:14] we cut a person that somehow magically we were at the perfect number of staffing across, you know,
[1:40:20] an agency and interior is just not true. And some of these numbers that people are viewing as a
[1:40:24] catastrophe were the numbers of the headcount that we were at four years ago. You know, I think we,
[1:40:30] I think no one was saying that we had too few people back in 2020 or 2021. But now when we try to get
[1:40:36] back to those numbers with better IT, people act like the sky is falling.
[1:40:40] But we'll follow up, we'll follow up with your team to get that additional information. And I
[1:40:44] would include a request both here and through questions for the record on any comprehensive
[1:40:49] analysis that you depended on to make these determinations of people versus IT or how best to
[1:40:56] balance the two. Yes. And I'd say in relative to California on, you know, California at one point
[1:41:01] in time was producing 25% of the world's oil. It was a self-sufficient and now California itself
[1:41:08] is a national security risk. It is 63% on the California website. It's not my number, 63%
[1:41:14] at the time of this recent conflict was being imported from foreign countries. It had the highest
[1:41:18] level of dependence on foreign countries. The number one importing oil into California was Iraq.
[1:41:24] The nation got free of being dependent on oil from the Strait of Hormuz,
[1:41:28] but not California because they were blocking every pipeline that would, it would bring in
[1:41:33] natural gas from other locations. And then the high price of fuel in California today,
[1:41:37] California has got more internal combustion cars than any other state in the nation.
[1:41:42] And the, there used to be 40 refineries, they don't went to eight, they don't went to seven.
[1:41:46] We have the largest population of any state in the nation and the largest economy of any state in
[1:41:50] the nation. Of course, all the numbers are going to be bigger. Yes, but then if you have the largest
[1:41:53] number of cars, why would you be shutting down refineries from 40 to eight to seven,
[1:41:58] going to six? There are ships coming in every day with refined product from the other side of the
[1:42:03] world to California so that people can fill up their gas tanks. And we don't, we don't have to
[1:42:08] be dependent on the rest of the world. California certainly doesn't have to be.
[1:42:11] That's how we're investing in electrifying the transportation sector, looking at the promise of
[1:42:16] hydrogen technology. But the hydrogen hubs, your counterparts in the cabinet, are seeking to
[1:42:21] decimate investment in R&D and deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. It's an all
[1:42:28] of the above approach, right? That's what we heard the administration officials say at the beginning,
[1:42:32] but that's narrowed down to strictly fossil fuel. Senator, I've said all, I've, when I say all
[1:42:38] above, I'm talking about all the above that's affordable, reliable, and secure, and doesn't require,
[1:42:42] wind is free, solar is free, my friend. Doesn't require tax subsidies from the public. Energy can be
[1:42:46] produced without having tax subsidies. I mean, we can do that. Let's tell that to the oil and gas
[1:42:52] sector. Senator McCormick. Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Thank you for being here. And thank you,
[1:42:58] Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing today. I want to, first of all, note that you recently
[1:43:04] came to Pennsylvania visiting Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton. I hope you enjoyed the
[1:43:10] visit. It's not far from where I grew up. As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding,
[1:43:16] the Department of Interior is tasked with the responsibility of helping tell our country's
[1:43:21] story and ensuring we conserve and preserve the sites that have made our country so special.
[1:43:25] So I look forward to discussing how the proposed budget will help achieve that. I want to thank
[1:43:29] you for your leadership as Chairman of the National Energy Dominance Council. The energy we're producing
[1:43:34] in Pennsylvania is providing the power for new manufacturing, electricity generation, and helping
[1:43:39] ensure we win the AI race. And that's really happening, and you've seen that firsthand with your,
[1:43:43] with your many visits to PA. I know you visited those energy sites, but I want to extend an offer
[1:43:48] anytime. We'd love to have you come. It's close by, and there's so much to talk about.
[1:43:53] Brings me to my first question. Proper staffing of the National Park sites has been a priority of mine,
[1:43:58] especially as we gear up for America 250. And we have, we're the home in Pennsylvania to 20 NPS sites,
[1:44:05] ranging from Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia to the Delaware Water Gap in
[1:44:10] Northeastern Pennsylvania to the Johnstown Flood National Memorial. In 2024, 8 million park visitors
[1:44:17] spend an estimated 425 million in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands in
[1:44:23] Pennsylvania. With so many people, particularly in this year, expected to visit these sites,
[1:44:28] how is the department working to ensure proper staffing and the resources necessary to ensure
[1:44:35] visitors, many not Pennsylvanians, many visiting Pennsylvania, have a quality experience?
[1:44:40] Well, thank you, Senator, and thank you for, for your leadership as well. We, we last fall posted 5,500
[1:44:49] seasonal hires. That's up from the prior year, in part to get ready for the, for the America 250. We,
[1:44:56] in addition to that, significantly changed those summer hire authorities locally from six months to nine months.
[1:45:04] Many, many of these locations that you're talking about have got a season. I know at Steamtown,
[1:45:09] they go all the way through with the Polar Express train in December. You know, having a seasonal that
[1:45:14] has to be done working at the end of October when you've got a busy season in November and October
[1:45:18] during fall leaf season and whatever, giving them the nine-month capability is going to really expand.
[1:45:23] It's like a 50% increase in the, in the, in the, in the work hours, man hours, so to speak, of, of staff.
[1:45:30] So that's a big push. The other one across the National Park Service may not be well known,
[1:45:34] but if there was a position that became open, there was a system where someone around the country
[1:45:39] could go, man, I want to live in Pennsylvania. I'm going to apply. There's this long federal thing
[1:45:43] where then there's a prioritization and seniority and who gets it. And then they get there and they
[1:45:47] don't have a place to live and they can't afford to live in some of these entrance communities.
[1:45:51] So we've reinstated local hiring authorities. So the park superintendents can hire people from
[1:45:55] those communities, uh, that then already have their own housing and then they can essentially
[1:46:00] jump to the front of line. So we can compress the hiring sometimes from 12 months to, uh, you know,
[1:46:05] a few weeks if we've got qualified people that can come on board. And, and we have over, uh, we have
[1:46:10] over 500 permanent positions that we're also trying to fill right now. And I think we can fill some of
[1:46:15] those with local hiring. Good. Uh, that's going to help speed this up and get the right people on the ground.
[1:46:19] Great. Well, that's, that's encouraging. Uh, we also, I'd like to spend a minute talking about
[1:46:25] the American Battlefield Protection Program, uh, which, uh, as you, as you know, Pennsylvania has
[1:46:30] got, uh, a number of battlefields, including Gettysburg, Fort Necessity, Brandywine, and Fort Mifflin.
[1:46:36] I introduced legislation last year to reauthor, reauthorize the, uh, uh, Battlefield Protection Program.
[1:46:42] Again, as we celebrate the 250th, we're expecting an enormous amount of, uh, of flow of visitors.
[1:46:48] Can you speak about how that funding will help protect these battlefields
[1:46:52] and raise public awareness of the importance of battlefield preservation?
