Oversight hearing titled “Examining the President's FY 2027 Budget Request for the Department of the Interior.”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
There is only one group that benefits from these policies, and that is the oil and gas oligarchs who funded Trump's campaign. Mister secretary, at every turn, you've helped all this happen. You have treated the public lands and waters that you've been entrusted with like assets on a corporate balance sheet, so that billionaires, foreign companies, and political donors can profit. You've enabled a culture of corruption where people in your agency are making decisions that line their own pockets and enrich their families and friends. Under your leadership, the Department of Interior has been a billionaire's dream, but a nightmare for the public and a betrayal of our obligations to future generations.
Families across the country right now can't even afford essentials like gas, health care, and groceries. But instead of trying to make their lives better, Trump has been obsessed with a raft of vanity projects, and you've been one of the principal enablers. You've fed his hyperfixation on buildings that glorify him, like the ridiculous gilded ballroom and the massive arch to Trump that he's trying to build right in front of Arlington Cemetery. You even put his picture on the park passes. You let him replace Martin Luther King Jr. Day with his own birthday as a free National Parks Day.
Under your budget, which you say in your testimony is about fiscal responsibility, just about everything that benefits tribes, public lands, wildlife, and water is facing deep cuts, which makes the increased funding for Washington DC beautification and the endless time and money that you seem to have for projects that stroke Trump's massive ego even more glaringly disconnected from the needs and reality that most American families are facing right now. This is the most nakedly corrupt administration in American history. My oath of office requires me to be very candid about that. One tally of cash and gifts received by the Trump family from selling the presidency comes to $2,600,000,000. That is almost certainly an understatement. Donald Trump junior invested in a small mining startup that has ballooned to 10 times its original value after daddy bought a chunk of the company with taxpayer dollars, and then issued a Department of Defense loan for $620,000,000,000 more.
In fact, Trump has been on a spending spree buying chunks of lots of companies, including foreign-owned mining companies like Trilogy Metals, which is proposing a mine in the Alaska wilderness. And meanwhile, Trump appointees are making a mockery of ethics while reaping personal benefits. At the Fish and Wildlife Service, an official got her family business a permit for its captive animal breeding operation. Your associate deputy secretary inked an undisclosed $3,500,000 water rights deal with a mining company. My colleagues and I have been working around the clock to keep up with this steady churn of scandal created by Trump and your Interior Department.
But, mister secretary, you and your agency have stonewalled us at every turn. We're asking important questions, but the lack of transparency raises bigger questions. What are you hiding, and for whose benefit? Mister Secretary, we expect truthful answers to our questions. The American people deserve that.
They deserve to see that public office is a public trust, not an investment opportunity for billionaires and plutocrats, and not a vessel for one man's insatiable self-aggrandizement. The American people deserve better. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, as time has expired, I now will introduce our witness, the honorable Doug Burgum, secretary of the US Department of Interior in Washington DC. Secretary Burgum, you're getting to be a pro at this. You've done it enough now, but I'll remind you that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, and your entire statement will appear in the hearing record to begin your testimony. Please press the on button on the microphone. We do use timing lights.
When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red. And I'll ask you to please complete your statement, and I'll recognize Secretary Bergum for five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, chairman, and thank you ranking member Huffman. Let me add on top of my written remarks that, ranking member, I think that you would know that I would find your opening statements filled with factual inaccuracies and grossly misleading statements that I'm hoping over the time today that we'll have an opportunity to address those assertions. But as we know, this department touched the lives of billions of Americans. It manages America's vast energy supply and natural resources. We honor federal trust, responsibilities, and the unique relationship with tribal nations.
We deliver water to the West. We fight fires. We enforce the law, and we steward our treasured wildlife refuges in the national parks. And our efforts extend across the country to ensure border security. The department manages 41% of the Southwestern border, as well as the safety of Indian country.
This broad portfolio of tens of trillions of dollars belongs to the American people and should be managed, conserved, put to use according to the law. This budget reflects President Trump's priorities to pursue American energy dominance, deliver services more efficiently, uphold law and order, and make federal lands safe and accessible for all Americans, all of which will make life more affordable for families across this country. Under this administration, interior, along with the rest of the administration, is committed to increasing our energy production, reestablishing our position as dominant in critical minerals, protecting our economic and national security. And by energy dominance, we mean selling energy to our friends and allies so they don't have to buy from those that are waging war against our allies or terrorism against the world. We have eliminated burdensome, ideological, counterproductive regulations that undermine efficient land management, while maintaining appropriate protections of our wildlife and environment.
Ongoing regulatory reform to cut red tape will continue to secure supply change, unlock an American energy, reduce prices, deliver better outcomes to the American people and tribal nations, and secure sustainable financial returns for the American people on their federally owned land and mineral resources. The department estimates that revenues in 2027 will exceed 20,000,000,000. That's revenue coming in from managing the resources, now more than offsetting the operational cost of the department. The department is also reducing costs by making our operations more effective. The budget includes three unification proposals, which we hope to have an opportunity to talk about.
One is unifying our four wildland fire programs into the new U.S. wildland fire service. The budget also includes the unification of the firefighting components of the US Forest Service into this one national US Wildland Fire Service. Unifying duplicative endangered species responsibility that is split between NOAA and US Fish and Wildlife under the Fish and Wildlife Service, and reunifying the department's two existing offshore mineral management bureaus into a single entity, the Marine Minerals Administration. These unification efforts will streamline beroxy and make our work to fight fires, manage forests, protect wildlife and the environment, all faster, safer, smarter, and more effective. We are expanding our efforts to cooperate with tribes and federal agencies to fulfill trust responsibilities by committing to open-door engagement, transparency, and sustained communication with all of our 575 federally recognized tribes.
The millions of Americans visit interior lands each year, fueling a booming $1.3 trillion outdoor economy and supporting jobs in small businesses nationwide. The 2027 budget focuses on the continued recreational use as well as the beautification of interiors assets. One big ask that we would have for this committee is to expeditiously reauthorize the Great American Outdoors Act legacy restoration fund passed by Congress and signed by President Trump during his first term. Reauthorization for an additional five years would again help protect and ensure that we have the capital budgets to maintain these essential resources. In addition, as we celebrate America's 50th, the budget focuses on visitor-facing operations at our parks, wildlife, public lands, and this will help improve visitor experience, drive tourism, create jobs, and generate revenue.
Simply put, this budget puts America first and Americans first while securing peace and prosperity for our country's future. I appreciate the committee's support for the department's mission, and I look forward to working closely with each of you to advance the important mission and responsibilities of the Department of the Interior. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Thank you, Secretary Bergham, for your valuable testimony. We'll now move into questions, and I'll recognize members for five minutes, beginning with Miss Hageman, the subcommittee chair for our water, wildlife, and fisheries subcommittee. Miss Hageman, you're recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Bergum, I want to start today by thanking you for your work on the Department of Interior's finalization of its NEPA implementing regulations to make it easier to permit, access, use, hunt, recreate on, develop, and build on our federal lands in the United States. I co-led a letter with Western Caucus Chair Malloy thanking you for your work on these regulations and stressing the importance of permitting reform for our country's economic development and national security. And I also thank you for being an example to other federal agencies and leading the charge on rolling back bureaucratic overreach that is outside of congressional intent. Mr.
Secretary, your team has been terrific in helping my state of Wyoming have a better energy future with your support of the coal industry. Wyoming has led in coal production since 1986, and we now produce approximately 40% of the coal that is used in the United States. A February report from the Wyoming Energy Authority recently confirmed that after more than a decade without new federal coal leasing, domestic and international demand could outpace supply by 2030, which is a dire situation for this country. We need new coal leases and expanded production to prevent this scenario. And as you know, part of the coal leasing process, BLM must analyze the fair market value of coal to ensure that the citizens are getting a fair return.
Our past administrations, most specifically Obama and Biden, who did not support coal leasing, actually provided a return to taxpayers of zero as they did everything in their power to destroy our coal industry. What is your team doing to ensure we develop a fair market value of coal that would reflect real market conditions but encourage leasing as well as be rooted in current market realities so we can lease more coal in Wyoming?
Speaker 3
Thank you, representative. Obviously, having affordable, reliable baseload energy is key to America's future and key to us winning the AI arms race with China. China was mentioned earlier. China added last year 93 gigawatts of coal. They're on track to do a similar amount this year.
We know the technology exists in your state, my home state, to produce energy cleanly from coal. That coal also includes critical minerals. Some of the highest concentrations of critical minerals that we need that were now captive to China are in that coal. The coproduction of critical minerals and thermal energy is essential to our future. And, of course, we're getting back to our basics at the US Geological Survey, which we, say, is mapping is the core technology.
We have gone through a preliminary assessment and estimated that the coal resources on federal land that belong to the American public are worth $8,000,000,000. $8,000,000,000,000. And so developing those provides a return to our taxpayers. It lowers energy costs. We can do it cleanly, and we can help solve the critical minerals.
So, again, appreciate the support we have from you in the state of Wyoming to ensure that we can not only win the AI arms race, which requires power, but to get out of the stranglehold that China has on virtually the whole world regarding critical minerals.
Speaker 4
Well, the fact is that it is difficult to permit and lease coal in Wyoming and elsewhere, and it is a process that needs to be streamlined. I don't know if you are, it's also astronomically expensive with years and years tied up in the permitting before any of our coal mines can actually start producing. The last coal lease was issued in 2014. As I indicated, 2030 is kind of a drop-dead date by which we need to have some of this permitting done. I have introduced a bill that would address the bonus bid process for coal in the state of Wyoming and elsewhere.
I'm not sure if you've had an opportunity to look at that, but I would really welcome the administration's support for that particular effort to make sure that we can continue to produce coal. But I also want to talk about some other things that you've done. In December, the BLM amended a Biden-era BLM regulation to extend the phase-in date for compliance with the minimum bond amount for statewide oil and gas leases. In fact, what this rule would do is increase the cost of a single lease for bond from $10,000 to $150,000 and a statewide blanket bonds from 25,000 to 500,000, a 1400% increase. Obviously, this will have an enormous impact.
While this rule has been put back until June 2027, it is still hanging over our heads, and it would have a devastating impact on my independent producers in the state of Wyoming, especially. What is the administration of your office doing to attempt to address what was really a horrific rule coming out of the Biden administration attempting to increase the cost of oil and gas development to the point that it became infeasible.
Speaker 3
Well, representative, you're accurate that the purpose of those was to actually try to drive an industry out of business, an industry that we desperately need, an energy industry. And, of course, you mentioned leasing. We do know that, you know, every president from Harry Truman, including president Obama, held the quarterly required legally required lease sales all the way through up until the Biden administration where in the first two years, they did not hold a single quarterly lease sale as required by law. That went to federal court, and the states prevailed. We're following the lease sales per the law passed even by this congress with the working families tax cut, and we're taking a look at those egregious bonding rules that were put in to make sure that we're appropriately protecting resources of America, but also making sure that we're not adversely penalizing those that are trying to lower prices for Americans for energy.
Speaker 1
Ladies, time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Miss Lee, for five minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, secretary, for being here. Just weeks after you were here last year in June, Interior published its July 15 memo requiring your personal approval on any and all solar and wind permits. This basically created a total permitting mess in my home state of Nevada, stalling 93% of all new energy capacity in the state. This new red tape had gotten so bad that our Republican governor, Joe Lombardo, ended up having to, what he said, call an audience with the president in an attempt to clean it up.
On a December podcast, here's how the governor said his meeting went. Nevada utilizes solar energy more than any other state in the nation. I walked President Trump through it, and he goes, okay. Sounds good. I'm glad you brought it up.
I'll call Bergum and tell him it's allowed in Nevada. So my first question is pretty simple, Mr. Secretary. Nevada currently has the third highest unemployment rate in the country. Our governor himself has emphasized that solar, if unleashed, would bring tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and several billion dollars of economic benefits to our state. My question is, did the president keep his promise and personally call you to tell you that solar development is allowable in your home state?
Speaker 5
I did it, was it just a yes or no. Did the president call you based on his conversation with the governor?
Speaker 3
President Trump has been clear about the energy dominance agenda that we have, and we're instructed to work on anything that is affordable, reliable, and secure, and that we're following the law in terms of the permitting to get that done. We know that there are projects moving forward. But one thing to clarify, your opening statement said that I personally have to, it actually says that the secretary's office includes all the administrative staff, not just a local district office or not.
Speaker 5
a state. My time. Since for the past year, in my home state, there have been zero permits issued for solar. And with respect to following the law, the fact of the matter is a judge actually struck down the July 15th memo last month. So regardless of whether or not you agree with the court order, I guess my question is what's the immediate impact that that's having?
Are you just not going to abide by the court order?
Speaker 3
Well, we had a you're referring to a single district judge that felt that he had the authority to tell a federal
Speaker 3
Yeah. Absolutely. Because we reject the whole premise. I mean, the idea that a single judge could decide what the process that we're supposed to go through internally to make sure that we're complying with the law through a complex permitting process is absurd. And I think that you would object to a judge telling a single judge telling this committee how to run the committee.
I mean, we have three separate equal branches of government, that each have their own responsibilities, and ours is to execute on the permitting responsibilities that we have.
Speaker 5
So with respect to that, I wanna get back to your assertion that you're looking at all affordable types of energy. According to Lazard, the world's largest independent investment bank, when faced with a choice of what kind of new power sources to build, wind and solar are the clear cheapest choice when accounting for capital, fuel, operations, and maintenance costs. That's true even without the federal wind and solar subsidies that Republicans and the president have unwound in the GOP budget that passed in July. So my point is this. As you said, we are in an arms race, an ARI arms race.
In Nevada, our own governor has contended it is a fact that solar energy, 93% of our new capacity of energy in our state, is on hold. And my only request is, based on what we understand the conversation to have been between the governor and the president, that solar development be allowable in our state. I mean, you're a businessman to have projects and billions of dollars of investment literally be stalled in their tracks, in a form of energy. And I have always been a contender that we should look at all forms of energy. But in my home state of Nevada, solar energy is the predominant, clearest choice when you look at new capacity of cheap energy coming online.
And my only request of you and your department, whoever it is in your department that will make the decision, is that we look at these and start to pass these permits along so we can get this development process. And, by the way, I'll just say this. When you're looking at permitting reform, the single thing that prevents it from happening is this memo, this July 15 memo that is stalling. If you would just rescind that memo, we could get permitting reform past this Congress, and we can start to talk about permitting all forms of energy. So I just ask, mister secretary, that we work on making sure we can move solar to Bell.
Thank you. I yield.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, could I respond quickly on one thing? Can I ask The Lazard analysis, that suggests that this is the cheapest form of energy, all of these projects you're describing in Nevada have one thing in common? When the sun goes down, they produce zero electricity. And this nation over-rotated towards intermittent forms of energy. And the idea that we could add intermittent and shut down baseload is what put our grid at deep risk.
And to the idea that it's the cheapest, you keep if you want to add intermittent, you have to keep everything else. And so the so there we have to have a discussion about the total cost of grid, not the cost of the incremental. Because it's true on an incremental basis, you may have an incremental source, but it doesn't work. The whole thing, the whole machine doesn't work when the sun goes down. And there are examples from around the world of this happening.
And so it's, you know, cherry picking an analysis that doesn't look we're looking at reliable, affordable, and secure. And I would encourage everybody here to get in a skiff and to understand that most of these components, very few of these components for the solar industry are coming from the US. They're coming from China. And just like we had with Huawei equipment, there are modifications on those that would allow foreign governments to interfere with our grid. And I just wanna have a rational discussion with everybody.
This is not an ideological thing. It's about reliable, affordable, and secure. Those.
Speaker 5
Three rational conversation about it. I'll just say we are not shutting down baseload energy to build solar. And I will contend we have battery storage as well. So,
Speaker 2
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record this amazing new technology that apparently the secretary is unaware of. It's a battery. China's figured it out. That's why they're cleaning our clock on clean energy, but I want to enter that into the record.
Speaker 3
Could we also include that China is the world's largest emitter as part of that submission?