[1:46:56] Well, it's critically important, and I appreciate your, uh, co-sponsoring, uh, and sponsoring that bill,
[1:47:02] because not only are these, uh, hallowed grounds, as President Lincoln said, uh, we also still have,
[1:47:08] in many cases, have active archaeology going on. We're still, in many cases, collecting what's,
[1:47:13] uh, and sort of, uh, catalog, catalog, uh, cataloging the history that occurred in these
[1:47:19] battles that were so significant to our country. So, again, your, what the legislation you're doing
[1:47:24] to help preserve, protect, and fund these sites is, uh, critically important. Look forward to working
[1:47:28] with you on it. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Senator Campwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh,
[1:47:36] Mr. Secretary, good to see you. I wanted to bring up, um, a community issue in the Lake Chelan
[1:47:42] National Recreation Area in Central Washington. You were able to send National Park Service and Interior
[1:47:49] staff to visit there last Thursday. Very much appreciate that. It's about flooding. First of
[1:47:54] all, this is, we think we rival the Alps here. I mean, it is spectacularly beautiful. I see somebody
[1:48:01] in the back nodding their head. So, it is, it is unbelievable, the, the access to this area. Um,
[1:48:09] but we had a devastating 2024 Pioneer fire that caused, uh, floodwaters to run down the mountainside,
[1:48:16] and now a new wastewater treatment plan, and boat landing was destroyed of parts of the damage that
[1:48:22] was done from this, uh, section of the company, Creek Road. Um, so, what we're trying to do is get a
[1:48:29] plan. You've been, uh, it's, it's been months trying to get the focus here, and we get that it's a very
[1:48:35] remote part of our state, but nonetheless, it is part of a giant recreational ecosystem that is, it's like,
[1:48:42] almost like a crown jewel within the Cascades. And so, um, I'm highlighting that you helped us get a
[1:48:50] temporary road. Park Service was able to contract with the Army Corps, and this is, this is, this last
[1:48:57] part of the temporary road has to get done, and then we need to get a permanent solution. So, my questions
[1:49:03] are, can you commit to working with the Stahecan community, the state of Washington, to complete the
[1:49:09] remaining temporary road, and can you commit to working with us on a, um, in the state to design
[1:49:16] the hurdles to implement a long-term solution for this region? Uh, uh, yes and yes, and I understand,
[1:49:23] uh, we do have a particular issue here where we've got federal and federal and then a chunk of private
[1:49:28] in between that we're working with the private folks to make sure that we've, uh, uh, across these
[1:49:32] different landownerships that we can get a permanent solution figured out. Yes, and so you're committing to
[1:49:37] that. I appreciate that very, very much. And Senator, you're, you're, you're happy to visit.
[1:49:42] I'm happy to go with you. I'm happy to, I'm happy to take you. That'd be great. I, I, I mentioned
[1:49:47] earlier, I think one of the things to think about, as you guys are thinking about doing this thing,
[1:49:51] is we, we don't have like a DOT. We don't have like a funding for all the roads, and we don't have an
[1:49:56] emergency fund, but every year there's some road that washes out somewhere in a national park. And just like
[1:50:01] we have the emergency fire fund, a piece of legislation that would actually set up an emergency road fund
[1:50:06] that you could tap into would be a great, great thing. Listen, I got probably like 10 projects
[1:50:11] like that in the state of Washington devastated by fire. And then, um, you know, when you have,
[1:50:16] when you have mountains and you have, you know, fire and you have rain, guess what? A lot of washouts.
[1:50:21] So happy to work with you on that. Um, I want to turn to LWCF. We've had a lot of conversations about
[1:50:27] the staffing at parks, but you know, the president played such a key role when we got the land and water
[1:50:32] conservation fund done as did my colleague, uh, Senator Danes and Senator Gardner, who's no longer
[1:50:38] here, but served on this committee. The president literally said, I'm calling on Congress to send me
[1:50:43] a bill that fully and permanently funds LWCF and restores our national parks. When I sign that into
[1:50:50] law, it will be historic to our beautiful public lands. Okay. So then he went on to thank those two.
[1:50:56] So my, my point is the land and water conservation, making that permanent was about getting the funds
[1:51:04] to go to acquisition. I'm a huge supporter of this. We just lost Jim Whitaker, a great American,
[1:51:11] first American to summit Mount Everest, but more importantly, even the founder of REI. And what is,
[1:51:18] what is REI all about? It's access. It's an economy. It's third behind finance and healthcare. It is a
[1:51:25] juggernaut of an economy, but guess what it takes a recipe of continuing making investments in public
[1:51:31] lands. So LWCF was about making 900 million in mandatory funding under the Dingle Act. And this
[1:51:41] demonstrated the support and the president's support for that. So I'm confused that why we seem to be with
[1:51:48] your order changing that, like not fully funding the public land aspect. This was your order 3442. So
[1:51:58] I'm just trying to ask if you will work with me to making sure that we actually fund the 900 in
[1:52:06] mandatory spending. That really was the key part of the debate. And the president bought into that. And we
[1:52:11] have a tweet from him saying he bought into it. So I know some of my colleagues here, I, I understand the
[1:52:16] chairman's long frustration, um, about this issue. And, but, but I also know what the bill did and I know
[1:52:25] what the president said. And so now I'm asking you whether you support making sure that, um, that your
[1:52:32] budget really does uphold that law. Well, we will, we will always follow the law. The, you know, that is
[1:52:38] what you said when I asked you at your confirmation on LWCF. That is exactly what you said. So I'm saying,
[1:52:43] could you give us an interpretation of how this affects that your executive order, secretary order
[1:52:50] 3442? Well, I would, I would say again, as I've encouraged the, this committee and others on the
[1:52:57] LRF portion of this, which is the deferred maintenance piece, that that is to me of a, of high
[1:53:03] urgency because that's where we've got the greatest need. When, when I get in front of senators and
[1:53:07] representatives and governors, it's, everybody's got a repair issue and we never have enough dollars to do
[1:53:12] that. Uh, and so that's key. The LWCF does direct, uh, those dollars specifically. We had that debate
[1:53:19] last year. I'm not having that debate now. So we'll, you know, we'll follow the law. What does that mean?
[1:53:24] Do you think that land acquisition is part of LWCF and that's part of your responsibility and you will
[1:53:31] carry it out? Uh, yes, I believe it is. And I, and I hope that we, as when the federal government funds
[1:53:37] acquisitions, but doesn't fund maintenance, that we just start creating a bigger problem on the back end.
[1:53:42] Uh, the whole point of the Great Amount Outdoor Act, which we need to renew that, that first part of it.
[1:53:49] Yeah, one part was permanent, one part required reauthorization.
[1:53:53] It's about doing both. And I'm just trying to get, as a secretary, your commitment to the fact that
[1:53:58] acquiring more land does, is a great economic recipe for communities, particularly when they don't
[1:54:03] have any and it becomes a great recreation and creates jobs and it helps our economy.