Speaker 2
And let's include the fact that far more clean energy was created in China last year. The gentleman mentioned their coal. Coal was a fraction of the new energy in China.
Speaker 1
Is that what is recognized yet, mister Tiffany. I'm sorry. What's that? I said you have not been recognized yet. But the chairman of the subcommittee on federal lands, a gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Tiffany, you're now recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you for keeping order, Mr. Chairman. 93 gigawatts of coal. Is that what I heard in China?
Speaker 7
Yeah. So the witnesses stated it very well. Do you know how much the subsidies are that we pay for these intermittent sources of power? $50,000 an acre. We are destroying some of the most productive farmland in America as we speak, including in places like the Great State of Wisconsin.
And guess what has happened to the great state of Wisconsin and their utility rates since then? We went from the second-lowest in the Midwest to the second highest, and that's because of this movement towards intermittent sources of power. When the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, you do not get power from it. And you have to keep the baseload power. You have to, unless you wanna be like Germany and fall behind the rest of the world. You cannot decommission all that you have.
Real quickly, in regards to the US Wildland Fire Service, I'm looking at the budget and the numbers we have here that were provided to us. It appears there's a significant increase. Is that correct, mister secretary, in regard to the US Wildland Fire budget?
Speaker 3
Yes. Through the unification of the existing groups across BLM, BIA, and National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife. Those four plus the US Forest Service are included in this budget, also being included in that thing. So it's a transfer from the USDA budget as well.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Mister chairman, I wanna thank the secretary for presiding over that, because what is the one thing that we've been hearing as we've traveled around the West is that there are all these silos that have been out there, and they did not coordinate amongst themselves to fight these fires. And stopping the scourge of fire in the West is probably the greatest challenge you have, other than producing more energy for America, and I wanna thank you for doing that. I wanna get on to another issue that's quite different. The Obama administration opened up a loophole in our immigration policy in regards to parole in Chinese nationals without having to get a visa.
The Biden administration codified it. Are you taking action working with the Department of Homeland Security to shut down that loophole that allows communist Chinese to come into America and then have children here, have babies here, and then they become citizens solely as a result of having birth in a place that is part of America.
Speaker 3
Thank you, representative. Yes. Birth tourism is on our radar, in particular, we've had some issues in our territories that we manage in The Pacific where China was exploiting low cost, high volume tourism visas to flood some of our places like the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands with visitors. And so we it's a real thing that we're directly involved in. So thank you for bringing attention to this issue.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Mister chairman, something really important that we do. There were more births going on in the Mariana Islands by Chinese nationals than there were of Americans. As a result of this loophole, it's important to shut it down. National Park System, do you believe in public-private partnerships?
Speaker 3
Well, I would I'm pleased to say that, again, we've got a number of organizations like the National Park Foundation, which is raising a record amount of dollars. We're excited. We'd invite all of you to join us around July 4 for the opening of the Theatre Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. This is an over $450,000,000 project. 100% of that is non federal money coming from the private sector.
It could be a role model for the kinds of things we could do at entrance communities to our 63 national parks.
Speaker 7
We should be doing far more of this, shouldn't we? Because there's an enormous wealth in this country that would like to participate, isn't there?
Speaker 7
For sure. I wanna talk about real quick here, in closing. Equal Access to Justice Act. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Extreme environmental groups have used this to be able to shut down project after project across America, including groups like the National or the Natural Resources Defense Council, and they fundraise off from it.
What actions has Interior taken, if any, to try and create better reporting and transparency around that, so these extreme environmental groups aren't ripping off the taxpayers of America?
Speaker 3
Well, we were certainly working on trying to create the transparency around these organizations that position themselves as somehow conservation groups, don't spend any money at all on conservation. They spend it all on lawsuits. They have high-paid lobbyists and CEOs as their officers. They tell people to be afraid. Send us a check.
We'll solve the problem. They sue and under IJIF, they sue, they settle. They get the taxpayer is on the hook for paying their legal fees, and it's become a giant business. I mean, there's a business model involved in suing over these issues and then turning that into a profit center. And I think congress should take the steps to make sure that we're not using taxpayer money for groups that are blocking America.
We know in this country that we can do two things at the same time. We can build great things, and we can protect the environment. There's not, this is a false trade-off that's being presented by these organizations, and we shouldn't be funding them with taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 7
Who knew these massive environmental groups would be ripping off the taxpayers of America? Aïeul.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, this time has expired. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Colorado, Mister Ngoose.
Speaker 8
For five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mister Secretary, for being here today. I wanna start first with a letter that myself and Senator Michael Bennett, Colorado, wrote to your agency on April 29.
This was a letter of April 29, in regards to the historically low snowpack that we're experiencing, as you know, in the Rocky Mountain West, including in Colorado. Obviously, very concerned about the wildfire season that is upon us. The letter makes a number of requests around prepositioning assets, extending federal contracts for aerial resources. I would just ask for your commitment to respond to that letter if you are willing to make that commitment too.
Speaker 3
Absolutely. And, appreciate your attention as we are facing a potentially dangerous situation with the low water levels in the Colorado River Basin relative to wildfire. And that's why, again, we appreciate all the support we can get from you in unifying the new US wildland firefighting group. That's gonna allow us to have, essentially, a joint chiefs of staff that can make the command and control decisions that you're asking us to look at.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We look forward to your response on that front. I wanna follow up on a point that the ranking member referenced. This is in regards to a decision that your agency made in December last year.
As you know, removing the two federal holidays that honor black history from the free entrance day list for the National Park Service. You're familiar with that decision?
Speaker 8
I believe those two days, by the way, are Martin Luther King Day, as you know, and Juneteenth. It's my view that Juneteenth provides all citizens with an opportunity to really recommit ourselves, renew our commitment to equality.
Speaker 8
I guess part of my confusion about why your agreement on that front, given the fact that as governor, you proclaimed Juneteenth back in North Dakota several years ago, why you would now allow the agency or I presume you're involved in that decision to remove those two holidays from the list. It just strikes me that is not consistent with the view that you just articulated. And I would urge the National Park Service to reverse that decision. I think it is shortsighted, and I don't think it's in the best interest of the country. I recognize my colleagues disagree with me on the other side of the aisle, perhaps some of them, but that's my view.
I wanna ask you about one last topic.
Speaker 3
Can I just say I wanna make sure on that topic that we understand that no one is changing these holidays, the holiday designation, whatever? There was an ability to choose free days. And part of that was, you know, where do we space the free days? Where do we put them? Do they match up against the weekends?
Mr. secretary. And, again, trying to get more of those days into the summer months when we have higher visitation.
Speaker 8
I hear you. At the same time, I think you could understand how many Americans would perceive a decision by your department to remove Martin Luther King Day as a free entrance day, from the National Park Service. I just at the end of the day, again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that front, but, I will move on. Are you familiar with Atlantic Industrial Coatings?
Speaker 8
So Atlantic Industrial Coatings is a company. Are you familiar with that company?
Speaker 8
Okay. Atlantic Industrial Coatings is the company that received a no-bid federal contract for the project at the Lincoln Memorial Reflective Pool. Are you familiar with that now?
Speaker 8
Okay. You're familiar with the fact that a company received a no-bid contract to do the work on that project. Correct?
Speaker 3
I'm familiar that we have that we're working on a project to restore the reflecting pool before the summer season with record attendance. Yes.
Speaker 8
Yes. And that was through a no-bid $13,000,000 contract. Right? That's not up for debate. That's a fact.
Speaker 3
I'm positive that we followed all of the required bidding rules. So you're emphasizing the word no bid like something nefarious has happened. I reject the.
Speaker 8
to me. I'll ask you the question. My understanding of the federal procurement rules is that a no-bid contract is reserved for situations where, quote, any delay would cause serious injury to the government. What is your proposition? What? That there'd be serious injury to the government if this company didn't get the $13,000,000 contract to do this particular project right now?
Is that that?
Speaker 3
Well, I think we do have a sense of urgency. I mean, we got handed a record amount of deferred maintenance. Had 19 fountains across the city that didn't work. You
Speaker 8
Need to do all the same to the government? A serious injury to the government?
Speaker 3
I'm not a, I suppose a lawyer could decide that, but I think that maybe all of us could agree that we would want to have our nation's capital looking great for the 250th. I mean, this is a common-sense decision.
Speaker 8
I would say just last question. Who picked this company? Because President Trump, a few months ago, in a New York Times article said, I have a guy who's unbelievable at doing swimming pools. He looked at it. He called me up.
He said, sir, we can do something on it. Last night, he posted on Truth Social, also, I did not give out the contract, Interior did, to a contractor I did not know and have never used before. So, Interior, he's talking about you. Did you give this $13,000,000 no-bid contract to this company that's never done business with the federal government before?
Speaker 3
The question. The gentleman that you're talking about that has done construction work regarding pools and fountains for President Trump is not part of this contract. He's work, he just is just a citizen that cared about it and offered some free advice. There is nothing there in terms of any dollars flowing to anybody that worked for president Trump.
Speaker 3
And the leaders on the National Mall are the ones who picked it. I they went through the process, picked the person that was best, and part of their selection process was picking somebody who had the capability to complete the project in a time frame and in a budget, that would and would actually fix the problem. I mean, there are past presidents who have worked on this thing. It's been shut for 2 years. Read the article.
It was $38,000,000 spent on this between 2010 and 2012, and it was never fixed. I mean, this is a We're
Speaker 1
We're going to move on, some of these questions, if you want to refer or answer them in writing, when there's more time, that would be fine. But we're gonna move to the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman of the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources. Mister Sauber, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 6
Secretary Bergham, thank you very much for being here. In November 2020, the first Trump administration finalized a rule to delist the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. As is often the case, the rule was quickly litigated by activist groups. For the past five and a half years, this rule has been stuck in the courts as both the Biden administration and the Trump administration have defended it. According to data from the Fish and Wildlife Service and State Wildlife Agencies, over half of the gray wolves present in the Lower 48 states can be found in the district.
I am proud to represent Minnesota's 8th Congressional District. Our inability to properly manage the gray wolf is an issue for my constituents, and they face that every day. Secretary Bergam, can you confirm that the Trump administration still holds the position that the gray wolf should be delisted under the ESA?
Speaker 3
Yes. And so to confirm, if any I wanna say again, as you know, we got gray wolves, we got Mexican wolves, we've got some places where they've been downlisted versus delisted. I mean, it's a complex situation, but I guess what I say I'm agreeing with is that we do have a wolf management issue, and we're actively engaged in trying to resolve this and find the right balance.
Speaker 6
So confirming, defending the November 2020 delisting rule is still the administration's strategy?
Speaker 3
I would say yes. But we're also taking a look at downlisting as well because in some cases, the delisting could actually make things worse than just downlisting. And so we're taking a look at how we can achieve the goals of better wolf management.
Speaker 6
Okay. Does the department have any additional tools to delist these wolves and other species administratively, or must Congress step in to help you?
Speaker 3
We're gonna do everything we can administratively within the rules that we have, but certainly would welcome any discussions with Congress to try to come up with the rule. Because, again, we have a patchwork state-by-state right now, and wolves don't, unfortunately, know where the state lines are.
Speaker 6
No. I will tell you that we have to celebrate the success of the ESA like the gray wolf, and I appreciate your responses. Switching gears to Northern Minnesota, we're home to the incredible critical mineral wealth, including the Duluth Complex, the largest untapped copper nickel deposit in the entire world. And I wanna thank you for your recognition of this incredible opportunity we have in Northern Minnesota, along with your entire department's work to make responsible critical mineral mining in Northern Minnesota a reality. That said, we don't have a complete picture of the full extent of the mineral wealth in the Duluth Complex or other mineral formations around the country, due in part to the lack of data and analysis.
In this area, for example, the data we have is largely extracted from the commercial drilling and mapping of the proposed projects. But beyond those project areas, what we have is just an estimate, not a full picture. What is the USGS and the department doing to address this?
Speaker 3
Well, I'd agree with you, representative. And, of course, as I stated in Iraq, we're trying to get USGS back to its core mission of mapping. And, of course, the ability to do better mapping with higher tech, with less intrusion is certainly available, but we're definitely getting that agency focused on its core mission of mapping. There's a and it and it's essential to this larger issue of winning the critical minerals race with China.
Speaker 6
It's hugely beneficial to us. So, again, will the department prioritize mapping of the Duluth complex and other geological formations in Northern Minnesota?
Speaker 6
Thank you. Before my time is up, I wanna turn to your role as chair of the president's National Energy Dominance Council. While I recognize we need an all of the above approach to energy and mineral development, part of which includes working with our allies overseas, Americans enjoy vast energy and mineral wealth here at home in the United States. Many Americans, including those in my district, are frustrated to see the administration run overseas first, while proposed projects continue to languish here in our country. These are projects that will employ American skilled labor and directly benefit from it.
Will you commit to prioritizing these domestic energy and mining projects over projects overseas?
Speaker 3
Yes. Certainly. And, we've got some partners like Canada and Australia. They're gonna be key in helping us revive. We've killed the mining industry in this country.
We graduated 36,000 lawyers last year. About 300 students graduated in mining or metallurgical degrees. We thirty years ago, The US led the world in critical and rare earth minerals. Now we're completely dependent on the top twenty, eighty-five to 100% on China. So it's not just mining companies.
It's also the universities. It's also, you know, getting back. And, again, if people care about the planet, we should do it all here because we do it cleaner, better, safer, and smarter than anyone else. We've got an EPA. We do reclamation.
Shoving mining to other parts of the world is horrible for the global environment, and it undermines our national security.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, this time has expired. The chair now recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. Gentlemen from California, Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Secretary Bergum, I want to start with something I hope we can just agree on. Would you agree that most Americans are struggling right now to afford basic necessities of life because of rising costs?
Speaker 3
The rest, I agree that this administration inherited the highest inflation in 40 years.
Speaker 2
Miss, mister secretary, do you agree that families are struggling across this country with rising costs? Yes or no?
Speaker 3
I agree that, during the first year of an office, we did more to this administration did more to lower cost than any Maybe other.
Speaker 2
You wouldn't know, Mister Secretary, you know, whether they're struggling. I mean, you're in a different economic strata, but, I think most of us understand there's a struggle out there because of this administration's economic and energy policies. And while you are slashing just about every other part of the Department of Interior's budget, including for national parks, you have spent a lot of the department's time, resources, and taxpayer dollars to serve Donald Trump's vanity. You put his face on the national park passes. You're helping him build a billion-dollar ballroom.
You're letting him paint the reflecting pool blue on a no-bid contract. You're building a 250-foot arch to Trump that will overshadow our veterans' final resting place. And, mister secretary, it's hard to understand how these projects to stroke Trump's ego do anything for the American people with their day-to-day struggles to afford daily life. And the ballooning costs of these tributes to Donald Trump really speak to the lack of fiscal responsibility in this budget, not to what you said in your testimony that this is all about fiscal responsibility. So can you just confirm, you know, with this arch specifically, who is this arch for?
Who is it being built for?
Speaker 3
I think you you're probably aware that there's been no final agency action around building something on a site.
Speaker 2
That was not my question about No. But you're technicality on final agency action. Who is it being built for?
Speaker 2
You're acting. This is my question, mister secretary. I'm sorry. That's the way it works. Who is the arch being built for?
Speaker 3
Your frame of your question is that there has been an approved proposal, and something is actually being billed.
Speaker 2
Let's forget about final agency action and other legalese. There is a proposal to build this arch. Who is it for?
Speaker 3
Well, for the American people, just like everything else in this thing, because there are six, there are 68 democratic capitals around the free world that have arches. And I guess that somehow the United States is building an arch for the people to celebrate.
Speaker 2
Gonna build one just a little taller than the one in Pyongyang, because someone in the White House insists that ours be the biggest. Mister secretary, you may not be aware of this, but actually, I'm sure you are aware. Donald Trump was asked this question specifically on the record, and he said this arch is for him. He said his answer was me. We can enter that into the record by unanimous consent if you'd like, but I'm pretty sure you are aware of that.
Mister secretary, while you're funneling billions into these vanity projects, gas is up by an average of $1.40 a gallon from last year. In March, President Trump posted this message. He said the United States is the largest oil producer in the world by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. Who's the we?
Speaker 3
Well, it could be, states the federal government, the American people. When they, we collect royalty rates on oil production on federal lands. And so if prices are higher, then there's more revenue coming into the system.
Speaker 2
So this is good for American families that they're paying a dollar 40 more a gallon for gas?
Speaker 3
I'm not saying that, but I'm thrilled that they're paying the government. I'm thrilled that they're paying about a buck less than they were during the Biden administration. I mean, that's exciting. And these prices are gonna drop quickly again because now we actually have supply. You know, prices are.
Speaker 2
Determined based on what, there's a real disconnect here. Americans are not celebrating. This spike in gas prices that you seem to think is just great, and your only answer is to harken back to the depths of the pandemic.
Speaker 3
It wasn't the depths of the pandemic. It was just a year ago, and it was a series of
Speaker 2
It was energy subtraction. Americans are paying a dollar 40 more a gallon, and there's no end in sight to this energy crisis created by the war in Iran. They're the ones who can't afford to keep the lights on and put food on the table, but the ones that's making a lot more money are, let's be honest about it. It's the big oil billionaires. Mister secretary, your energies are.
I mean, is all of this proceeding according to your plan? Is everything going well?
Speaker 3
The fact that we've displaced two thirds of the Russian gas in Western Europe, the fact that we've shut down Iranian exports and Venezuelan exports, which were creating record cheap oil for our adversaries around the
Speaker 3
I feel like this president has changed the geopolitical structure of the energy win, which has determined almost all conflicts for the last 47 years, has shifted from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere. And when Alaska continues to come online to serve our Pacific allies, we're going to see a historic shift.
Speaker 3
We the what has been accomplished in the last 15 months to reshift the geopolitical alignment of energy production towards reliable, affordable, and secure energy. Those countries are nothing short of remarkable. And we're in a this is a temporary, not a long term thing. We're on a path towards affordability, reliability, security.
Speaker 2
I'm going to take that as a yes, that you believe everything's going great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You'll let me.
Speaker 6
The jury. Mister Chair, Mister Mayor. May enter into the record. I'd like to submit the record, a letter directed towards California governor Gavin Newsom from Arizona's Democrat governor Katie Hobbs and Nevada's Republican governor Joel Lombardo, which highlights concerns they have in regards to California state legislation related to refinery inventory supplies, which impacts these supplies and is causing higher costs for consumers and gravely impacting transportation infrastructure across the West.
Speaker 2
a unanimous consent request as well. The secretary is keenly aware that.
Speaker 2
Free unanimous consent that the secretary is keenly aware of the new coal capacity China has added. He neglected to mention, maybe he's not aware, that China added about four times as much clean energy in 2025 than coal. So here is an article from Amber, entitled Chinese Energy Trends, pointing out those facts.
Speaker 3
Can we include in that that China still gets 60% of their electricity from coal, so two out of three electric vehicles in China ought to have this bumper sticker that says powered by coal?
Speaker 2
Sure. As long as we include the fact that they're dominating EV sales around the world, and this administration has neutered the American auto industry, yeah, let us put that in the record too.
Speaker 11
record. I ask unanimous consent to submit to the record the fiscal year 2023 National Park Service budget justification showing the Biden administration's request for funds to repair the reflecting pool, which has had existing problems and is now finally being restored by President Trump.
Speaker 1
That objection is so ordered. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Colorado, the chair of the subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs. Mister Heard, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Bergum, welcome. Good morning. I wanna say I appreciate the department's continued engagement on the Shoshone water rights preservation project in Western Colorado. This is critical for ag.
It's critical for rural communities and for the water supply in the West. Can I count on your department's continued engagement with my office as we work to get this effort across the finish line?
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Separately, I also appreciate the department's continued attention to proactive wildfire mitigation, also a huge issue in Western and Southern Colorado, your efforts to prevent further wolf introduction to Colorado. I trust that your work in these areas will continue as well.
Speaker 12
Wonderful. Thank you. Mister Secretary, as chairman of Indian Insular Affairs, I wanted to ask about tribal public safety and the work that your department is doing in Indian country in that regard. I continue to hear from tribal communities across the country about concerns they have, serious concerns about public safety, challenges facing Indian country from cartel activity, narcotics trafficking, and also violent crime. I wanna thank you for the recent secretarial order that you issued. I believe it was earlier this month, honoring our commitment to protecting Indian country communities and your focus on opioid enforcement and stopping crimes against children.
Can you tell us a little bit about how the department sees the Indian Country Violent Crime Task Force, improving coordination among tribal governments, federal governments, state governments, and local governments over the long term?
Speaker 3
Well, yes, representative. I think you know that we've got a, I'm gonna say, fall through the cracks or some gaps, and we know that the organized crime, including cartels, that are involved in human trafficking and drug trafficking, know that sometimes they can fall into a pocket of tribal land and avoid state and local jurisdictions, and that at the federal government, that we're sometimes not coordinated. And so, having better coordination, obviously, we've got a huge issue which we're addressing around missing and murdered indigenous women, over 6,000 unsolved cases. We've got collaboration going with the FBI that we never had. The FBI has put together a special task force related to these unsolved cases.
And, again, on the violent time violent crimes task force, they're working. One of the they had fun, it just happened this week, it hasn't been made public yet. But there was a bust that, through this group, that was working, that picked up close to 40,000 fentanyl pills in one bust on tribal land and over 50 pounds of other drugs and narcotics. And so, you know, enough to, like, kill tens of thousands of Americans in the wrong hands. So there's a real issue.
And I know from my time as governor when we were involved working on trying to stop, you know, cartels that were working out of Mexico, that were working with gangs in Detroit, that were coming by Amtrak in the three tribes in North Dakota. We arrested 55 people in one day, as one of those things. These are part of the things that we wanna get back at doing at a regular pace, in a more intense pace than we have been, because the safety in Indian country is the thing. Any consultation is the thing that comes up. We're and we're and we've underfunded the infrastructure in terms of dissension, jails, and other things in Indian country as well.
It's a big issue.
Speaker 12
Completely agree. Thank you so much for that emphasis, mister secretary. I cannot tell you how important that is in Indian country. How can Congress best support the department's efforts to promote and protect public safety in Indian country? What can we do more than we've been doing?
Speaker 3
Well, I think part of it is part of its funding, and part of its raising awareness. I mean, it's just it's shocking to me that we'll have case after case of someone going missing in Indian country, and then it's never reported in the news. And then we have, you know, a coed goes missing on spring break, it becomes a 10-part Netflix series. And so we, but yeah, we've got just this ongoing issue. And so, again, for each of you in your districts, if you interface with tribal areas, again, people wanna, you know, raise their hand, work with us.
I mean, we need a whole-of-government approach, and we've gotta figure out a way. In North Dakota, we created a lot of MOUs between the state, local, and federal. That helped a lot, because some of this is like the nineteen thirties. You know, people, bad guys crossed into tribal country, and in some states, the state highway patrol can't even follow them.
Speaker 3
Because they don't, because they've refused to solve the jury these multi-jurisdictional problems. So there's a number of things we could work on together there.
Speaker 12
Well, as a representative of a lot of rural communities, I know just how important that cross-jurisdictional coordination is. What measures are in place to ensure coordination between the task force that we're talking about here that was in your secretarial order, and local and state law enforcement?
Speaker 3
Well, this is a, it's a work in progress because of the complex jurisdictional things. And we've got some places in the country where it's working well, others not so well. But that's part of what we need to do, is keep, you know, pushing to make sure we've got coordination everywhere.
Speaker 12
Great. Thank you, mister secretary, for your time and attention in this regard. Mister chairman, I see my time has expired.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, as time has expired, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Minh, for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chair Westerman, Ranking Member Huffman, for holding this hearing. Thank you, secretary, for coming back before this committee. In 2024, then candidate Donald Trump campaigned on cutting energy costs, promising to cut utility rates in half in his first 12 months in office. We are now about 16 months in, and residential electricity rates are at a ten-year high in the United States. Meanwhile, your department has refused to approve hundreds of wind and solar permits, preventing nearly 57 gigawatts of new energy from coming online, energy that could power millions of homes.
In July, the Department of the Interior announced it would require all wind and solar permits, nearly 70 types of permits, to be personally approved by you. But your department has effectively rejected every one of those applications to date. In fact, in April, a US district court judge ruled in favor of clean energy project developers, agreeing that your department was, quote, slow-walking the approval of wind and solar permits against the law, and issued a preliminary injunction against your department. Now, secretary, I have reviewed your past testimony. I would say it seems very clear you have a vendetta against renewable energy, a vendetta that you're making clear again today.
You've stated, for example, that we, quote, have to have massive taxpayer subsidies to produce renewable energies, because once the working families tax cut bill was passed last year and the subsidies ended, most of these renewable energy projects dropped off the queue. And, in fact, that's a false statement. In fact, at 2025, the queue for renewable solar, wind, and storage was over six times larger than that for gas. I would also note that if we're talking about subsidies for energy, some might say that the $75,000,000,000 and counting that we are paying right now for this illegal war in Iraq is a direct subsidy for oil and gas, much larger than for renewables, along with the billions that we spend each year in the Middle East to maintain military bases. But I digress.
I want I also wanna point out that you once described wind and solar as unreliable intermittent energy projects that hold America back from achieving US energy dominance. Now, again, I would say this is a false statement because advancements in energy storage innovation, including batteries and long duration storage, have allowed us to deal increasingly effectively with the energy variability of renewables, while getting Americans the energy they need. But speaking of US energy dominance, secretary, I just ask you a simple yes-no question. Do you agree that China is also trying to achieve total energy dominance? Yes, no?
Speaker 9
Okay. That's not a yes, no. I'll reclaim my time. Do you know how much new energy China put online last year? New energy.
Intermittent or baseload? Any energy. 543 gigawatts. Do you know how much of that was renewable?
Speaker 9
They put on 434 gigawatts annually. 80% of the new energy that they put online last year was renewable. 80%. You don't have to take my word for it. I'm Asian, so good at math, but you can look that up.
80% of the energy they put up was renewable. Meanwhile, the United States, under your, quote, total energy dominant strategy of rejecting renewable energy, put up 53 gigawatts of new energy last year. Less than 10% of what China put up. Now your clear bias against renewable energy, in the face of all evidence, is harming our national security, harming our ability to have energy independence, and putting us further and further behind the Chinese. And the cancellation of Total Energy's offshore wind leases last year is a case study on your department's economically illiterate and unlawful energy strategy.
In March 2026, Trump settled with Total Energy, a French oil company, for $1,000,000,000 in exchange for cancellation of his offshore wind leases. If completed, Total Energies projects would have produced enough energy to power 1,700,000 homes in the United States. Furthermore, the administration paid this company a billion dollars again from a fund strictly reserved for semblance resulting in active or imminent litigation requiring monetary compensation, which was not the case with Total, because, in fact, in March 2026, the CEO of Total told CNBC that their company had approached the federal government for reimbursement after Trump had paused all offshore wind permitting. So, a simple yes, no question for you. While constituents deal with sky-high utility prices, do you think it's appropriate that your department sent $1,000,000,000 to a foreign oil company to stop producing energy?
Speaker 3
There are so many things that you said that are false or misleading. I don't know where to start. I point out a few things. I will start with one thing that Mhmm. Total was refunded their money.
They essentially gave the US government an interest free loan, and their money was refunded today.
Speaker 9
I know you've described this as a refund in the past. I'm not interested in semantics. You gave them a billion.
Speaker 9
It is semantics. You gave them a billion dollars out of fund reserve for settlements. Is that not true? You gave them a billion dollars out of a fund reserved for legal settlements.
Speaker 3
I didn't give them anything. I reef we refunded their money, but only if
Speaker 9
But you gave them a billion dollars. Right? How are you gonna share the price?
Speaker 9
my time. Thank you very much. Invested that in energy projects. Question. Your department conducted a cost-benefit analysis for how much time Gentlemen's.
Speaker 1
Time has expired. We're now gonna go to Mr. Gosar, the chairman of the subcommittee on oversight. You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman. Thank you, Secretary Berger, for joining us today. I also want to get let out a special thank you to the subcommittee staff director, Michelle Lane, who organized this hearing and is embarking on her next chapter. This was next week. So I wanna say thank you very much for all that you've done.
It's been a passion for Arizonans all across the board. Secretary Bergham.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Mister chairman, can we make sure that the mic is close enough so I can hear clearly there? K. Thank you.
Speaker 13
The Walapai by Kingman, Arizona. Oh, the Walapai? Yes. The only one outstanding right now.
Speaker 3
You're aware of it. I'm aware that we have a number of tribal water deals that are outstanding, if that's what you're saying.
Speaker 13
Yeah. So, if the settlement isn't fully funded by 2029, the United States will, for the first time in history, have failed to meet a statutory obligation to a tribe under a constitutionally enacted water settlement, and the settlement will become void in 2029. So thank you for including the $58,000,000 in the settlement of the president's fiscal year 2027 budget. Can Congress expect to see continued investments to ensure the settlement does not become null and void?
Speaker 13
As the president delivers on affordability for Americans, I have begun the discussions to reshape how congressional water settlements have been launched and funded. Customers use customer user fees may offer a temporary solution to find these settlements without inflating the national debt. Are customer user fees a possible length for subs or
Speaker 13
I also think your continued commitment to clean water is to everybody, in Arizona. It's no easy task to inherit the Colorado River compact negotiations from the Biden-Harris administration. As the saying goes, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over. To solve this crisis, I encourage the department to improve the existing water infrastructure like the Yuma Desalinization plant in my district. Construction of the YPD or IDP concluded in 1992, but the facility remains dormant.
I believe desalinization is the future of our access to clean water in my district. The YPDP offers Arizona the opportunity to become closer to self-sufficiency and sustainability and source, clean and deploy water within its own borders and reduce the burden on Lake Mead. Secretary Gerry Burton, what is the current operational status of the YDP, and what would it take to get it up and running to full capacity?
Speaker 3
I wanna make sure that the current status of the I didn't hear the initials.
Speaker 3
Oh, yeah. Well, in on the broader topic of the Colorado water system, I think everybody knows in the basin that we've got a big shortage. We've got to figure out a way to get a desalinization and any other thing we could do to get more supply. With the, you know, population increases, with the record amount of economic development activity going on, you know, versus what the Colorado River plan from 100 years ago. It's the river produces less water than originally thought.
We've got to figure out ways to add more supply.
Speaker 13
Yeah. So let me catch you in there. So the y p OIDP would be something we would.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Absolutely. We have to look at every idea we have, to get more water in.
Speaker 13
the Colorado system. Okay. Switching on the subject. A big thank you to Mister Tara Crane for rescinding the BLM conservation and landscape health rule on Monday. Under this rule, the Biden Harris administration attempted to block or lock up public lands from public use.
My bill, HR 34, the Lasso Act, encourages the responsible use of public lands according to the multiple use doctrine of the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 to benefit Americans and their hard-earned Social Security benefits. Importantly, my bill does not expand the development or raise the fees for our activity on public lands. Do you believe my bill would change the mission of the federal land management?
Speaker 3
I believe that the original law of multiple use is a direction we need to go, and certainly, we support the revoking of this rule that would have allowed no use to be a use on public land.
Speaker 13
So how would the Lasso Act impact the president's and Department of Interior's current strategy for dominant energies dominance? It would be positive, wouldn't it?
Speaker 3
Alright. Well, again, multiple use is positive for Americans. It's positive for the sustainable use of our land. So, yes.
Speaker 1
Emmanuel's back that you're now recognized as a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Dexter, for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, mister secretary, for being here again today. Mister secretary, do you have any conflicts of interest as secretary of the interior? No. Good. I would hope that.