[1:54:08] I believe that we've got a $1.3 trillion recreation economy, but it is, it is case by case specific on
[1:54:14] whether it's economically good or bad for an economy to move stuff from the private state to
[1:54:18] the federal state. That's just an economic fact. It isn't always an automatic good that the federal
[1:54:23] government takes care of it, particularly if the federal government doesn't have the money to take
[1:54:26] care of it. I'm talking about whether you add land in Lewis County and grow an economy where people
[1:54:31] want to have tourism. So, but I'm going to come see you about this and we're going to have this
[1:54:34] longer conversation because I, I do think there's a conflict still here and, and I would just, I see
[1:54:40] my time is way expired, but I do hope that you will support our state has less snowpacked, which means
[1:54:46] we just don't have as, we don't have the, we, we have wetter, warmer conditions. I'm for aqua for
[1:54:52] storage. I'm for doing something about that, but we have a lot less electricity. So I would hope that
[1:54:57] we could work together on some of these that it can't just be, I'm just against anything that is
[1:55:02] solar or wind. It, we, we got to get some electricity onto the grid in the northwest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:55:08] Senator Borkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:55:13] Ms. Secretary, good to see you again. Um, I had an opportunity before our Appropriations Committee to go
[1:55:20] into, um, some pretty significant detail on things, including starting by thanking you for, for your work
[1:55:25] and all the attention on Alaska. We appreciate that. I know you're coming up to the state.
[1:55:29] within the next month. So again, thank you for that. We're now in, uh, in the authorizing side of
[1:55:35] things. And, uh, I'd be remiss if I didn't state that, uh, once again, when we talk about energy
[1:55:43] dominance for this country, it is, it is our extraordinary resources when they come to, to oil,
[1:55:50] to natural gas, to coal, uh, to our minerals, uh, but also to, to what we have, um, abundantly, which is
[1:55:59] the wind, which is the solar. I just, uh, introduced a geothermal bill yesterday that I would hope some
[1:56:07] of my colleagues would join me with, because I'm really excited about this next generation technology
[1:56:12] and how we can access this. So I get really excited about it. But when we look at what is happening
[1:56:18] in, in Iran right now, we're all talking about what is going on with, with, uh, uh, the price of oil.
[1:56:24] Um, it does remind me that it was my effort, uh, along with Senator Heitkamp about a decade or so ago,
[1:56:31] that we were finally able to lift that oil export ban, um, which has allowed this country to act,
[1:56:38] surge up in a way that has been phenomenal and that has actually helped to ameliorate some of what
[1:56:46] the rest of the world is seeing with these, with these price increases. So we do good work here in
[1:56:51] this committee and will continue to do so working with you. Um, I want to walk, I want to talk about
[1:56:57] some things that I hope are, are relatively non-controversial. Stream gauges. Um, we need
[1:57:03] to understand, uh, our, our water and our water resources. Uh, I, I listen to my friends that are
[1:57:09] challenged in their state with drought. We don't have that. Um, but as we look to develop certain areas,
[1:57:15] we need to know and understand our, uh, our, our water capacity and just understand the monitoring.
[1:57:23] Um, so I appreciate the USGS's increase for stream gauge monitoring. Um, we're very under monitored
[1:57:33] in the state. Uh, and, and so I just want to throw this out for you because we've had a, a little bit
[1:57:39] of a discussion about different ways that we can deal with, um, deploying and maintaining these stream
[1:57:44] gauges that can, if you're in a remote area, it can be costly and it can just be challenging. And so
[1:57:51] I'm wondering whether you think that there's an opportunity to leverage compacting under, under
[1:57:56] Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination Act to, to perhaps address some of these, um, working with
[1:58:04] our, our, our tribes. So I don't necessarily expect you to say yes, but, um, I hope you will, uh, entertain
[1:58:11] it with some of your folks. Well, I think I can jump to yes because we're, we're going back to the future.
[1:58:16] Uh, the U S weather service, uh, collected weather data around this country, largely by volunteers.
[1:58:22] I mean, in our state, you know, 40 years ago, you'd had, you know, a hundred families, uh, that were
[1:58:28] at a weather, little weather monitoring station, their backyard, they would report it in, you know,
[1:58:32] a lot of that, you know, as they retired, quit doing it, their kids stopped doing it, that went away.
[1:58:36] But we're using that with tribal communities and remote areas, the re the, you've met Andrew Travnik,
[1:58:42] I believe, uh, Dr. Andrew Travnik, who leads water and science. She was my director of water
[1:58:46] resources in the state of North Dakota. We had the same issue in North Dakota. We created a, a less
[1:58:51] than $1,000 per unit thing with an acronym called presence, where we could have a solar powered remote
[1:58:57] stream gauge with a solar panel about, you know, a foot by a foot, uh, that could automatically send
[1:59:04] in data. We didn't need a person with a clipboard or a canoe and a, you know, all of the things you'd need
[1:59:10] to actually go out and write down the information and collect it. It would just automatically report
[1:59:14] it. So, and we were, we added 500 of these in remote areas in North Dakota. I mean, so there,
[1:59:20] there is a product that we actually helped create where we could distribute, have automatically collected
[1:59:25] data that could be installed and supported by local community members, because we can't do modeling
[1:59:30] on, on water if we don't have data. And we are, we are, in the size of Alaska, we are so, we have so little data
[1:59:37] really in terms of what's actually happening. Well, let's explore some of these ideas and
[1:59:41] particularly, um, with compacting, if we can. Uh, I want to comment just a little, uh, real quickly
[1:59:47] on hazards. Um, you know, Alaska, we're the most seismically active state in, in the country. Um, so
[1:59:53] I'm worried about, um, uh, the reduction in, uh, in funding for early earthquake warning. Um, and I'm also
[2:00:04] concerned about, uh, uh, uh, the has, landslide hazard mitigation account. Um, it's, it's effectively,
[2:00:12] uh, eliminated. We, and, and Senator Cantwell has experienced deadly landslides, of course, in her
[2:00:20] state. Um, we're just seeing them worsen. So you're going to see, certainly from an appropriations
[2:00:26] perspective, us leaning in a little bit more on these hazard accounts. Um, so I wanted to put that in
[2:00:31] front of you. And then lastly, I asked you last week, uh, about the America 250 funding. Um, uh,
[2:00:40] we thought we'd taken care of that in last year's budget, 150 million for America 250, promised 50
[2:00:46] million. They've only received 25 so far. So I don't know if you have an update on that. I notice in your,
[2:00:54] um, in your written testimony, you make reference to working with Freedom 250, but I'm still concerned
[2:01:00] about, um, this, this additional 25 million that was to be directed to American 250.
[2:01:09] Uh, that one, uh, uh, we can get back to you. The, the, uh, that, uh, we're working closely with
[2:01:15] the White House, uh, on, on that. And so we'll get back to you. Okay. Okay. I'm just, as a member of
[2:01:20] the commission, I know that there are others who are anxious for some kind of an answer on that.
[2:01:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, now you're in that seat.
[2:01:30] I warned you that it was gonna, you're gonna have a challenging job. Uh, appreciate your service.
[2:01:36] Um, we've never seen a worse drought year in my lifetime in Colorado. The, uh, one of the snowpack
[2:01:43] gauges up in the mountains and above Leadville. Over the last hundred years, they've kept, uh,
[2:01:47] records and the average has been 240 inches. The all-time low was 182 inches of snowpack in the early
[2:01:55] part of March. Uh, again, that 182 inches is the all-time low. This year, it's 60 inches. That's in
[2:02:02] a hundred years, the low was 182 inches. Uh, we look at the issues around water for our ranchers and
[2:02:09] farmers. Uh, fertilizer, now since the war started, is up 30 percent. Diesel's up 50 percent. Uh, I just
[2:02:16] wanted to ask you if you've got any advice for farmers. I've got a lot of farmers trying to decide
[2:02:21] where they're going to plant. They're going to even take that risk. What, what do you say to them?
[2:02:25] What, what would you advise me to say to them? Uh, obviously, uh, farming is, uh, uh, challenging
[2:02:35] business, uh, and having come from a state that is a big agricultural state, know that those planning
[2:02:40] decisions are made. Sometimes they're made long in advance, but the, uh, you know, increase in inputs
[2:02:44] and not the, uh, proportionate increase in your out outcomes make it extra challenging. Uh, I think that
[2:02:51] we are also know that agriculture is, uh, and depending on what part of agriculture you're in,
[2:02:57] the government plays a big role in, in subsidies, uh, across that. I know there's been discussions,
[2:03:02] uh, on whether it's a, uh, tariff relief or other things that the ag department's working on,
[2:03:08] uh, to try to get through this, uh, I would say this aberration that we have where we're going to have,
[2:03:13] where we've had sort of some higher prices for a short period of time. A real, a real historic
[2:03:19] discrepancy, and you, you mentioned the tariffs. Obviously the, uh, most of these commodity markets
[2:03:24] are really struggling based in the trade situation. So higher costs going in, much more uncertainty in
[2:03:30] what they're going to sell. Uh, also want to talk about the Colorado River funding, because obviously
[2:03:34] the drought, and you know this better than, than anybody, that, uh, we're really struggling in the
[2:03:41] entire upper and lower basin. Um, we recently got some word from some of your staff that the
[2:03:48] discrepancy between spending in the upper basin and lower basin has continued to diverge. Uh,
[2:03:54] you know, historically according to the original compact, where both, both the upper basin and
[2:03:58] the lower basin were going to use roughly the same amount of water. And that's been distorted over
[2:04:02] the years, so that the lower basin, for a variety of reasons, not, not necessarily bad reasons, but for
[2:04:08] a variety of reasons, they've used more of the water. Um, but it still should be always under roughly
[2:04:13] equity. Uh, your staff shared plans that, uh, there'll be 350, uh, uh, million dollars for lower
[2:04:20] basin projects compared to just a hundred million dollars for upper basin projects. Um, I think
[2:04:27] there at this point, uh, roughly two billion dollars in, uh, in the draft funding so far has gone to
[2:04:32] projects and priorities, um, led by my friends in the lower basin, uh, but only 45 million to the upper basin.
[2:04:39] So 2 billion in the lower basin, 45 billion in the upper basin, and now the planning going in the
[2:04:44] immediate future is going to be 350 in the lower basin, only 100 billion in the upper basin. Um,
[2:04:50] we've got a bunch of projects that are stuck in limbo. So is there any, are there any plans to release
[2:04:55] bucket two funding, which was appropriated for the upper, upper basin projects so we can see at least
[2:05:01] somewhat more proportional investment in the upper basin? Senator, that one, I would want to, uh,
[2:05:07] get back to you with specifics, uh, versus just, uh, uh, make a general comment on that. But I, I
[2:05:14] understand, understand the point you're making and would be happy to dig into that. Okay. I mean, it's,
[2:05:18] it's just, it's, it's, it's problematic. And also I know that Senator Cortez Masto mentioned this all
[2:05:24] already, but given the severity of the drought, again, this is unlike anything we've seen to go from,
[2:05:30] you know, an average of, of, of 240 inches of snowpack, that's 20 feet, and then go down to the
[2:05:38] all-time lowest, it was 182 inches, and this year we're at 60 inches. I mean, one-third of the all-time
[2:05:45] low. Um, I'm, I'm worrying whether the, the budget cut to zero out, uh, the Bureau of Reclamation's
[2:05:53] Water Smart Program, which really does actually help these farmers and ranchers get more water they can
[2:05:59] use. If there's not some other, uh, I'm not sure what the other higher priorities are. Right. I guess
[2:06:08] everything else is a higher priority is, is what I'm hearing, yet that's a hard thing for me to go back
[2:06:13] and say to the, you know, the farmers and ranchers in Colorado. Yeah. But I would also say understanding
[2:06:19] the dynamic nature of, uh, a budgeting process, uh, at the federal scale is that, uh, I think, you know,
[2:06:26] when some of the decisions were made, recommendations were made months ago, uh, people thought that we were
[2:06:31] still going to have an opportunity for, uh, a lot of precipitation in March and April, and none of
[2:06:37] that materialized. And so, you know, we're operating with different data now than when those decisions
[2:06:42] would have been made. So I appreciate that. And that's obviously, this is all hands on deck for
[2:06:46] all of us. We're all going to have to do it again. Absolutely it is. And we are, our team is, we've been
[2:06:50] working on it for a year and a half. And then we were, you know, it's a tough set of cards when, uh,
[2:06:56] they over allocated the water for 80 years, and then you've got a pie that's smaller and every
[2:07:01] answer includes everybody getting less than they want. Uh, that's the only thing we're assured of
[2:07:06] here is that there's not enough to go around. And then with this drought, it's, uh, compounded that
[2:07:10] for this particular year. Well, hopefully we can get, we need a, I think probably a mediator between
[2:07:15] the upper basin and lower basin. I'm sure you guys are working on that, or I hope you are. Yeah,
[2:07:18] we're working, working very hard on it and, uh, and trying to balance, uh, you know, recreation,
[2:07:23] power generation, agriculture, municipal, industrial. I mean, this is a, a complex, uh,
[2:07:28] set of things and with no agreement, we, you know, we, we had to have an operating plan for this year.
[2:07:33] So we executed the, you know, the authorities we have under the drought authorization under the
[2:07:37] compact and just said, here's what our releases are going to be in so that farmers and communities
[2:07:41] could start doing planning, at least with the limited water we have. They now know what, what they're,
[2:07:46] what they're coming. And we brought that up almost a month because normally those decisions
[2:07:50] wouldn't have been made, uh, till the end of May when, but we know, we know the snowpack's already
[2:07:54] gone. So there is no, there is no more data to collect. And so we, we at least get people to get
[2:07:59] some, uh, uh, certainty about what the releases are going to be, even though they're less than
[2:08:03] what everybody had hoped for. I do appreciate that urgency and I also appreciate your recognition
[2:08:08] that there's been a real, a rather dramatic disparity in where federal funding has gone.
[2:08:13] Yes. Thank you. I yield back to the chair. Thank you. Senator Risch.