I'm glad to hear it. Then I want to ask you about Doctor Jennifer Chatfield, a political appointee who was quietly installed last year as deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. It appears she has been involved in approving a permit application for her family's animal breeding facility to allow them to breed endangered wildlife. The available record also shows she may have been untruthful to the ethics officer. If the office of the inspector general finds that she broke ethics laws, will you fire her?
Speaker 3
Well, certainly we'll take a look and follow anything that would come from ethics. But as far as I know right now, everything, all the, you know, guidance and rules have been followed.
Speaker 10
I just wanna make sure. So if the inspector general finds that she broke ethics laws, will you hold her to the same level of integrity that you're holding yourself to?
Speaker 3
I certainly will look at all the facts. I mean, one thing I learned as a governor is I can't prejudge an outcome until I see all the evidence. Understood. I certainly don't have all the
Speaker 10
words. Just been talking about when that is concluded. So I appreciate that your commitment is to hold her accountable to ethics laws. So now let's talk about priorities. Mister secretary, the president's vanity projects are so out of control that they now require their own budget.
Trump is putting his face on park passes and passports. He's carving his name into the Kennedy senator. He's repainting the reflection pool American flag blue. He's trying to put up a massive 250-foot arch to Trump in front of Arlington National Cemetery. And then there's the ballroom.
First, the American people were told this ballroom would not disrupt public access to the West Wing of the White House. That hasn't been the case. Then they said they would mostly be privately funded and only cost about 200,000,000. But then it was 250000000, then 300000000, then 400000000. Now, suggests taxpayers are footing a whopping $1,000,000,000 bill for Trump's ballroom and White House upgrades.
Mister secretary, your budget cuts the National Park Service by $1,000,000,000, a 32% cut. If you put this $1,000,000,000 towards our national parks instead of Trump's ballroom, you could avoid that cut. That would benefit every single American. Mister secretary, at any time, did you object to this level of spending for the ballroom?
Speaker 10
I wanna be really careful with my time. As you know, we keep running out.
Speaker 3
I wanna be careful about what we're talking about because I think everybody in this room knows that there's a massive security conflict.
Speaker 10
We're not talking about that, Mr. Secretary. We're talking about a $1,000,000,000 line item for White House upgrades.
Speaker 3
And but what's in what do you have included in that line item? Okay. Is it?
Speaker 10
No. No. This is my time, Mr. Secretary. I'm gonna take it. I'm sorry.
Similar to how you did nothing to stop Trump from spending 13,000,000 with a no-bid contract to paint the reflecting pool. So this is a question I think the public wants answered. When is it enough? At what point do you tell Trump no, Mr. Secretary?
Speaker 3
There is no painting going on at the reflecting pool. The reflecting pool leaks 40,000 gallons.
Speaker 3
Can we refocus on not White House. Not misrepresenting things? Because it's not paint. It's a liner, so the pool doesn't leak.
Speaker 3
Can we not? I'm not sure why people keep calling it the President Trump's ballroom, because it will be completed in time for.
Speaker 10
Goodness, mister secretary. Did you know that 90% of the American public supports our national parks? And two to one, they do not support the investment in the East Wing, in the new ballroom. So are you supporting Mister Trump's vanity projects, are you supporting the national parks that our people in this country treasure?
Speaker 10
No problem. Values documents, Mr. Secretary. You said this in your opening comments that your priorities and your values are where you're spending money, and you are refusing to stand up to our president who is investing in vanity projects instead of our federal lands and our national parks. That is.
Speaker 3
I came in, I asked you to reauthorize it with the Great American Outdoors Act, which President Trump will sign, which will invest billions in our national.
Speaker 10
About that. How many rangers need to lose their jobs before you stand up to these vanity project investments?
Speaker 3
We if you wanna talk staffing, I'm happy to talk staffing because we have hired thousands and thousands of people into the national park system. And if any of you would look at the budget and see.
Speaker 10
Ask you to stand up for the American people, and stand up against these investments. And I think we've heard all we need to hear today. You are failing to stand up for the American people.
Speaker 6
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from 2012 during the Obama administration's titled DC's not so reflecting pool is full of algae after $34,000,000 renovation. The second one was these renovations were so bad. In fact, they had to enter another article in the record showing that the Biden administration's National Park Service had to shut down the reflecting pool every year to clean out trash, debris, and goose droppings. And finally, the third, I'd like to enter in the record an article from political from this year. This article says the initial estimates for the reflecting pool projects were upwards of 300,000,000.
DOI is now getting this project done for a fraction of the cost ahead of schedule in time for the 250th anniversary of this great nation, and, I ask unanimous consent.
Speaker 1
That objection is ordered. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman, for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Secretary, thank you so much for joining us today. I'd like to thank you and the president and the administration for all that you're doing to really look at and roll back burdensome regulations that have prevented or greatly inhibited access for our hunters and anglers. We know how incredibly important that is to this nation, and we appreciate too your effort and your order to go to the agencies, ask them to identify any provisions there that would be inhibitory to access for our outdoors and specifically for anglers and hunters. Those things, I think, are critical.
These lands belong to the taxpayers. They belong to our citizens for them to be able to use. Those things, I think, are critical. We're happy too that this committee was able to pass the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, which is a way to make sure that we're looking specifically at instances where policies are limiting access for hunters and anglers, especially with carte blanche bands and things that actually take away the ability for folks to use things like lead ammunition, lead fission sinkers. All, when used properly, are responsible uses of our environment.
Wanted to just get your perspective. Are there additional ways that you're looking at and balancing the stewardship responsibilities for these federal lands with access for the citizens, the owners of these public lands?
Speaker 3
Well, access is a key focus that we have. And, of course, public lands were meant to be accessible to the public. That's why they're called public lands. And, we inherited a situation where, in many cases, essentially, the switch was turned to off and you had to fight to get public access. We've sent out a secretarial memo to all of the people that manage it and say the presumption should be that these public lands are open to the public, unless deemed for other reasons, whether it's for, you know, fire danger, environmental reasons.
Something has to be closed or closed temporarily. But, we have opened up hundreds of thousands of acres to hunting and fishing access. We're reviewing millions of acres more and trying to figure out a way to how do we get the red tape out of Americans actually having access to the lands that are theirs. And we know, of course, if you care about conservation, the largest donors to American conservation are hunters and anglers. And I'm not talking about billionaires.
I'm talking about the, you know, the people that shop at Bass Pro Shop, you know, the people that do check off Sunnings, the people that, you know, that contribute to conservation groups, whether it's Delta Waterfowl, Pheasants Forever, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. You know, the average American that is working on the land, hunting and fishing on the land, they're the ones that support conservation. And when we provide public access, we're supporting a $1,300,000,000,000 outdoor recreation industry that employs 3% of America. So it is really appreciate your comments, and absolutely anything you can do or this committee can do to help ensure public access, we appreciate it.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanna now talk too about the energy dominance agenda and the things that need to be done to make sure we're unleashing the energy here in this country, especially things that are underutilized, things like nuclear power, natural gas, the renewable energy sources here. It needs to be an all of the above energy policy. That's the only way they're going to meet this demand. As I go around and meet with electric co ops and electric providers across the Commonwealth of Virginia, what I hear is a very gray scenario.
And that gray scenario essentially means that there will be times when there will be power shortages. So there will be brownouts, and I think people will be surprised by that because we haven't kept up with generating the electricity necessary to power this nation. I know that you have looked at a number of different ways to address those issues. In Virginia, we have an offshore wind project that is coming to completion, so that'll add some capacity to the grid. How do you view the necessary elements in the energy dominance agenda, and what do we need to do here at Congress to further lower energy prices?
Obviously, there are a lot of things going on today, but we want to make sure that we are developing our own energy to put that downward pressure on energy prices.
Speaker 3
Well, when we talk about reliable, affordable, and secure, those are the three elements that we look at. And, of course, across that, nuclear is a key element. President Trump signed four executive orders last year. We've revived the entire nuclear industry. There's over a dozen different companies competing in this country on small modular nuclear.
That has a bunch of advantages when those can come to fruition because we can stop spending trillions of dollars on transmission. I mean, we can put the load generation right next to where the demand is, and that's gonna be fantastic. Geothermal, we're close to some major breakthroughs there. Again, thanks to the, all the, hydrocarbon space, the oil and gas space, the precision drilling that's going on, and the shale revolution is gonna enable new levels of really low cost, reliable, dispatchable seven by 24 in terms of geothermal. And then hydro of Reclamation, we're the number two.
We have 400 dams. US, the US Army Corps of Engineers has 700. The federal government operates 1,100 dams. Many of them haven't been repowered in the last 30 or 40 years. I think we can get, you know, 20 or 25 more power out of that, with and without coming to Congress, because we can probably get some of those done with public-private partnerships.
But all of what I'm talking about is dispatchable baseload to help counteract the overrotation towards the intermittent weather dependent sources.
Speaker 1
Unless Tom's expired, the chair recognizes a gentlelady from Arizona, Miss Ansari. You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary Bergum, hi. As you are aware, the Colorado River is in a historic drought that is impacting water users throughout the entire basin. In my home state of Arizona, the drought is not only impacting municipalities and tribes, but threatening American semiconductors, national security, and critical agricultural production that rely on water from the Colorado River. As you're well aware, earlier this month, the three lower basin states of Arizona, California, and Nevada proposed a two-year comprehensive package for near-term operations that will commit a minimum of 3,200,000 acre-feet of lower division water savings, helping stabilize the entire Colorado River.
Regardless of whether a larger seven-state deal is reached, the federal government has tools currently at its disposal to help mitigate the drought. The deputy commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation testified at a Senate hearing in March that there are still approximately $1,000,000,000 available from the Inflation Reduction Act for drought mitigation in the Colorado River. To that end, will you commit to working with me and my colleagues in the Colorado River Basin to expedite the expenditure of remaining IRA funding, as well as identify other funding for durable projects that will help mitigate the drought basin-wide?
Speaker 3
I would say, yes. We're all hands on deck, and we've engaged with all seven governors from seven basin states. We've had them meet in person in my office. We've had calls not just with the water commissioners, but this is an all hands on deck issue. And the challenge is the low raising states have been fantastic in terms of their conservation efforts and what they're putting on the table.
But as you know, we have not been able to reach a seven-state agreement. And so we did execute under the drought authorities that we have through the interior of the Bureau of Reclamation to put a plan in, so at least the water users know what the plan is for this year, so that people can start planning. But, yeah, the low snowpack this year comes at a time when we are already short. And so it's gonna be the one thing I know for certain, is that we're not gonna have enough water for any of the seven states. So looking for a solution and how do we get through with a resource that's a smaller pie, when we don't like to have it at a time when with economic development others, we need a bigger pie.
Speaker 16
Thank you. And I look forward to working with you on that as well. I also wanted to ask you about the department's interim Colorado River actions. In April, the department announced plans to release up to 1,000,000 acre-feet from the Flamingo Gorge. Do you anticipate moving the entire 1,000,000 acre-feet?
Speaker 3
The current plan is estimated that we would do the 1,000,000 acres from Flaming Gorge. I believe the order that I signed indicates a 600,000 to 1,000,000. But the people should presume that it's gonna be at the high range unless we have some events this summer that would drive new information into the hydrology. And we'll be making those hydraulic assessments almost every two weeks as we go through this season.
Speaker 16
Got it. Thank you. I know the department also announced plans to reduce the annual release volume from Lake Powell to Lake Mead by 1,480,000 acre-feet. Lake Mead is vital to Arizona's hydropower and water supply, and optimizing Lake Powell to Lake Mead release volumes is crucial to protecting Lake Mead from falling below critical elevations. If conditions change and Colorado River hydrology improves, would a reduction in Flaming Gorge releases only occur with a corresponding increase of Lake Powell to Lake Mead release?
Speaker 3
Yeah. The answer to that is likely. But, again, you're hitting on all the important topics, including, you know, power generation, recreation, and water supply. It's a complex set of stakeholders we're trying to balance.
Speaker 16
Thank you. And then lastly, I wanted to ask you about the Water Smart program. At a time when drought in the West is forcing us to do more with less water, programs like Water Smart are providing states, tribes, local governments, and water users with so many critical resources to plan for and implement actions to increase our water supply and modernize existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, the department's budget request for fiscal year 2027 zeros out six critical WaterSmart programs. Given the current serious drought conditions we're facing in Arizona and all the seven basin states that you highlighted yourself, shouldn't we be putting more money into programs like WaterSpark instead of cutting them?
Speaker 3
The, you know, the budget was put together before, at a time when we thought we still were gonna have more significant runoff this year. So this is obviously something that we're taking a look at because your statement is absolutely factual that this is a time when we meet we likely would benefit from additional resources that are not in the budget as originally created.
Speaker 3
Well, the budget is the budget that's been submitted right now, but I'm just saying, your observation is factual, which is that across those seven states, I, you know, their states and private sector guys are always looking for grants to help drive these water smart projects. Some are better than others. Some are effective. Some aren't, you know, some are great. But I think we again, this is a season when we have to look at everything.
Speaker 16
I'll just end by, I just wanna ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 142 organizations and stakeholders which speaks to the importance of Water Smart and the need for robust funding. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Objection. So ordered. The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair recognizes a gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for five minutes.
Speaker 17
Mister Secretary, this discussion over wind and solar compels me to point out that California has the largest portion of its electricity generated by wind and solar in the country. We are the second highest in our electricity rates. We're second only to Hawaii, that ranks three in its percentage of wind and solar. That's a result that's a choice made by the leftists in California and directly affects the affordability of life in California. We also pay the highest gasoline prices, by far, in the country.
Regular gas was up to $6.27 a gallon at Sacramento Airport yesterday. California's biggest fuel problem is not the war with Iran. It's the war on fossil fuels waged by leftist Democrats. In 1980, California was the second largest oil producer in the country, with 40 refineries producing everything our state consumed and then some, due to massive regulations imposed by these leftist governors. Last year, we were down to 9 refineries.
Two have since closed. That leaves seven. Of those seven, five are now warning of imminent closures. 60% of our fuels are now imported. We've gone from producing 15% of the nation's fuel supply to less than 1%.
Obviously, this is self-inflicted wounds, caused by the fools who run California. But are there any steps that the administration can take to save us from these ruinous policies, bring down California's gas prices, and make the state less dependent on foreign oil?
Speaker 3
Well, a very clear-eyed analysis there, representative. It is true that the California situation is not only causing high prices for citizens, but it's actually created a national security risk. With the tooth over 60% of California oil is now imported. And as you noted with the collapse in the refining sector and no ability to really import any significant oil or refined products through pipelines because those have also been blocked, creating California's energy island from the abundant production we have in the US is driving. California's lowest prices, during 2025 before they ran war, the lowest prices for energy were higher than virtually every other state's highest prices.
And so that they are kind of in a league by their own. They were the only state that was really dependent on any fuel or oil coming out of the Strait of Hormuz, and some of the refined product traverses the world. It, like, leaves some ports, goes around the world, gets refined in Korea, and then comes to Long Beach or San Francisco to be offloaded. You mentioned electricity prices. That's not a coincidence.
The data from the Department of Energy will confirm that states that pursued a high degree of renewables while shutting down baseload achieved about 50% higher electrical rates than states that did not do that. But, of course, that mirrors the experience of countries like Germany and others as well. So it is when you say what can we do, we're trying to do. One of the things we're trying to do is revive oil production in California. There's still abundant resources and, of course, the technology today to be able to extract that safely, environmentally safely, is there.
But, you know, California then sues to stop us from that production or moving that production. Exactly. Is that right? That anything we.
Speaker 3
It is. But there's currently lawsuits by the state of California trying to block the movement of oil production to the refineries. And as you noted, there are more refineries that may be shutting down. And so it's the, you know, it'd be we talk about the average price of gasoline in this country, it's, you know, your experience is gonna vary by state. We're gonna have wildly different differences.