[2:08:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Secretary, thank you, uh, for coming today. I, I'd be remiss if I
[2:08:23] didn't start off and, uh, acknowledge the fact that the last Secretary of Interior from Idaho passed
[2:08:29] away last weekend, uh, Dirk Kempthorne. Uh, great guy, uh, was a U.S. Senator for one term, uh, a governor,
[2:08:37] and then, uh, under George W. Bush was, uh, Secretary of Interior. Dirk was, uh, a really likable guy and
[2:08:43] liked by people on both sides of the aisle and was a real people person and, uh, we're going to miss
[2:08:49] him. Um, let, let me say, uh, first of all, uh, we, uh, of course in Idaho have a, uh, huge number of
[2:08:58] federal acres. Two out of every three acres is owned by the federal government. Most of it is under your
[2:09:02] jurisdiction, BLM. A lot of forest service though. Uh, one of the things we're interested in, of course,
[2:09:07] is forest fires. And I know there's been a little bit of discussion here about, uh, reorganizing the
[2:09:13] way we fight fires. I think there's five agencies that fight fire and, uh, and I, and we have some
[2:09:19] members that are very interested in that. And, uh, look, I, I don't think there's a magic silver bullet
[2:09:25] for this, but I think the way we've been doing it really needs to be looked at. There, there, there's no
[2:09:31] question there's going to be able to be some, uh, efficiencies that, uh, can be, uh, derived from the
[2:09:37] way we're doing it. Boise, Idaho is home to NFC, the National Energy Agency Fire Center, does a great
[2:09:43] job. We're interested in keeping it, of course, and everybody I've talked to that's working on this
[2:09:47] says there's no reason to think that NFC should be moved or anything else like that. Um, anyway, um,
[2:09:54] we also have, uh, uh, uh, rangeland, uh, fire protection, uh, areas. I don't know how much you're
[2:10:02] familiar with them. We cover 9.3 million acres. These are collaboration between the BLM and the, uh,
[2:10:08] and the landowners. And it's been incredibly successful in Idaho. So I urge you to look at those
[2:10:14] and see, uh, about other areas that, uh, that actually can, uh, take advantage of those. Uh, beyond
[2:10:21] that, let me, let me just say that, um, because we have so much acreage, that is federal acreage,
[2:10:28] there is constant tension, if you would, between the federal agencies and the land users, uh, the
[2:10:33] ag people and, uh, and everyone, uh, and, and recreationists and everybody else that use the land.
[2:10:39] Under your administration, I can tell you that, uh, I have a, uh, and having done this for a while,
[2:10:45] I can tell you I have a great appreciation for whatever you're doing that's convincing, uh,
[2:10:51] your people that they work for us, for the, for the people. Uh, you yourself have been, uh,
[2:10:56] personally available whenever I've had an issue. And that goes down the line with, uh,
[2:11:01] your management team and with people that are on the ground. So thank you for that. Keep it up.
[2:11:05] Great work. Um, we're never going to have everybody satisfied, but when there are problems, uh, they
[2:11:11] need to be addressed. And you've done a great job of, uh, uh, of addressing it. Like I say, both yourself
[2:11:16] and, uh, people that work for you. So keep up the good work. Thank you so much. I'll yield back,
[2:11:20] Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I would just, uh, comment that with the, the new, uh, national,
[2:11:25] uh, fire chief that we have for the national, uh, the U S wildland firefighting is going to be
[2:11:30] based in Boise. Uh, one of the examples of, of interagency coordination that positive we want
[2:11:35] to retain is that, that, that, uh, that group that was operating out of Boise working on interagency.
[2:11:41] Uh, so he'll be based there. Uh, a other thing on technology, you know, last year during fire season,
[2:11:47] your governor, Brad Little, he pulled out his phone and he said, here's a map of Idaho and on all the
[2:11:53] icons and here's where all the fires are. And they were all on federal land. Yeah. And he goes,
[2:11:59] and here's the map of fires on state land and all the state land fires had been put out by state
[2:12:03] firefighters. So it is a, uh, you know, we, we have to do a better job of coordinating with state and
[2:12:08] local, uh, as well as across the interagencies, but, uh, appreciate your support on that. Uh, but the last
[2:12:14] personal thing I would say is that my, just 18 months ago in my last two months before I, when I,
[2:12:19] before I left office as governor, we had a, a wildland fire that started and, uh, we knew right
[2:12:25] away that we weren't gonna be able to handle it with our national guard and our blackhawks. Uh,
[2:12:29] we had no fixed wing aviation for firefighting in North Dakota. Uh, it ultimately, uh, ended up
[2:12:34] burning 128,000 acres, but I, we called for the support from the federal aviation on Saturday morning at 6am
[2:12:42] and the feds showed up on Tuesday after two ranchers had lost their lives, trying to save
[2:12:48] horses and livestock, uh, and, uh, and, and huge livestock losses, huge grazing loss, uh, across
[2:12:54] all of that. And, and, uh, and your fellow Senator Tim Sheehy, uh, who at that time was, uh, just before he
[2:13:01] was elected, uh, was, uh, you know, had a contract aviation group working with things and they had
[2:13:06] aircraft sitting on the ground the whole time in Bozeman, Montana, uh, with an easy flight of where that
[2:13:11] fire was in Western North Dakota. And we couldn't get a decision there because of the lack of a joint
[2:13:16] chiefs of staff, great firefighters on the ground, no joint chiefs of staff, no one could make a
[2:13:20] decision for three days on whether to send a scooper over to put out a fire. So it, I experienced it
[2:13:26] as the governor and I've talked to all as former Western governor chair, know that, uh, that we've just,
[2:13:32] we can do a much better job of coordinating with the states and local. We have a, there's a hundred
[2:13:36] stories like that out there. And, uh, that, uh, app that Brad was using was in place when I was
[2:13:42] governor. It was the same thing. We, we kept track of it really, uh, really well. And, and the, the, the
[2:13:48] most obvious difference between a federal fire and a state fire is the state fires are on ground that
[2:13:56] is actively managed and the fires are much easier controlled on state land than they are the federal
[2:14:02] land. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Gallio. Just, just, Senator Riss,
[2:14:06] before you leave, I served as governor with Dirk Kempthorne. I was not aware of his passing,
[2:14:10] would you? I'm sorry. He was one of my favorite governors. Great guy. Great, great guy. Would
[2:14:14] you please give my best to his family? I will. I'll tell Patricia that you asked. Thank you.
[2:14:20] Thank you. And Senator, I would acknowledge on the behalf of the department that we did, uh,
[2:14:24] acknowledge, uh, former secretary's passing, uh, with our condolences, but also recognition for his,
[2:14:29] uh, service, service to both state and country. Thank you. Senator Gallio. Thank you,
[2:14:35] Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich. And thank you, Secretary, for your time today. Surprise,
[2:14:38] surprise. I want to ask you about the Colorado River as an Arizonan. Uh, but obviously this is
[2:14:42] extremely important to all of us. Specifically, I want to talk to you about the, the release of up to
[2:14:47] one million acre feet of water from Flamin Gorge Reservoir, uh, over the next year. And simultaneously
[2:14:52] cutting releases from Powell to Lake Mead to six million acre feet, which is the minimum allowed,
[2:14:57] uh, legally allowed through September. So I am glad to see that, you know, Interior is recognizing
[2:15:02] the dire status of the river and the need for agency support. However, we have questions around
[2:15:06] the implementation. Does Interior plan to move the entire one million from, uh, does the Interior plan
[2:15:11] to move the entire one million from Flamin Gorge? And if water supply increases, which would, which
[2:15:16] would end first? The Flamin Gorge releases or the Powell to Mead cuts? Specifically, because I think
[2:15:20] there's a La Nina might be moving in soon that could potentially dump more water in. So we'd love to see
[2:15:26] that, that happens. What would be the plan for that? Well, the, the plan that we announced last week was
[2:15:32] based on, you know, the current conditions, but the numbers that we put in that showed the,
[2:15:37] the potential between 600,000 acre feet and a million was to give that flexibility that if we
[2:15:44] end up with more water in the system, if we can achieve our objectives with lower releases from the
[2:15:48] upper basin, we'll do that. Uh, but it's going to be, uh, uh, you know, week by week, month by month,
[2:15:54] uh, as we see. And, and again, I just say, you know, you know, pray for rain. I mean, we got it,
[2:15:58] we got to get some summer moisture to give us some more flexibility, but if there's no change,
[2:16:03] uh, then, uh, we'll be, we'll be at, at the high end, we'll be at the million end of that range versus
[2:16:08] the lower end of that range. You can, you can count me, uh, uh, in for some of those prayers.