And not just on gas, we're gonna have wildly different outcomes in terms of where capital flows go because no capital is gonna flow for the entire AI revolution. People aren't gonna manufacture artificial intelligence at a place where they got high electrical rates. And those states that have been taking assuming policies that drive electrical rates and energy rates up are gonna miss out on, you know, there's estimated about a trillion dollars of CapEx that's coming. It's not gonna be flowing to those places that are opposed to having low cost energy policies.
Speaker 17
These are deliberate choices made by fools who happen to hold power in states like California, and we're counting on this administration to counter them wherever you can, particularly when we're involved in federal lands. I also just wanna thank you on a personal note, for responding to so many concerns regarding Yosemite management. We'd suffered a succession of incompetent superintendents who'd tolerated gross inefficiencies. They ignored many suggestions from gateway communities to improve the visitor experience. Under Yosemite's new superintendent, Ray McPadden, these deficiencies are finally being addressed.
He's instituting a large number of improvements that have been advocated by the gateway communities for over a decade. He's meeting regularly with local representatives, businesses, and residents. And on behalf of the gateway communities that I represent to the Yosemite Valley, thank you very much for your responsiveness to these concerns.
Speaker 1
Woman, as time has expired, the chair now recognize this gentlelady from Michigan. This is Dingle for 5 minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. As co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I know that the Great Lakes are far more than a natural resource. They're more than 20% of the world's, not the United States, the world's freshwater, and they're an economic engine for two countries and many states. They are drinking water, our economy, our jobs, our recreation, and our way of life.
More than 30,000,000 Americans and Canadians rely on the Great Lakes for clean drinking water and their livelihoods. Mister Secretary, we need to protect our drinking water and our economic security. I think you believe that's the case also, but budget cuts might indicate otherwise. How can we work with you to make sure we are protecting the Great Lakes, which budget cuts are not going to do right now?
Speaker 3
I, well, I think you know, congresswoman, that we'd be happy to work with you on anything that would protect the Great Lakes. It is such an important resource. If there's anything specific you have, be happy to if you reached out to us.
Speaker 18
So I wanna say to you, point blank. We can't monitor toxic algal blooms and vasy species or water quality if we fire all the scientists doing the work the way that's written into the budget. So how do we, well, I don't want to tell millions of families across the Great Lakes region that safe drinking water is now something too expensive to protect. So if we specifically go to the Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, under your 2027 budget request, this center is effectively shut down. The center lost approximately 20% of its staff last year.
And now with what was submitted, you're eliminating 108 of those 137 positions. That means, I mean, the staff haven't been cut yet, but they've been told that they're going to be. You want to zero out the budget. You can't test water when there's nobody there. So what can we do about that?
Speaker 3
Well, I think we should have a conversation offline and take a look at this. Obviously, are the core you're describing core functions?
Speaker 3
Yes. And, there's a lot of things that have been happening that are not core functions, we're trying to get people to make sure we're staffed appropriately to address those core functions.
Speaker 18
I mean, and it matters because, you know, we have to tell, I mean, they're coming to me. Which lakes are you no longer going to receive invasive species monitoring for? What fish are we not going to protect? Which communities? And it's not just mine in Michigan, down to Marci captors, are gonna lose the data that they rely on for predicting flooding and harmful algae blooms.
It's not just there. It's Minnesota. It's New York. It's Canada. So, you know, and I'm gonna say this to you.
You often talk about running the government like a business. The Great Lakes Fishery supports a $7,000,000,000 economy. The Great Lakes Science Center costs $15,000,000 annually. I don't consider that a waste when it's protecting the drinking water of 30,000,000 people and a 7,000,000,000 economy. The RRI is nearly 500 to 1.
So can you work do you believe it's good business to jeopardize the $7,000,000,000 economy and the region's source of clean drinking water just to save that $15,000,000?
Speaker 3
What I'd like to do is work with you to make sure that we're supporting all the key core functions that need to occur out of that science center.
Speaker 18
Okay. I'm gonna there are a lot of issues, and I wanna know what I'm gonna say to a lot of people who are really upset in all branches. So I'm gonna count on that. Actually, Mister Waldberg and I are gonna invite you to Michigan too. But, chairman, for the record, I have somehow become the not somehow.
I care about gray wolves and bats. So I'm gonna ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a Wall Street Journal article published two days ago reporting that the White House is moving forward to reduce protections for gray and Mexican wolves as an economic handout to the cattle industry, which, of course, means that reduced protections are not based on the best available science.
Speaker 18
Thank you. And I'll yield to the ranking member, Mister Huffman, my 42 seconds. I
Speaker 2
I thank the gentlelady, mister secretary, just very quickly about Freedom 250. I wanna just ask if you directed anyone at the National Park Service or anyone else at Interior to form the Freedom 250 LLC. Did that come from you? No. Do you know who did?
I mean, it happened under your watch. It involves your agency. Who made that decision? Who ordered that?
Speaker 2
Would you get that information to us, please? I mean, I think that's significant.
Speaker 1
Back. I'm expired. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Florida. Mister Webster, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, secretary, for being here and giving up your time to come and testify before us. And thank you for the work, your good work, great work you're doing in promoting the president's America First agenda. Thank you for that. I have some questions.
The Department of Interior released a map in November dealing with potential gas and oil leases for the years 2029 and 2030 in the Eastern portion of the Gulf of America. How will the Department of Interior balance those interests with Floridians and with the necessity of maintaining American energy dominance?
Speaker 3
The relative to the Gulf, of course, as you said, the balancing is key. And I think, you know, as we go through that long range planning, we've, you know, there's a process where you start with a big scale and it keeps winnowing down. We're in the middle of that process right now. If there's a specific input that you have, we'd love to hear from you as we go through the next round, following the law in terms of us holding required leases for offshore energy production.
Speaker 19
So the president Trump's proposed budget proposal is transferring the National Marine Fisheries Office and also protected resources, and also the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Those responsibilities were given to US Fish and Wildlife, I'm sorry, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Can you share the goal of reducing red tape and making the government more efficient?
Speaker 3
Well, effectively today, as it relates to certain fish, we have two endangered species on the list. There's the one that's under NOAA, under marine fisheries, and then there's the one that's under US Fish and Wildlife. And, of course, these create conflicts without doing anything to protect, you know, the wildlife. You've got two different agencies, two different sets of procedures. You know, companies on the same watercourse have to deal with two different ESA approaches.
And it just is common sense that they should have to deal with one, and that all of the aquatic, you know, marine mammals or fish are all managed in one area relative to endangered species. So this is taking those scientists and staff from NOAA and bringing them into US Fish and Wildlife at what I call a unification. It's not a cut, but a unification of those functions so that we can get a single process for managing those species.
Speaker 3
Absolutely. I mean, the objective is to, you know, protect the species, but it's also to make sure that we're not creating duplication redundancies. And this is a poster child for redundancy because in the same water course, you could have two different federal agencies coming up with two different sets of rules. It's very confusing for states, for counties, for water boards, and for, you know, wildlife organizations. I mean, it's a long overdue simplification.
Speaker 19
Okay. So what permitting reforms do you think are needed for pipelines and gathering systems, export facilities, transmission, and infrastructure supporting oil and gas production? Well, I.
Speaker 3
I think permitting for all projects in this country has become incredibly burdensome, and there's an estimated $1,500,000,000,000 of capital that boards of directors, states, companies, small businesses have committed to spend, but they're waiting to get a permit to get it done. I mean, we're creating a huge logjam through red tape that is preventing our economy from really reaching its fullest potential and adding really no value. And so, again, I know there's legislation in front of Congress. I would encourage everybody to keep driving forward on that because if you, you know, care about affordability and care about all the things that people say about the economy, about working class people, then one of the biggest things that congress could do is pass a permitting reform bill that would allow us to build the infrastructure which lowers the cost for Americans. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yield back. You are now recognized as the gentlelady from Washington. Miss Randall, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, secretary Bergham, for appearing before the committee today. I represent Washington's 6th District, which includes the most popular national park in our state. In 2024, Olympic National Park welcomed over 3,700,000 visitors, contributing 380,000,000 to the local economy and supported almost 3,000 jobs. A huge impact. Tourism and natural resources-based jobs are the foundation of our community and are critical for my neighbors in the 6th.
However, peak hiking season is just around the corner, and our local partners are worried that they won't have the staff they need to keep trails open and keep hikers safe this summer, let alone be able to empty trash cans and take care of bathroom facilities like this that we've seen on KIRO News lately. Last year, the Trump administration dodged 4,000 national park workers, and you're requesting a 25% cut to the National Park Service in the president's FY 2027 budget, eliminating another 3,000 jobs. For example, Olympic National Park is down to only one permanent staffer on the fisheries team. 12 federally recognized tribal nations also reside and thrive on their ancestral lands that are part of my district. And as secretary of the interior, you manage federal lands, natural resources, national parks, and wildlife, and you are charged with honoring this country's promises to tribal nations and carrying out our trust and treaties responsibility.
Mister Secretary, you are not meeting the mark. I'm deeply concerned about the state of deferred maintenance across all of our parks, staffing reductions, and upholding our commitment to tribes, and I'm hoping you will commit to working with me to better serve the American people. Secretary Bergham, you've been very clear as you cut Park Service staffing and budget that you want to redirect resources from headquarters in Washington, DC, and regional offices to the field so that visitor experience is maintained. Is that a correct characterization? Yes.
Thank you. And so I'm surprised by this budget request because it seems to me that you are more focused on DC than on roads, trails, and buildings in our national parks across the country. For example, your budget asks for 10,000,000,000 for a new, I'm quoting here, presidential capital stewardship program for priority construction and beautification projects in and around Washington, DC. At the same time, your budget asks for less than 3,000,000,000 for repairs and maintenance in parks in the rest of the country next year. So that's 10,000,000,000 for new preservation in DC and less than 3,000,000,000 for parks and maintenance across the country.
You're proposing that the vast majority of funding for park construction be spent in DC, at the direction of President Trump, not in our communities. This is wrong. It's misguided. Here's a photo from one of my neighbors hiking on the North Fork of the Quinault Trail in the Olympic National Park. This is a popular trail taken by young families, and is very clearly a safety hazard.
There's a backlog of 300000000 in deferred maintenance and repairs needed for Olympic National Park alone. And we have another photo, AI image that President Trump posted about a beautification project that he wants done in DC. This project would drain the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial so the bottom can be repainted or resurfaced in blue, instead of white. And you're actually in this image, Secretary Bergham. Of these two images, which do you think should be the higher priority?
Fixing a bridge that is a safety hazard for hikers, or changing the bottom of the reflecting pool?
Speaker 3
Well, my answer would be both, and that's why we're encouraging this committee and Congress to pass the GOA rule.
Speaker 20
Please don't dodge my simple question, Mr. Bergo. I'm not cheating. The more urgent.
Speaker 3
I'm not dodging. I'm dodging. We have deferred maintenance issues all over the country.
Speaker 20
Yes. We do. And you are prioritizing 3,000,000,000 for those nationwide deferred maintenance projects and 10,000,000,000 for capital preservation in DC. Can tell you that my neighbors, this is my time. Thank you.
And I believe that questions, gonna.
Speaker 20
False hypothesis. It's my time, secretary. Most Americans think that it's much more urgent to improve public safety in the national parks and make sure everyone can safely enjoy the outdoors. But in fact, you find president Trump's vanity projects more important because you waive procurement rules to issue an emergency no-bid contract. False. Worth over $10,000,000 to replace the reflecting pool.
And I see that my time has expired, so I will end by asking for unanimous consent to enter into the record these two articles from The New York Times reflecting pool repairs to cost 13,100,000. Trump had promised 1.8 and reflecting pool's repairs, uneven and behind schedule.
Speaker 3
you. Mister chairman, at some point, do I ever get to address the false and misleading statements that are being made during some of these exchanges?
Speaker 3
Can I just say one for everybody, so I'll keep covering it, which is we keep citing this thing that there's 25% reduction in the national parks? I would ask the members and their staffs to take a look at two things. One is we're taking all the firefighters out of the national park system, putting them into wildland firefighting. So that's part of that, quote, 25% reduction, but they're not going anywhere. They're going to a unified force.
Then there's another 2,000 people that are being moved across comps, HR, and IT that were spread all over the country, sometimes working remotely, that are being unified into centralized groups so we could do all the best stuff across those things, you know, better, cheaper, faster. That also pulls things out of the national park budget and puts them into the secretarial office budget. So a huge chunk of that 25% did not disappear. They're just being put to work in places where Chairman.
Speaker 2
I don't know where this time is coming from for all of these, for all this spin. But.
Speaker 1
Speaking of time, we're right up against our twelve noon break we said we're gonna take. So we're gonna take a 10 minute break. There is food for members in the back office, and then we will reconvene for questions after that. The committee stands in recess. The hearing will come to order.
We will resume questions, and I'll just remind members, when you ask a question, please give the witness an opportunity to respond to the question. We do need to stay on schedule. I'm gonna recognize myself for 5 minutes. And Secretary Bergum, again, thank you for being here. A lot of things have already been discussed.
Two issues I'm concerned about are the Fix Our Forest Act and permitting reform. We passed the speed act out of the committee. And I just want to yield to you and have you explain the importance of passing both the Fix Our Forest Act so that we can manage our forest and permitting reform so that we can build an America again.
Speaker 3
First of all, mister chairman, I wanna thank you for your leadership, and your leadership specifically on fixing our forest. It's great that we actually have a forester that's helping lead legislation for America. I know that people that work in our forests, our firefighters are all grateful for your knowledge, your expertise, your passion for making sure that we take care of our forests. So, thank you. And, of course, the biggest thing on fix our forest, I think, when we talk about, is, you know, is fires.
Fire starts with a number of things, one of them is the fuel load. And I know that you have a number of common sense practical things included in fix our forest, which would allow our on the ground firefighters to more effectively and more safely do their job. And then, of course, as it relates back to permitting and stopping all the red tape, one of the things that we as a nation, we now, we last year in BLM, we spent nine times more on firefighting dollars out the door in BLM than we took in timber lease sales revenue coming into the citizens of America. We spent 9 times more with revenue from taxpayers going out to fight fires. Those two things are actually correlated.
We had the private sector back in. We could revive their timber industry, revive rural communities, with the advances, as you know, that are occurring in, whether it's in the timber side and the lumber harvesting or whether it's actually and the lumber mills have gone very high-tech. It's a very high-tech industry, and we can get great things done. We import now about the same amount of timber that we used to harvest in America. So, again, in an effort to quote, protect our forest, some cases, turning them into wilderness areas also just almost turns it's like a death sentence.
Twenty five years later, after they become a wilderness area, we're gonna have the fuel load so high that they're gonna burn. Then we got rules where a person can't go into those wilderness areas of firefighter with a chainsaw or a wheelbarrow because that's considered, you know, equipment, and that is illegal to use in a wilderness area. So we set ourselves up to cause these catastrophic fires, which, of course, are the biggest contributors to air quality issues in the country. So we solve a lot of problems when we fix our forest. You're focusing on the upstream end of it with the legislation, and that's absolutely fantastic.
And on the permitting side, as I said earlier, this is one of the biggest things that Congress could actually do, is to actually, you know, get permitting reform done so that capital could actually get spent in this country. We need to be a nation that understands that in this air of abundance that we can actually build great things, do them cleanly, safely, protect the environment, and make sure that we've got putting our resources to use to make life affordable for Americans. We can do both of those things at the same time.
Speaker 1
Of course. Those are both bipartisan bills that have passed out of this committee and have passed out of the House, and we appreciate your continued work on that. Also, wanna allow you the rest of my time to talk about things like energy dominance or staffing. Anything you feel like you haven't had a chance to adequately explain that you would like to clarify?
Speaker 3
Okay. Well, one thing, it's surprising to me the reflecting pool has come up so many different times, during this thing. But, of course, it's been noted by what you've entered into the record. I mean, this thing has been broken and failing. As I said, there, you know, 40,000 estimated gallons a day, that's, you know, that or that's coming out of this thing, millions in a year, and it needs to be fixed.