[2:16:13] Um, as Senator Court just mentioned earlier, uh, you acknowledge that cutting releases from Lake Powell
[2:16:19] by nearly 1.5 million acre feet could cause an additional 40% reduction to hydropower generating
[2:16:24] capacity at Hoover Dam by early as this fall, something that obviously concerns us a lot.
[2:16:29] Secretary, energy prices are already climbing at more than twice the rate of inflation,
[2:16:33] and many of my constituents rely on this energy to power the home, especially, uh, in that region.
[2:16:38] My question is very simple. Have you quantified the potential rate impacts to Arizona customers or,
[2:16:43] or anyone that's affected by the, the, the cuts? And in the near term, what is your agency plan to
[2:16:48] mitigate price increases resulting, resulting from this loss in, in generation?
[2:16:52] Secretary- Well, there may or may not be rate increases, just lack of power generation because
[2:16:57] it, uh, with the one great thing about hydro is we do have the ability to turn it off on,
[2:17:01] you know, on short cycles. When we were running, you know, the largest hydro dam in North Dakota,
[2:17:05] we could run, we could run it, uh, more water releases from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. when everybody came
[2:17:13] home and turned their air conditioning on during those hottest days and then really ratchet it down
[2:17:17] overnight and during the next day. And so, uh, again, that's one of the great things about,
[2:17:22] I mean, when you've got water behind a dam, it's not just a battery, it's dispatchable power,
[2:17:27] it becomes base load. Uh, and so we have some flexibility. Our, the teams that we have are
[2:17:31] going to have a year where they're going to be, uh, you know, making more adjustments, uh, you know,
[2:17:37] based on load management than they might in some years where they just turn it on and let it run.
[2:17:41] But the good news is we've got a great team, uh, running and operating those dams and we've got some,
[2:17:46] some flexibility. It also depends on the power purchase agreements between each of those dams and,
[2:17:50] and the, uh, and the utilities. And so it may or may not be passed on in terms of higher rates,
[2:17:57] because on any given point during a day, if it's not the summer peak day and if it's not the peak
[2:18:01] winter day, there is excess, uh, power generation in the system. So hopefully, uh, we just don't run into
[2:18:08] no water and the hottest days of the year that this summer on those high heat days. That's where,
[2:18:13] if we can get through those and get into the fall, we'll can maybe get through without, uh, spikes in power
[2:18:18] prices. That'd be greatly appreciated. And just on my last minute, the inclusion of 50 million
[2:18:22] dollars to the Qualipi water settlement in this budget reflects the urgency of funding this settlement
[2:18:27] before the enforceability deadline of April 2029. So if funding is not appropriated by then,
[2:18:33] it would avoid the entitled settlement, uh, and understanding years of bipartisan work that went
[2:18:37] into that to resolve this long-standing water right claims. Can you speak to the importance of
[2:18:41] funding tribal water rights settlements like the Qualipi in your plan?
[2:18:45] Uh, I, I can, uh, I speak to their importance, but, uh, I will, uh, on, on that particular grant
[2:18:53] and the deadline you just described, uh, wasn't on my radar. So that's one I'm going to have to, uh,
[2:18:58] dig into. I think just, yeah, not specifically to that, just in general to water, water settlement
[2:19:03] act. Well, as I stated earlier in this thing, I mean, we have an opportunity to negotiate some of
[2:19:08] these settlements that have been outstanding for years and years and years, in some case decades. And,
[2:19:13] and as Senator Dain described earlier, if there's, if there's some, uh, deals that we can reach where
[2:19:18] we can get these settlements, that would be fantastic.
[2:19:20] Yeah. Thank you. I yield back.
[2:19:22] Senator King.
[2:19:24] Uh, thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Uh, you mentioned in your comment, this is preliminary to
[2:19:32] Senator Hoeven, about China adding, I think it, the figures I have are 78 gigawatts of additional coal
[2:19:38] last year, which is a lot of power. Uh, but to put that in context, China added 430 gigawatts of
[2:19:45] solar and wind last year, five times as much as coal. Uh, I'm wondering if they don't know something
[2:19:50] we don't know. Uh, let me, let's talk about the National Park Service. Uh, you and I talked about this
[2:19:56] before. National Park Service budget is cut by a third, about a billion dollars, which is one day of
[2:20:02] the Iran war, just to put it into context. I don't understand why. Uh, in terms of the overall budget,
[2:20:09] in terms of the, what's being proposed for expenditures in many other areas, why are we
[2:20:16] cutting the most popular program that the federal government runs? And I understand there's always
[2:20:21] room for right sizing and, and analysis of staffing and those kinds of things. But, uh, I, I just don't,
[2:20:29] I, I, this is a, I'm not, this isn't a gotcha question. I'm genuinely puzzled why the administration
[2:20:35] would cut by a third the funding of one of the most important agencies that we have in terms of
[2:20:41] direct interface with the public. And it, and don't, it's not just about people at the parks. They need
[2:20:46] the backup from the, from the rest of the organization. Why such a major cut? Well, I, you said a number of
[2:20:56] things that were qualifying in there, but I, I think that there's a belief that we can deliver the services
[2:21:00] that people desire, the outcomes that are people looking for. I mean, one thing that I, you know,
[2:21:05] find, I found as governor and I'm finding in this role is that there's, uh, a high degree of interest
[2:21:10] in inputs, uh, and less interest in outcomes. Uh, you know, if, if, if, if you said the, the goal is, uh,
[2:21:18] secretary, you know, please deliver higher customer satisfaction at all of your parks. Uh, go get it
[2:21:24] done as efficiently as you can. And we want to have citizens to be very satisfied. So, but it, but it's
[2:21:28] never about, it's never about satisfaction. It's always about the spending, like a bigger input
[2:21:32] somehow implies a better outcome. I just, I just don't believe that. Well, that would, I, I would
[2:21:36] understand that if, but has there been a, like a, an outside consultant study of the staff size or an
[2:21:42] internal study or any of, if, if there has been such, I'd certainly like to see it. The, you, you, you
[2:21:47] probably knew I was going to bring this chart. This is FTEs in the National Park Service going back
[2:21:53] 10 or 15 years. And here's where we are now. And we were understaffed back then. We were understaffed.