And so, you know, we took out two and a half miles worth of rotting seam material that connects the different components in the base of the pool, the for where these expansion joints are. And there's been a lot of, I say I don't call it mocking. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding about the color. The color American flag blue is meant to enhance the reflectivity. It's called the reflecting pool.
It's not a look to the bottom and see how deep it is pool. It's a reflecting pool. And anyone that has, from the experts in this industry know, if you wanna have a reflecting pool in some kind of fountain or some kind of place around the world, you wanna have a dark base on the color. There was a time in history when the bay, when this reflecting pool was actually asphalt black. This is it reflects, you know, the patriotic nature of the color.
It's the same blue as the navy blue on an American flag. So it's the appropriate color choice. And I think when it's completed, people are gonna see that, again, 47,000,000 people come to the National Mall every year. It's the most visited site. It's one of the memo's photographed sites that we have.
And the place was a complete mess, not just leaking, but algae filled, chlorine lines broken, all these things. So that idea that somehow everything that we want, everybody wanted to have a clean, safe, and beautiful Washington DC. But if this president makes it a priority and personally says we're gonna get it done for our 250th, then the word, vanity gets inserted. And something like the ballroom, President Trump's, you know, the thing he will never even get to use it. It's gonna come for every president that comes after us.
And this nation deserves to have a secure convening space for heads of state, for Americans, for Congress to come there, as well as having the secure facilities that were beneath it that were, you know, originally built. FDR built some of those in the, you know, the FDR did the reconstruction back, you know, pre World War two. You know, Teddy Roosevelt tore up some stuff to build the West Wing. Were those vanity projects? No.
They're still helping the nation today. And so, again, I think the characterization of these things are false, and I'm not sure what the endgame is. I would think all of us would wanna make sure that our capital is the best, most secure, most beautiful capital in the world. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister secretary. And I will point out I've been under the reflecting pool and there's stalactites growing down from the leakage there. The chair and I recognize this gentlelady from California, Miss Rivas, for five minutes.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. I ask for unanimous consent to enter an article from the Santa Barbara News-Press published on 05/11/2026 titled, Two People Suffer Minor Injuries in Carpinteria Natural Gas Rig Fire.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Earlier this week, news outlets reported that emergency crews responded to a fire on the Platform Habitat in the Santa Barbara Channel. Platform Habitat is an offshore natural gas rig. The US Coast Guard reported that 26 crew members were safely evacuated, with two people reporting minor injuries. Thankfully, due to the quick work of the US Coast Guard and the local fire department, first responders were able to contain the situation quickly and prevent further harm.
It's essential that the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement be allowed to do their job and conduct a thorough and complete investigation. The families along the California coast deserve answers. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE, has been successful in improving safety and ensuring environmental protection in the offshore energy industry. Despite the risks, the Trump administration is proposing the haphazard merger of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a move that would weaken its ability to respond to crises like the rig fire in the Santa Barbara Channel. The country has experienced catastrophic disasters involving offshore rigs that have cost billions of dollars in damage to the economy, public health, and the environment.
There are still communities in California that are recovering from these oil spills, fires, and explosions. Currently, the separation of the two bureaus is purposeful. It's an approach that puts our environment and people first. Bessie focuses on safety and environmental protection, while BOEM focuses its time on developing resources in an environmentally responsible way. However, the Trump administration continues to ignore history and put our country at risk.
President Trump's proposed budget would have the two bureaus merged as the newly created Marine Minerals Administration. This sounds like a government efficiency budget decision. However, there's a catch. The merger of these two essential bureaus actually means less staff and fewer resources. Budgets will be slashed by 95,000,000 and staff a staff cut of 224 employees.
This means an inability of the country to enforce safety and environmental protections. As you cut safety and environmental protections, you're also increasing offshore oil drilling, such as through the six offshore lease sales off the California coast between 2027 and 2030 alone. Secretary Bergum, can you assure the American people that merging these bureaus while cutting staff and resources will not increase the risk of another catastrophic offshore oil disaster off the California coast or anywhere in the country?
Speaker 3
Well, the key here is that we're unifying, not merging. And, of course, if you talk to those who we have that work in both these agencies, they do work in collaboration. I think the key thing on safety is inspections. And through the unification, if we can eliminate redundant overhead, in many cases, these two agencies are actually, you know, on the same floor or different floors of the same building, but we've got different layers of overhead. If we the intention here is to just as it is with other parts, get more people that are actually in the jobs that actually matter.
So get more inspectors, more inspections happening, less people.
Speaker 22
You're saying more inspectors, but you're cutting staff to those bureaus.
Speaker 22
And you're saying that you're unifying for efficiency, but I'm talking about.
Speaker 22
and our environment. Right? Which are now at a risk of harm, because there will be fewer people overseeing these environmental disasters or preventing them.
Speaker 3
The goal in all cases is to have more people actually doing the important work that you're describing and less people in HR, less people in comms, less people in overhead jobs, less managerial jobs, more people actually doing the work. So we can accomplish these two things. We can have a more effective delivery of the things that matter.
Speaker 22
I have significant concerns with this haphazard proposal for merging these two bureaus. Well, first.
Speaker 22
Changes are a recipe for another environmental disaster off the nation's coast.
Speaker 22
You know, as a Californian, I think this proposal will result in more risk for our COAs, less staff, less funding. All of this being done just to ensure that Trump's polluting donors have another large check.
Speaker 22
Thank you. And I yield back. But, Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record three additional items. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this 2008 report from the Office of the Inspector General, which finds, and I quote, the single most serious problem our investigation revealed is a pervasive culture of exclusivity exempt from the rules that govern all other employees of the federal government.
We also discovered a culture of substance abuse in the Royalty in Kind program, both within the program and in concert with the industry.
Speaker 22
I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the official report to the president on Deepwater Horizon, which recommends the creation of an independent agency to oversee offshore oil and gas safety, which, of course, became BSEE, which you are now getting rid of once again.
Speaker 22
And finally, I ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record. This federal register page on expected rollbacks of the well control and blowout preventer rule. Of course, the Deepwater Horizon disaster stemmed from the failure of a blowout preventer.
Speaker 1
Without objection. So ordered the chair, now recognized as a gentleman from Michigan. Mister Wahlberg, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, mister secretary, it's good to see you again. Thank you for the work you do. As chairman of the education workforce committee, I often say the reason for a quality education in this country is to have a great workforce. And a great workforce then is able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the greatness of this country, its resources that include all of the wonderful national lands, but also the resources that expand the opportunities for their workforce.
So thank you for the work you're doing. As a proud Michigander and a sportsman, I wanted to briefly discuss the importance of combating aquatic invasive species. We're blessed with having the jewel of fresh water for the world, surrounding Michigan with the Great Lakes. But, we also don't want to see the jeopardizing of our country's $230,000,000,000 recreational boating and sports fishing industry. The economy that goes with that, 1,100,000 American jobs tied to that.
Last year, President Trump established the Make America Beautiful Again Commission, which you chair. And so based upon that, mister secretary, could you describe the importance you see in ensuring that we protect our waters from aquatic invasive species, which pose a growing problem across the country, and how we can continue to balance stewardship and economic growth.
Speaker 3
Well, absolutely. And thank you, representative, for your leadership and your care for the importance of our nation's water and water resources. Obviously, as I stated earlier, a big chunk of that $1,300,000,000,000 outdoor recreation industry is related to our rivers, our streams, our lakes, and whether that's boating, rafting, fishing, marine manufacturers, it's a key part of that. And there, of course, these are people that are, you know, our anglers are some of the biggest folks that are advocates for conservation in this country, including making sure that we've got, you know, great fisheries and healthy water bodies. So, with that, we, you know, this is something obviously that is part of our responsibility, but we're grateful for your partnership, and your concern as we ensure that we keep our Great Lakes great.
Speaker 14
Well, we want to be an ally. I also wanna highlight the work you're doing alongside the president ensuring access for hunting and fishing by switching to an open unless posted closed model, which I think is a historic shift in how we look at our lands, which are our nation's lands, our people's lands, our constituents' lands. And it undoubtedly provides greater access. And so I'd I wanna hitchhike on that as chairman of the co-chairman of the congressional motorcycle caucus. Wonder if you could share how we might be able to apply the same model to our trail system on federal lands, to ensure we expand access to motorized recreational use.
Speaker 3
This is something we're taking a look at. The biggest intersection here of motorized is on Bureau of Land Management lands in our Western states where we have to make sure that this is part of public access, where appropriate, that we make sure that we have access for motorized. And, of course, this is in an era where e-bikes are coming in. You know, this is an accessibility issue as well as we get older generations of people that maybe wanna access bike trails across public lands. So big opportunities with innovation for us to continue building and expanding our trail system.
Trails trail systems are an economic development. We see that around the nation where entire communities have built not just around a small location, but a network of trails becomes as big an economic driver as a park might.
Speaker 14
Yeah. The backcountry discovery route movement has proven that. It impacts small communities that would be left out, but for the use of those trails. And they also improve those trails.
Speaker 14
Themselves. I wanna briefly discuss the importance of reauthorizing the Great American Outdoors Act, as our country celebrates its 200. Could you describe why it's so important that we continue to make these critical investments not only in deferred maintenance, but also in expanding access to our parks and federal lands?
Speaker 3
Well, as we've noted here in other presentations, we have a tremendous backlog and the legacy restoration fund, you know, started making a dent in that. A lot more work to do. It couldn't be a bigger, better gift for America on its 200th birthday than for Congress to pass the Great American Outdoors Act one more time.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, mister Soto. You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Secretary, thanks for being here. I'm honored to represent the Central Florida area, where we're blessed with beautiful natural resources. Most Floridians, we like going outdoors. Tourism's big, obviously, protecting our habitat, water supply, and also our local growers and ranchers too.
So, home to the Northern Everglades, Kissimmee, Channel Lakes and River, St. John's Indian River Lagoon. So I wanna start by saying I appreciate the investment in the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir Construction. I know that's been something we've gotten bipartisan support on. I am concerned as we see, US Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget has 3,000,000,000 less in this proposal versus last year, which is gonna be critical to this restoration of the Kissimichannel Lakes and the Indian River Lagoon.
I know that they don't go directly to you, but you all work very closely with Army Corps on water research projects. So if Congress dug deep to fund the operations and maintenance budget, would Interior be ready to partner to get these major water projects moving?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I would say that our collaboration between Bureau of Reclamation, which is our big water group, and the Army Corps of Engineers has never been stronger. So the answer is yes. These are two agencies that have a big opportunity to collaborate with each other across, as I mentioned earlier, the 1,100 dam and water structures that those two agencies manage.
Speaker 24
Sure. And then we see with US Fish and Wildlife, the initial budget is proposing a 20% cut. Again, Congress may fund more than that. You've been a governor before, you know how it works. The Kissimmee River, which is at the headwaters of the Everglades, the Pelican Island and Nathaniel Reed Hope Sound and Indian River Lagoon where it's big manatee habitat.
That's all men's about the US Fish and Wildlife Service. And, you know, we worked on trying to save, after a major mortality event a few years ago. So, again, if we get the full funding, are you all gonna be ready to work with US Fish and Wildlife under your leadership to protect these species in these key areas?
Speaker 3
The answer is yes. And, again, I would refer to members and their staff that US Fish and Wildlife, just like the national parks, there is what looks like a big cut. Some of that is transfer of the firefighting unit out of US Fish and Wildlife to the wildland firefighting service. And then there's also this, unification of communications, IT, and HR, where we know we can gain efficiencies across those three overhead groups, pulls those into the secretary's office. So those will look like reductions within a national park or US Fish and Wildlife budget, the people are still there.
Speaker 24
Okay. Well, that's helpful. As you know, NOAA manages a lot of marine species, whales, dolphins, sea turtles, coral reefs. We have the third largest reef tract in the world, with the great Florida Reef. They have a lot of the long-time knowledge.
So I noticed in the budget proposal, there's a transfer of those responsibilities to US Fish and Wildlife, which does manage the manatees already. So what is the rationale for transferring those responsibilities from NOAA to US Fish and Wildlife?
Speaker 3
The key goal is to have one endangered species list, not two, and one set of regulation that follows the ESA law, as opposed to two, because, again, it's a nightmare for permitting. Literally, in the same water courses, we'll have a, you know, one fish that's a, quote, a US fish and wildlife fish, and then we'll have another aquatic fish or mammal that is under NOAA, and companies don't know where to go. And then they have to face two different permitting regimes. And all this does, it doesn't protect the fish or the marine mammals. It just slows things down and hurts projects, and it's complicated whether you're a city, a state, an NGO.
This is just a common sense thing where we could do a better job of protection for the environment and do a better job of ensuring that projects get completed.
Speaker 24
If that were passed, would NOAA experts then transfer over to US Fish and Wildlife so we don't lose institutional knowledge?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Absolutely. I believe that there's about 180 people from NOAA that would they wouldn't have to physically move. Just organizationally, they would be unified with the US Fish and Wildlife ESA team.
Speaker 24
I'll ask you to work with the Florida delegation on this. Obviously, we have a different water problem than you all have out west, when you were the governor of North Dakota, and that we, you know, we have a lot of water and we need to manage it correctly. Last thing I wanna talk about is, you know, there are some proposed buds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Obviously, being from North Dakota, you know how important this agency is. We're seeing rising unemployment in the Native American community at about 8.8% rural, which is areas that you're familiar with, and then we have some both urban and rural with the Seminole tribe.
So what can we be doing to improve and lower that unemployment rate, increase economic activities for rural Native Americans?
Speaker 3
Well, economic development takes capital investment. It always takes labor force. One thing, one big victory we've got is that we in 2025, we did have the highest graduation rate in recent history across the BIE K through 12 school system that we operate through the Department of Interior. So that's a plus. But there's more we can do, particularly when it relates to workforce preparedness.
So those graduates and then matching that with capital to come and do projects. But part of that is federal permitting. We make it hard for private sector to invest on tribal lands. It's difficult. That's why you see a lot of capital investment happening just outside of reservation as opposed to inside because of our permitting environment.
So we have to attack both of those vectors.
Speaker 1
And as time expired, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho. Mister Fulcher, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the secretary, thank you for spending time with us today for your testimony. I wanna thank you for your leadership. In this great state of Idaho, we've got a lot of federally controlled land, and we do a lot of interactions with the interior. And the communication and just interaction have been much better.
Your administration wants to thank you for that. We've got a Wi-Fi here coming up that we're worried about. This is, with low moisture and low snowpack, we're fearful that there's gonna be a very significant wildfire year in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest in general. And the newly restructured firefighting organization under interior, of course, we still have the National Fire Center in Boise, but there's yet some organizational things that need to be worked out, it appears. And just one of the concerns in our state is that our state department of lands might be somehow disadvantaged in terms of just the coordination with this new firefighting structure and organization.
And our state department lands has been pretty effective given the responsibilities that they've had. Can you provide some comfort that, with the firefighting management generally being ruled under interior, there's gonna be ample or even possibly better provisions for involving our local Department of Lands in those decisions and the operations?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Excellent question, representative. And, obviously, a coordination with local and state firefighting is key. Just like wolves, fire doesn't know where the boundaries are. And, of course, across the West, we know we've got this checkerboard of land that's often, you know, one section's federal, the next section's state, the next section's private.
We've gotta make sure that we're coordinating. And I think one of the key elements in this unification is that we'll now have, you know, if you got your frontline wildland firefighters, they will report to firefighters who report to firefighters who report to firefighters all the way up to the top, and including our new national wildland fire chief who reports to me. And the way we have it right now, it could be different across BIA, National Parks, US Fish and Wildlife. In some places, those chains of reporting are interrupted by people that would be considered land managers. And if you've got a situation where you've got a state that's trying to put a fire out, and then we've got a land manager that works with federal government that thinks that fire is a good thing and they're gonna let it burn.
This happened last year, where we had different agencies and different groups with different strategies about whatever. This way, we can actually be coordinated. And, of course, this year in the dry year, we've already put out a secretarial order saying that we're going to be under full suppression. I mean, that's that until the conditions change. If there's a fire, we're the job of the fire brigade to put it out. If there's a place for prescribed burns, but that place isn't right now when we're short of resources and short of capability, and we could have a long firefighting season ahead of us.