[2:22:00] The number that we were working from was 23,000. Well, now we're down to, uh, about 15,000, I think.
[2:22:09] So this is where we're going. And again, if there's a, if there's a study or a rational basis for the
[2:22:15] cuts that are being made, uh, I just don't under, I don't, I don't see it. Share it with us. Not right now, but
[2:22:23] Well, I wasn't hired to, I wasn't nominated, uh, or asked during the committee, uh, confirmation
[2:22:31] if I knew how to hire a consultant. Uh, we, we, we're tasked with actually. Well, have you done,
[2:22:37] has there been an internal study by the department of appropriate staffing levels? Yeah, there's been
[2:22:40] massive, massive, massive, yeah, lots of internal work on trying to identify this. Could you share,
[2:22:44] could you share that with the committee, please? Well, happy to share whatever's public, but I'm,
[2:22:48] I'm looking at your gold line there and I just can't believe that that's even the accurate number. I mean,
[2:22:52] I stated already, we have 5,500 positions open right now that we've extended from six months to
[2:22:58] nine months. Those are the temporary summer positions, correct? Extended to nine months.
[2:23:02] And then those in this, and the park service has always been built around, around, uh, people that
[2:23:07] are part-time quote summer, but nine months, but they come back year after year after year. We don't
[2:23:12] need to have people working 12 months a year when places, we have many of our parks that close during
[2:23:16] the winter. I think actual, I mean, you, you've sort of challenged yourself. Let's see what customer
[2:23:22] satisfaction looks like in a year or two after this level of cuts. We'll, we'll have this discussion,
[2:23:27] uh, next year. And, and, and I would like to see some data from the parks on customer satisfaction and
[2:23:33] visitor satisfaction, those kinds of things. The other thing, there's been a lot of talk today
[2:23:37] about maintenance and deferred maintenance. I would like to get the data though, because I'm not sure
[2:23:42] what scale you're using on that shows that dramatic drop, because that doesn't match. I just want to be
[2:23:46] clear to the rest of me. The line on that chart doesn't match anything that I know about our
[2:23:50] staffing. This is based on your own personnel numbers. I think it was 2,900 cuts this, this year.
[2:23:56] Uh, anyway, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll work on that. Those, those are good numbers, but let's see what
[2:24:02] customer satisfaction looks like. Next point. Maintenance. You've talked a lot about it and how bad
[2:24:07] deferred maintenance is your budget cuts maintenance in the parks by 38%. What the heck?
[2:24:15] Where, what, all this talk about maintenance and how we got to have maintenance and doing everything
[2:24:20] and your, your budget's cutting by, by more than a third. Explain that one. Your question implies that
[2:24:26] somehow that as the federal government doing projects inside of a park today is like super efficient
[2:24:31] and it couldn't be done better. I can tell you my own experience. We had a road washout in North Dakota
[2:24:38] in the theater Roosevelt national park. Uh, and it happened when I was governor and then I visited it
[2:24:43] with, uh, there was three different secretaries of interior that went through the role here at the
[2:24:48] federal level and the road still wasn't open. I got invited to go to the ribbon cutting this year.
[2:24:52] And I said, I think I can pass on that because I went there a half a dozen times as governor,
[2:24:56] wondering why it was going to take $53 million to rebuild a two mile stretch of road when,
[2:25:02] and then I was told when I was there at the visit, when they were still like four months away from opening,
[2:25:07] they said, well, sir, you need to understand, you know, weather conditions here in this state are
[2:25:11] very difficult to build roads. And they're talking to a guy, I had the DOT reporting me for eight
[2:25:16] years. We built roads in those same conditions. We built, you know, some hundreds and hundreds of
[2:25:21] miles every summer. We rebuilt roads, you know, at the highest standard. Again, let's see. So this is,
[2:25:26] this is a project that should have cost, you know, maybe 10 million, 10 million for a couple of miles,
[2:25:32] 5 million, 5 million a mile. That would have been more than any road we'd ever spent in North Dakota.
[2:25:36] It was 53 million in six and a half years. And so when, and that was considered maintenance.
[2:25:41] I'm trying to make sure that the taxpayer dollars actually get spent. We did a project last year
[2:25:45] in Shenandoah when, when it washed out and we reopened in 60 days. It opened in time for the thing.
[2:25:51] We had to rebuild the whole road. It did not cost 53 million dollars. So you can actually reduce these
[2:25:56] numbers. But if we put in the right practices, we can deliver the outputs that you're all seeking.
[2:26:01] Again, the test will be the outputs. One final short question. There's a 10 billion dollar fund in this
[2:26:08] for Washington maintenance and beautification. The estimates I've seen is that there's two billion
[2:26:15] dollars of deferred maintenance in Washington. The question is, what's the extra eight billion for?
[2:26:22] And the more precise question is, is any of the money in there to be directed to the arch
[2:26:29] that's been proposed at the end of Memorial Bridge?
[2:26:33] There's no dollars that are, that are in that project for, you know, future theoretical proposed
[2:26:41] projects. That is, this, there's, the two billion dollars I think is grossly understates what we have.
[2:26:50] Because DC is like a state. I mean, and it's not just like the National Mall we're talking,
[2:26:55] it's for the greater capital region. That's a region.
[2:26:57] So your, your testimony is the entire 10 billion is for deferred maintenance on existing facilities.
[2:27:02] Yeah. And I, and I believe that if we got together, we could, we'd come back and go,
[2:27:06] that number's not high enough. But when we had this thing you guys saw in the news,
[2:27:09] when the, when that pipe broke and it was dumping raw sewage into the Potomac,
[2:27:13] I mean, a huge environmental disaster, which everybody in this committee cares about,
[2:27:17] you know, we get a call and they're like, oh, did you know that's a national park service sewer line?
[2:27:21] On the lanterns like, no, did not know that because we don't have an inventory of even all the assets
[2:27:26] that we have.
[2:27:27] I just want to be clear, your testimony here today is that none of that 10 billion is for new
[2:27:31] construction of new monuments. Correct?
[2:27:33] Correct.
[2:27:34] That's what you just said.
[2:27:35] Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:27:37] Thank you, Senator King. Just a couple of follow-up points. First, Mr. Secretary,
[2:27:42] sometimes you refer to the federal estate as, in terms compared to a balance sheet.
[2:27:49] Do you agree that if we focus only on acquiring more land as we have a maintenance backlog,
[2:27:56] that can throw off the balance if we acquire new land at the expense of maintaining the land we've
[2:28:03] already got? In other words, there's a need to maintain a balance there between land acquisition
[2:28:08] and land maintenance.
[2:28:09] Yes. I mean, it's a, you know, it's a very popular thing for everybody to, you know, propose or
[2:28:14] an upgrade in a designation, you know, to make something federal. But it, we are adding to the
[2:28:19] cost basis whenever we add. And of course, and we have some states like yours, sir, that are
[2:28:24] already 60% of federal. It's a very different story.
[2:28:27] Sixty-seven.
[2:28:27] Sixty-seven. Sorry. Okay. But we have, you know, you're among the highest. But I mean, we have,
[2:28:33] we, it's a, it's a, it varies, varies by state. And I think that, again, to have a,
[2:28:39] there has to be some recognition of the, the impact that the federal ownership has, whether it's the
[2:28:46] lack of local property taxes, or whether it's federal regulation that, that has often restricted
[2:28:52] development, economic development. It varies widely across states. And I think we need to
[2:28:56] make sure that we've got flexibility. I mean, this was, this was a nation that was built around having
[2:29:01] powers delegated to states. And, and if the federal government owns two thirds of a state,
[2:29:07] you know, there's a, you know, in my mind, it's a, it's a challenge, because I've never,
[2:29:12] people that live, live and work on the land in those states care deeply about it. Everybody knows
[2:29:18] that the people that they work in their own state. I don't think there's a risk on land management if
[2:29:22] we have, have people closer to the ground making those decisions. Right, right. And you're also right
[2:29:29] that it impacts different states differently, particularly if you live, um, anywhere to the west
[2:29:35] of Colorado's eastern boundary. Uh, you've got a lot more federal land than any state, uh, further east,
[2:29:41] uh, does. Now, in, in the maintenance backlog is, is an issue and it has gotten worse. When President
[2:29:48] Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act into law in 2020, the maintenance backlogs, uh, stood at,
[2:29:55] uh, 18 billion dollars, uh, within the Department of the Interior. The latest estimates put it at nearly
[2:30:03] double that and around 35 billion dollars. So the facts are clear that this, the maintenance backlog
[2:30:09] ballooned under President Biden. The Trump administration is working to make sure that
[2:30:13] projects are on time and on budget and the president's budget proposal reflects that and I,
[2:30:19] I appreciate that. Um, one of the, uh, other reasons why this is important, particularly in a state like
[2:30:25] mine, where two-thirds of the land is owned by the federal government, uh, uh, relates to something you
[2:30:31] mentioned a moment ago, which has to do with property taxes. Of course, um, the states and their
[2:30:38] subdivisions like counties, which is often where property tax collection occurs, uh, they're not
[2:30:45] allowed to tax federal land. And because they're not allowed to tax federal land, uh, this program
[2:30:52] exists called PILT, the Payment in Lue of Taxes Program. It's designed to offset the revenue loss
[2:30:58] that they get. Now, this is important and I was grateful to see that the president's budget proposal
[2:31:03] includes a continuation, a continuation of, of PILT funding, uh, because, you know, it'd be bad if we lost it.
[2:31:09] But it also emphasizes an underlying problem within PILT, which is that states, uh, most states in most
[2:31:17] circumstances, there, there are some communities that make out differently, uh, uh, depending on a
[2:31:22] number of factors that are taken into account in the PILT formula. But states, typically speaking, receive
[2:31:27] pennies on the dollar for federal land within our boundaries that we can't tax. Pennies on the dollar
[2:31:33] compared to what we would be collecting even if we were taxing that land at the lowest rate, like the
[2:31:38] green belt rate, as is described in many states. Um, and so as a result, this results in a, a real
[2:31:48] inequity here. Because even within a state like mine that has a lot of federal land, like two-thirds,
[2:31:54] in some counties in our state, often the poorest counties in our state, uh, you got some counties
[2:32:00] where federal land is 80, 85, 90 plus percent of the land. And, and in those counties in particular,
[2:32:08] they, they really suffer under this where they're getting pennies on the dollar compared to what they
[2:32:12] would be getting if they could tax it even at the low, lowest rate. And so as a result, a lot of them
[2:32:17] have underfunded schools, fire and police departments, search and rescue operations, even, uh, in
[2:32:23] communities where the federal land itself is leading to the circumstances that require some of those
[2:32:28] services. So this is an issue that does tend to unite, uh, members of this committee across political
[2:32:35] lines. So will you commit to work with us to try to reform the PILT program to make sure that it
[2:32:40] actually addresses the loss of property taxes that many of our counties face? Yes. Thank you. Uh,
[2:32:47] much appreciated. Um, is there anything to add? Um, I want to thank you for your testimony and for
[2:32:54] appearing today, uh, and for all of your service on behalf of the country. Um, uh, we're, we're very,
[2:33:01] very grateful. That concludes today's hearing. Um, any senator who wants to submit additional
[2:33:07] questions for the record may do so. The deadline for doing that will be 6 p.m. tomorrow. Uh,
[2:33:14] senators will also have until 6 p.m. next Tuesday, April 28th, to add statements for the record of
[2:33:20] today's hearing. So, uh, uh, thank you again, Mr. Secretary for coming and the hearing stands.
[2:33:28] I want to thank, uh, you and the ranking member, uh, for the, uh, the discussion and, uh, professional
[2:33:34] way that you hold these hearings. Uh, I do want to say to the ranking member, uh, from your home state,
[2:33:39] which of course is a huge part of America's energy, uh, production that we did inherit when I took office.
[2:33:45] There was a 5,600 backlog of, uh, permits to drill, uh, coming out of the Las Cruces, uh, uh, office
[2:33:54] area that covers the Permian. And we've, we've reduced that backlog by 91%. Uh, and so that, uh, so,
[2:34:01] so bringing that, bringing that, you mean Carlsbad, right? I'm sorry. Yeah. Carlsbad. Thank you.
[2:34:06] My bad on that. He's an expert in New Mexico. My bad. No, Carlsbad. I think is there,
[2:34:11] there are a play on words there, but on the, but to say that we, we, we tackled that without,
[2:34:15] without having to, again, great work by the team, driving that through, getting it down.
[2:34:19] So 91% reduction. And of course, and when we hold the lease sales, I think one thing that's
[2:34:24] not well understood by the public, when we have a lease sale, whether it's in Alaska,
[2:34:28] whether it's in the Gulf, whether it's in, in New Mexico, you know, that revenue sharing,
[2:34:32] some of it comes to the feds, but it goes to the state, goes to the tribes. Uh, and we're, uh,
[2:34:36] we're driving, you know, that forward. And the other thing, which I know came up at a prior hearing
[2:34:40] was probate, you know, we've uncovered that we had 47,000 unresolved probate cases in Indian affairs.
[2:34:46] And we're sitting on almost $700 million that the federal government's holding in trust that
[2:34:51] belonged to tribal families, uh, that it was an asset from one of their loved ones that died.
[2:34:56] And this backlog was, they're staring at a decades long approach. And we're throwing,
[2:35:01] we're not just throwing bodies. We're throwing business process. We're throwing AI.
[2:35:05] We're doing everything we can to try to reduce that down. And, uh, we've got a, if any of your,
[2:35:10] your, uh, teams want to get a separate briefing on that, we've got a team, we've got dashboards,
[2:35:14] but we're, we're, uh, you know, again, tackling some of these massive backlogs that have grown over
[2:35:20] the decades to do a better job of trying to serve, uh, all the people that we serve.
[2:35:24] Oh, thank you for doing that. That's important to those families into those communities. And it's,
[2:35:29] it's an example of where justice delayed ends up being justice denied, especially if it occurs
[2:35:34] over many decades. Thanks again, uh, uh, Mr. Secretary, the hearing stands to adjourn.
[2:35:39] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Transcribe Any Video or Podcast — Free
Paste a URL and get a full AI-powered transcript in minutes. Try ScribeHawk →