So I expect that clarity of communication is one of the key complaints that we would hear from local and when I was on the governor's side, it was one of the things that we were always challenged with was trying to coordinate with the feds and getting the feds, aviation resources to our state. I mean, one there was a time when I was governor, we called for help from the feds on a Saturday morning when we had a, you know, out of control wildland fire, and they showed up on Tuesday. We called on Saturday morning. We had two ranchers perish. Livestock, massive livestock losses, 128,000 acres, and there was aircraft sitting on the ground in Bozeman, Montana, an easy flight away from Western North Dakota.
No one could make the decision to deploy that aircraft in time. So I've seen it on the other side. Now we're trying to fix it on this side with the help of this committee and others. But I appreciate your asking, because that coordination with the local is essential. I mean, we're everybody out there working together with one goal this year, and that's get these fires out.
Speaker 25
Thank you for that. Quickly to another topic. We got a few grizzly bears in Idaho. And, my understanding is that they went on the endangered list in about 1975. There was somewhere around 800 bears in North America at that time.
So understandably, since then, this has been a wildly successful program. 2026, I think we're somewhere around 60,000. We got plenty of bears. And, I know there's some activity going on right now with the courts, but, bad out of time. But can we get those off the delisted list, the endangered species, the grizzly bears?
And if not, can we at least engage with the current legislation on our state management act to try to address that issue?
Speaker 3
I would say, we're pursuing both of those angles. We do have a great success story in terms of the number of grizzly bears, but now we got another challenge, with both humans and wildlife that needs to be managed.
Speaker 1
And when this time expired, the chair recognizes a gentle lady from Maryland. Miss Elfort, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I represent 45,000 federal employees, many of whom work at Interior. We talked about this last year. It's my understanding that about 20% of the interior's workforce has left since January 25.
And as we're entering peak park season, about 4,000 fewer National Park Service staff than in 2023. We've talked about that at this hearing. We've talked about the $1,000,000,000 being spent on the President's Ballroom. At the same time, we're seeing a $1,000,000,000 cut to NPS. We've talked about the unilateral cancellation of renewable energy projects in the midst of an energy crisis.
But I wanna focus on your testimony today because you highlighted operational efficiency and effective use of taxpayer dollars. So I'm gonna start with park passes. On January 1, Interior began issuing America the Beautiful Park passes for our national parks with President Trump's image. I have one here today. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 requires Interior to hold an annual competition to select the image for the pass.
You did that. And yet the winners were not included in the most popular passes. Those passes now feature the president's face. I'd ask how you came to this conclusion, but I think that's pretty clear. So I'm just gonna skip ahead to making sure people who have these passes can actually use them.
It's my understanding Interior now has a policy where you're invalidating park passes that have a sticker covering the president's face. I spent a lot of my career at the statehouse and now in Washington working on ensuring opening up public access to our public lands. I hope that's something you care about as well, yet this policy is now invalidating people's ability to access their public lands. Can you tell me about this, and could you possibly commit to this committee today that you will no longer be invalidating those park passes that have stickers on them?
Speaker 3
The policy that you refer to, if you can happen to have an older or prior year Park Pass, we'll see that that policy about defacing or modifying your Park Pass has been in place long before this selection was made. And so it's not a new policy. It's one that existed prior.
Speaker 26
Anywhere on the pass? If I put a smiley face on George Washington's face, is it the same policy?
Speaker 3
Yes. The if well, and on prior passes. This is not a new policy. This is a policy that existed before. Okay. That was there for the benefit of the people that work in our parks that have to see whether it's a valid pass.
Speaker 26
I would just suggest that we rethink that policy for the purposes of ensuring people can access their public lands that they've helped pay for. I'm gonna move on to grants. One of the most important things that your department does is issue grants to tens of thousands of our communities across Republican and Democratic districts. And yet I understand you have now an internal policy where you require secretary level approval for any grant over $50,000. Mister secretary, based on FY 25 numbers, that's 82% of the 23,000 grants.
So about 19000 grants, we did the math. If you are personally reviewing and approving every grant, you'd have to spend one grant every 10 every day until the end of the calendar year. Again, these are critical grants for all of our communities. Can you give me an understanding of where those grants lie? You talked about efficiency, improving operational efficiency, maximizing the effectiveness of taxpayer dollars.
This is micromanagement at its worst. I'm hoping you can give me a better answer as to how many grants you're approving and getting out the door to our communities today. And if you can commit to this committee, that you're gonna have a more efficient process moving forward.
Speaker 3
The thing is it just come up so many times today. I think there's confusion across the committee.
Speaker 26
Please let us know if we have that wrong. I've asked Fish and Wildlife when they were last year.
Speaker 3
Okay. There seems to be some confusion that when an order says the secretarial office, it gets elevated up to the secretarial's office, which has a lot of people that work in the secretary's office. It's not me personally at my desk.
Speaker 26
But are you testifying that there's been no, no, it's still as efficient as it was in prior administrations? Because it's my understanding many grants are still being held up, whether it's by you or your office. And so I'm asking about the efficiency of getting those grant dollars out the door.
Speaker 3
Then when we took when we came into office, there was over 36,000 grants and contracts, and there was a record number of those grants and contracts that got blown out the door between the election in November in 2024 and January 20. Many of those were going out that, in my mind, were poor use of taxpayer dollars, weren't thoroughly reviewed. They were greenlit. And so we put in a policy that said, hey. If we're gonna stop blowing billions of dollars out the door at the end of administration without going through the thorough review, then we should take a look at those.
And by putting that policy in place and the and his team that we had looking at those, we uncovered all kinds of egregious conditions that were happening.
Speaker 26
Uncle Yogi were here, he'd say that I asked you where you're going, you'd tell me where you've been. So I'm just asking you to tell us the efficiency today moving forward, not what happened in past administrations.
Speaker 3
Well, we have saved billions of dollars. There's been a lot of discussion. Billions of dollars that have been saved because we've stopped projects that were going out, for grant programs that were not for their intended use.
Speaker 26
Mister Chair, I don't think I'm gonna get an answer today, but I appreciate the time, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Ladies, time has expired. The chair recognizes a gentleman from North Carolina. Mister McDowell, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, secretary Bergham, for being with us today. In the past, you've spoke about the essential role that hunting advocates like the National Wild Turkey Federation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Delta Waterfowl and others play in preserving the outdoors. Can you tell us more about the work that the Department of the Interior is doing to partner with these groups, to further hunting and conservation efforts?
Speaker 3
Well, a great example was last night I had an opportunity to meet with the US Fish and Wildlife Foundation. NIFWIF is known as one of the most successful organizations in the country in terms of raising private sector dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And, of course, at their event last night, all of the groups that you described were in attendance, plus many more, including, you know, Everglades. I mean, all of these great groups around the country. And with those groups, one of the things, again, which goes back to permitting.
If we have a project that needs to get done and if it's gonna go through the federal process and it's gonna take three to four years at double the cost, where these folks can raise private dollars, put them out to one of these organizations, they can do a conservation project often at half the time and half the price. And so, again, that's super efficient use. And if there's ways, again, where we can do private public partnerships to support that activity, it's a win win. It's a win for the taxpayers. It's a win for wildlife.
It's a win for conservation.
Speaker 27
How important are license revenues that are generated by sportsmen to conservation and habitat restoration efforts nationwide?
Speaker 3
It's essential. And I would tell you that as former governor, at both the federal and the state level, whether it's federal duck stamp or whether it's state licenses or permits that are put out there, that's a key part of that foundation for conservation projects.
Speaker 27
So on permitting, what impact do prolonged permitting timelines have on energy prices and domestic manufacturing competitiveness?
Speaker 27
So can you explain why permitting reform is especially important for critical mineral projects that are tied to defense, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing?
Speaker 3
Well, it is absolutely essential for that, I think some people get confused, you know, critical minerals, rare earth minerals. You just have to think about it as, you know, do you own a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Do you look at a flat screen at any point in time during the day? You know, any of these things that we just take for granted, including your refrigerator and your microwave, will include components that would fit under the 60 identified, critical minerals, that the US geology USGS puts out as the critical minerals list.
And the fact that we don't control them, it is a national security risk, but it also raises the cost, the price of everything, which is why we've just gotta get back in our country and to stop demonizing things that we can do well here cleanly, safely, smartly, and protect the environment like mining, like forestry, like grazing, like oil and gas production. We can do all of those things without and do it better for the global environment than if we outsourced it to another country. And when we do that, we're gonna improve national security and we're gonna lower prices. So if you want, if you wanna champion affordability, then you should be championing permitting reform.
Speaker 27
A lot of my colleagues have done something I found interesting. They've chosen to ask you questions and then not given you the opportunity to respond. So I'd like to give you the remainder of my time to address any of those questions that you have not been able to answer.
Speaker 3
Okay. Well, I appreciate. Thank you for doing that. There was a discussion earlier regarding the merger of BOEM and Bessie, or I should say the unification of those two agencies to get more people actually doing the work, which the congresswoman and I would agree on. We want more inspectors.
We want increased safety. We wanna do that. The assumption that somehow this is a, was gonna defer all that. I mean, it's there was in the early report fifteen years ago that said there was an issue with the revenue generating component being tied with the regulation. That revenue generation component work is done by a group called Honor, with no h, the Office of Natural Resource Revenue.
That group honor is still separate. So any potential conflicts of interest between who's collecting royalties, which she mentioned in one of the submitted articles, is not this combination of the people that are actually doing the safety and inspection work. Because, again, if we're gonna issue a permit to someone, guess what? We need the safety and inspection people out there for exactly the reasons that she described. And those folks work hand in hand today, and we can create additional efficiencies.
We can get our estimate if we can have more inspection, and more inspectors with more frequent visitors in off sort locations if we unify than if we don't. So I think we, you know, we might all agree on the objective that it's safety, and the pejorative shortive, how should I say, assumption or assertion that somehow that the oil and gas industry on or offshore doesn't care or doesn't want the environment. The number one contributor to coastal restoration in America is The Gulf Of America energy producers, by a long shot, because those are the communities that all their employees live in. They live there. Of course, they want clean water.
They want wildlife. They all hunt. And so this idea that there's this, that there's some, you know, faceless group of people that don't care about it, it's just false. It's an insult to every American who works in the industry. Those are the patriots that are keeping the lights on for everybody here who drove a car to get to work today.
Speaker 10
Mister chair, may I ask for unanimous consent to submit two things into.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first is the White House statement dated 07/31/2025 on the ballroom. It said which says the purpose of the ballroom is to solve the president's longing for a large event space in the White House Complex that can hold substantially more guests than currently allowed. Has nothing to do with national security. And the second is this article from The Washington Post, 04/27/2026.
The top headline reads, dinner lacked the highest security level. Again, the correspondence dinner shooting wasn't due to the environment. It was the lack of security. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Without objection, it's a word. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon. Miss Hoyle, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I represent Oregon's 4th Congressional District, which includes nearly a million acres of BLM forest land in Southwest Oregon. And Western Oregon snowpack is at an unprecedented low level. Last I checked, we were at 5%.
So the fire season is gonna be horrific. I have greater concerns as and I know it's not your jurisdiction, but FEMA and disaster response has been politicized, and I'm very concerned about how we're gonna be able to respond. I would like to be able to get ahead of this. And, I met with state and federal fire officials to learn more last week about what we can expect, and they're doing everything they can with the tools that they have. But I am concerned that the administration's cut to agency staffing are leaving us to respond to a historically dry conditions with hands tied behind our back.
So you've said that DOI is on track to be fully staffed with 5,700 firefighters for this year. Is that correct?
Speaker 3
I believe that's permanent. There's much more seasonal stuff that would go into that number.
Speaker 28
Okay. Yeah. And their seasonal would also include some of the red cards. Mhmm. That you use, although we have 11 percent of them that have been dismissed or left DY. So there's some staffing issues.
But.
Speaker 3
Was that last year's number of people that took their early retirement last year?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Because we're staffing up. We got open racks, hiring, summer hiring, and hiring's going really well this year across parks and across wildland fire.
Speaker 28
That's good. Thank you. Now the 5,700 firefighter number, I believe, is based on the National Fire Management Analysis System. And the last time the department conducted an analysis under that system was in the 90s. And as you well know, I mean, you were governor, the fire danger is significantly greater.
And I think that we're in a wildfire crisis much greater. And, what is the plan to address the discrepancy and add more wildland firefighters than we thought was appropriate in 1990? And I mean permanent staff firefighters.
Speaker 3
Well, staffing is one of the components. But, of course, the other thing I spoke of just not long ago is that this year, because of the extreme conditions which you and I both agree on, it's important that we're under full suppression from the get go. Because you don't need if you find a fire and put it out in the first hours or definitely in the first day, you don't need as many firefighters where we end up really taxing our resources. Flying people around, flying teams from other states is when these giant fires get occurring. Part of that has occurred when we've decided that, oh, we're gonna try to let them burn to manage fuel. And
Speaker 3
But I'm saying the faster we put them out, the more efficiently we use the resources.
Speaker 28
We have. We don't disagree on that. So talking about the 11% of DOI's workforce that departed, we lost nearly 200 staff from BLO alone last year in Oregon, in addition to another 200 from other DOI agencies. And I wanna know, those people tend to fill gaps on the incident management teams. What are we doing to fill those gaps so that we can be responsive?
Speaker 3
Well, I would have to get down at the state by state level, but to make sure that we're talking about the same numbers, because some of the people that may show up as not in BLM, were also the same thing. Comms, HR, IT folks were unified as the secretary's office. And then the wildland firefighters were pulled into the separate wildland firefighting. So, again, this repetitive thing that we're down a bunch of headcount is they're still there. They're maybe they just encountered.
Speaker 28
a different area. Have a very short amount of time. I would love to talk to you more about that offline. BLM announced its plan to revise the Western Oregon Resource Management Plan, which covers 2,000,000 acres of Oregon O and C lands, mostly my district and Cliff Benson's district. And it says BLM is seeking historically higher levels of timber production.
Can you be specific about what annual harvest volume you were seeking? And, will BLM be planning to make old growth eligible for commercial timber harvest in Western Oregon?
Speaker 3
I can't be specific about the number of board feet you're looking for because I don't have that level of detail on the top of my head. But would happy to meet with your team and discuss that. Part of this is managing fuel load as if we got out of the timber business.
Speaker 28
And then what about the I'd love to follow up with you on that. Yep. What about old growth?
Speaker 3
Old growth, you know, I think as a policy, we've been trying to avoid old growth, but we also have to figure out a way to manage fuel load in that old growth area. And some of these places that were recreated wilderness areas to protect old growth actually became their death sentence, because we weren't managing fire loads. So I think we gotta find the right balance of protecting those old growth for us.
Speaker 1
Ladies, time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi. Mister Azale, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, mister secretary, for being here with us today. I wanna touch on a few issues that are especially important to my home state of Mississippi and the Gulf Coast communities that rely on waters, fisheries, and working coastlines to make a living. Folks back home wanna know, the federal government is working with the states, not over the states, because people closest to the land and water usually understand it best. I appreciate this administration's focus on partnerships with state and local communities.
Mister secretary, one issue I continue to hear about back home involves the aquatic invasive species and efforts to combat the Asian carp throughout the Mississippi River Basin. These programs are very important for protecting fisheries, waterways, and the local economy in Mississippi and across the basin. Can you give us an update on the status of FY 25, FY 26 aquatic invasive species funding, including carp management funding and state aquatic nuisance species plant funding for these basin states?
Speaker 3
I'd have to say we understand how important it is, but off the top of my head, I don't know the funding status. So if you give an opportunity for my team to connect with you on that topic, we'd love to meet with you.
Speaker 21
What are some of the challenges that the department has run into, while doing this? Well, I think that, you know, the one of the
Speaker 3
Things we talked about earlier was the, this idea that we are proposing and is in the budget as proposed from the OMB and from the White House is the consolidation of the NOA, you know, the oceanographic team that manages their endangered species list effectively with the one that's managed US fish and wildlife. Because that's an area where if we had support to consolidate that into one, you know, that can also help us when we're talking about these invasive aquatic species, which we know can be very damaging to the ecosystems. But we'd love to have your support on that.
Speaker 21
Oh, absolutely. I'm sure that you're aware of the challenges we've been seeing with the double-breasted cormorant and the impacts they continue to have on our fisheries and aquaculture operations that cover the Gulf Coast. I've heard directly from producers who are dealing with these issues firsthand. I'm pleased we're finally seeing some movement on this issue, passage of the comrade bill, because states need a little more flexibility to respond to the challenges happening on the ground or, in this case, in the water. Can you speak? Department of IT DOI is working with the Gulf States.
Can you speak a little bit about working with some of our stakeholders and proof condition, coordination, and provide a little more flexibility on cormorant managing efforts.
Speaker 3
Again, I would say that we're, you know, now with our team in place from US Fish and Wildlife, we have a great leader, Brian who is a head of game and fish in Wyoming. He's built out his team. We've got a, you know, a great group that's working to try to make sure that we're, you know, following the law and that we are cutting red tape, both of those things at the same time. And if there's a specific folks from industry that you would recommend that we meet with, happy to talk with them and get their input. Thank you.
Speaker 21
I also appreciate the importance the administration has placed on working directly with our states and regional partners instead of relying on a one size fits all approach from Washington. How is DOI coordinating with organizations like the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission to make sure the Gulf States have a strong voice in fisheries and coastal resource discussions? Mississippi and other Gulf States have invested heavily in improving the fisheries sites and collecting better regional data, especially when it comes to red snapper counts and stock assessments. Do you see opportunities for states to continue having a larger role in fisheries, data collection, and management decision making moving forward?
Speaker 3
Well, you know, absolutely because, as you said in your opening remarks, I mean, nobody cares more about the land, the water, the fish, and the data behind all of that than the people that live there and the opportunity for us to collaborate more with state agencies. As a governor, I had great experience in this. We had the only joint fish hatchery in the country between US Fish and Wildlife in the state of North Dakota. Highly successful, great benefit. Lowered the cost for the feds, improved the outcomes for the state.
We'd love to see more opportunities like that.
Speaker 21
Tenfold. At the end of the day, we all want practical solutions, strong state partnerships, whether it's invasive species, fisheries management, coastal mapping, or storm preparedness. We need policies that recognize the people closest to the water and the land usually know is best. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mister chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, as Tom expired, the general lady from New Mexico is recognized.
Speaker 29
I would like to offer unanimous consent regarding what the secretary just mentioned about potentially consolidating the NOAA and fish and wildlife programs. I wanna just say I'm not opposed to that, but you actually need an act of Congress to do that, and we have not received any congressional language to date. And, also, it's not reflected in either of the budgets that were submitted for NOAA or for Fish and Wildlife. So I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter these into the record.
Speaker 1
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona. Mister, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Berring, thank you for being here today. I wanna start by reading a statement. True government-to-government partnership requires time, intentionality, and a commitment to collaboration. Do you agree with that statement?
Speaker 30
Yay. Because you made that statement in 2019 while serving as governor of North Dakota during the twenty-third tribal leader summer, where you emphasize progress in state tribal relationships. You also said at the time collaboration and partnership aren't just words to us. We're not going into meetings, holding summits to check a box. We're there to do work with you to build on those relationships and partnerships.
So those are strong commitments about how the government should engage with tribal nations. And I represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, a district that encompasses 300 miles of the US Mexico border. 62 of those miles are in the Tejon Nation. And so I wanna turn to the department's responsibility to protect tribal lands and sacred cultural sites. Recent reporting showed that construction related to the administration's second border wall project damaged a roughly 1,000-year-old indigenous archaeological site in Arizona's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.
That site, known as Las Playas in Taglio, is culturally significant to the Tahon'autam nation, and portions of it were reportedly bulldozed during construction activities. This destruction of the intaglio is not just about losing a piece of history, it's about losing a connection to the land that helped guide generations of O'odham people. Did the DOI conduct consultation with the Tohono O'odham Nation before construction activities move forward in that area? Yes or no?
Speaker 3
I would just say that I had a chance to meet with the head of the Customs and Border Patrol and with the new Homeland Security chief. Yeah. Mark Wayne Mullen. This is a super unfortunate thing that happened. Mhmm. They've both Mark Wayne and the Border Patrol Commissioner, they both apologized to the tribe.
There was, I mean, this is just a
Speaker 30
I mean, unfortunately, once it's destroyed, you can't undo that. And so would you agree that once that site was destroyed, we as much as there's apologies, the damage can't be undone?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I. Photographs I saw would have been less, but we're arguing it's still a tragic thing that happened. But the contractor was supposed to start at the other end.
There was all there was a series as it is, there's a series of mistakes that happened along the way, yeah. But zero intention. And we've delivered direct apologies, and I think that we're working with the, you know, with the tribe to see whatever we can do even though that damage has been done. This is something that we're seriously and I'm personally involved in trying to find out how we can get steps passed forward.
Speaker 30
Great. I'm glad to hear that because while we, as an administration, claim to respect tribal sovereignty and tribal heritage, while sacred indigenous sites are being destroyed under federal oversight, many are concerned with the Quito Vaquito Spring as possibly being next on the destruction list for Trump's secondary border wall, as it gets closer. So will you commit that US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service avoid Quitobaquito Springs and minimize impact by using groundwater, not using groundwater within five miles, and monitor those water levels closely, as the border wall is being built.
Speaker 3
Well, I that that's a very specific thing that I Mhmm. Won't jump ahead and commit to without fully understanding all the complexities. But you can account that we're gonna stay close to this issue, and make sure. And I know that if from talking to Mark Wayne and to the head of the border patrol is that the consultation about any additional work on a secondary border wall is gonna be done in consultation with the tribe. And if one of those solutions is to build a single versus a double wall there, then there's gonna be other remediation that could maybe be done.
Speaker 3
Which actually achieve both goals. Secure the border, but make sure we're protecting the shores.
Speaker 30
Part of the major issue there is that this is part of the secondary one, and that's the worry, especially by spring. And CPP has made the commitment with Fish and Wildlife, so I just wanted to get your commitment on that as well. And then the Department of Interior, so I'm concerned for the second year in a row now, your budget eliminates dedicated funding for tribal colleges and universities that serve native students and are often the primary point of access to higher education. So I wanna ground that in a story of an individual from my district, Thurman Lynch, who is a D and A student at the Toa Anantham Community College and is pursuing a biology degree with the goal of becoming a veterinarian. He's overcome a lot of things, would not have been able to do it without them.
So did the department conduct an analysis of the economic harm that these cuts are going to make to rural and tribal communities before proposing them?
Speaker 3
The answer to that is no, but we have a big issue. You know, we fund two tribal colleges, we fund two colleges out of Interior, and then we give grants to other tribal colleges around the country. But there are some great examples, including in your home state. Arizona State University has got more tribal students than almost any university in the country, and they're doing it without federal subsidy, and they're doing a great job of it. And some of these schools where we're funding on a cost per student, we're way out of whack, and then I'm not sure we're giving a high quality experience.
So we have to keep we have to look at how do we find the right solution, and then it could partnerships with universities that are committed to the same mission could be really helpful.
Speaker 30
Right. And I know my time has expired. I just think BIA funded schools are achieving record-breaking, like, things to brag about, graduation rates of over.
Speaker 3
90 percent. Yeah. On K12, absolutely. We're fully committed to K-12, but the two institutions of higher education that we operate, those we are working with them and working with those that support them, we have to look at because those models are really challenged right now.
Speaker 30
Alright. Thank you. I just would like to submit to the record two records. One, that the Huntington Community College is thriving as it tries to weather proposed deep cuts to tribal college funding. And then the other out of the North Dakota monitor federal cuts would be the death knell for North Dakota tribal colleges' campus presidency.
Speaker 6
I ask unanimous consent to enter the record a research paper from the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled, The Challenges of Success, which reports that fifty years ago, gray wolves in the United States numbered only about 750 individuals confined to Northern Minnesota, Iowa, and Michigan. Today, there's over 6,000 that occupy suitable habitat across 11 states in the Lower 48. That does not include Alaska, which has an estimated 7,700 to 11,200 wolves. And I'm entering this into the record on behalf of my good friend and colleague from Michigan who stated something quite different. Can I yield?
Speaker 29
Mister chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the Department of Interior's budget and brief in which it outlines how K through 12 education for tribes is cut by over a quarter billion dollars and how secondary education is cut by $105,000,000. I would hardly call that support for tribal education. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Mister chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert document into the record. Objection. The breakdown of this document is a breakdown of the White House's security request related to the East Wing modernization project. There's been some suggestion from the other side of the aisle that this funding will not be used for security purposes, but the official breakdown, which is reflected in this document, makes it clear that this funding will go toward things like hardening the complex of bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other threat filtration detection systems, new secure screenings for visitors in large-scale events, and training secret service agents.
Speaker 1
That objection is overruled. The chair now recognizes this gentleman from Utah. Mister Kennedy, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister chair and secretary of the program. Thanks for being here. Every time I listen to you, I'm impressed with your capacity to keep the facts in mind while you apply good policy. And particularly for states like Utah where 67% of our state is federal lands, we understand better than most the importance of those public lands. They're the foundation of energy production, our grazing economy, outdoor recreation, and the livelihoods of countless rural communities.
For too long, many in the West felt locked out of decisions affecting the lands that they know best. I appreciate your department's efforts to restore a more balanced multiple-use approach to public land management. That includes reopening conversations around responsible energy development, improving access for recreation, supporting grazing communities, and reevaluating a number of Biden-era policies that many Utahans believe prioritize land restriction over practical stewardship. Whether it's energy development, access to roads and trails, or protecting multigenerational ranching, Utah appreciates your Interior Department, your willingness to work with our local communities instead of against them. We're grateful for an approach that prioritizes collaboration over confrontation, and recognizes the people who live and work closest to these lands.
So, secretary, travel management plans were originally designed to balance access and conservation, as well as multiple use across those federal lands. Many stakeholders argue that travel management planning has evolved into a lengthy bureaucratic exercise that delays access and creates uncertainty without delivering measurable improvements. In your view, are these plans still serving their intended purpose?
Speaker 32
You see some need for reform, and what would those reforms look like in these travel management plans?
Speaker 3
Well, I think that, again, it's hard to, when you look at some of these specifics where the things were actually designed to actually block certain is it's always the balance. Were they trying to block the progress, block projects, block, you know, some of these things, or were we actually trying to achieve an objective? And I think we just have to make sure we're, you know, balancing people, wildlife, and economic development when we take a look at these. But we certainly answered your thoughts on this.
Speaker 32
Yeah. Well, I appreciate your willingness to consider that, because many of us in Utah struggle with these plans being used to obstruct the natural use of these lands. So if there's ways that we can work with you, and I'm appreciative of your willingness to engage with us in those possible reforms that might be useful. Can you speak about whether the department is evaluating alternatives to the current travel process that would provide more flexibility for counties, recreation users, and grazing interests and energy development, while also being sensitive to the important natural resource and protecting them in the way that we should?
Speaker 3
I think the broad answer there is yes. We're trying to do that because many of these lands are under multiuse, and you can have an overlay plan that was created that wasn't, you know, part of the original enacting law on how to use these lands, and suddenly that blocks all of their uses. Again, we have to go back to again, when we say follow the law, follow the science. And with innovation, I think, you know, innovation we can find solutions to these problems.
Speaker 32
Thank you for that. Going to the Great Salt Lake, which is important for us in Utah and, frankly, for the Mountain West generally, is the president has proposed an appropriation of approximately 1 billion dollars to support the Great Salt Lake and the surrounding water infrastructure. You provide us with any updates on the department's willingness to do that? And how would you distribute or deploy this funding? What requirements would be involved with that?
Speaker 3
Well, first of all, I'm thrilled to be asked a question about something that is in our budget because as important as we do need a secure hardened facility for the executive branch for the next hundred years going forward. The so called ballroom is not in the interior budget. I just would point that out. But the Great Salt Lake, you know, billion dollars is. And this is an area that's not that well understood in the country, but this is an area that's not part of the Colorado.
It's not part of the Mississippi. It's not part of Columbia. This is a basin that drains into itself. It's got unique challenges. It's been underfunded.
And in this entire area is one where if we don't take steps now for the long term, that we could find ourselves in serious challenges. And I think that there's, well, there's the way that's written right now, it's got some sort of broad directives. But, again, it would be spent over a period of time, not in one year. It would be done in collaboration, I'm sure, in terms of just all these water grants. There's state, there's local, other grants that would come into play.
But at least it would put into motion the recognition that we've got some long term challenges in an area that's really important. It's important to recreation and support the mineral development. It's important to our population growth. So I was excited to see that the White House wanted this included in the budget.
Speaker 32
Great. We'd love to work with you on how that money is deployed, making sure that it's deployed effectively. The lake affects snow, and our ski industry, obviously, and the water needs that I know Montana shares with us are compelling. So, mister chair, thank you for the time, and secretary Bergum, thank you for being with us. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Unless time has expired, the chair recognizes a gentleman from Rhode Island. Mister Magazine, are you recognized for?
Speaker 23
Five minutes? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister secretary, gasoline is over $4.50 a gallon. Price of diesel is way up. The price of electricity is way up.
The American people can't afford their energy bills. People are having to decide whether to put gas in their cars or food on the table. People can't afford health insurance because their energy costs are so high. And yet you have been blocking dozens of wind and solar energy projects from coming online. Clean energy projects that will expand our energy supply and lower costs for consumers.
And what frustrates me about this, mister secretary, is that I know you know better. Please run the video. I think we need the audio. Because we
Speaker 3
are blessed with many sources of energy, including our renewable sources. And so, again, as we lead in our all of the above energy approach, North Dakota has become the sixth leading producer of wind. We're not slowing down. So now there are over 2,000 wind turbines in North Dakota. We know that a number of those blades are manufactured right here in Grand Forks.
Speaker 13
We will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They're killing us.
Speaker 23
So my question is simple. Who is right about wind energy? Governor Bergham or President Trump?
Speaker 3
I would just say the thing that I've heard many times today is that this is the lowest source of energy, and that's just not true.
Speaker 23
Well, let me ask you. Were you wrong then as the governor? When you were governor, North Dakota became what? Number six in the country for wind energy?
Speaker 3
Would I like nothing better than for you to play the entire hour of my speech, which but includes
Speaker 23
Let me ask you this again. What percentage of North Dakota's electricity came from renewables by the time you left office?
Speaker 23
From wind, another 5% or so from solar, 40% overall. One of the highest No. In the country. No. That's the level.
Speaker 23
So we're claiming my time. I'll just say it again. Were you wrong as governor in North Dakota to expand wind energy?
Speaker 3
I wasn't wrong because we expanded exactly. Know because we expanded the baseload. We did not.
Speaker 23
over-rotate. Yeah. But as a percentage basis, renewables expanded during your time as governor. And so, again, why don't other states around the country deserve the same? We do.
In Rhode Island, in other states around the country, we deserve access to these wind and solar projects that you are blocking. That's what gets me, is that you know better. When you were governor, to your credit, you did the right thing by the people of North Dakota. You allowed them access to cost-competitive renewable energy, wind in particular, and also solar. But now you are.
Speaker 3
I just wanna say nice try that you would try to say that somehow you know more about power in North Dakota and the thing.
Speaker 23
I know that you get that you are or are you not in North Dakota, one of the top 10 or so in the country for renewable energy on a percentage basis or waited over a full year?
Speaker 23
They produce a. We have these things called batteries. We've had them since Benjamin Franklin. They come in much bigger sizes than this, and we are expanding battery capacity at roughly double per year. We add the equivalent of 5 or 6 power plants a month worth of battery storage, which makes solar and wind useful, not just off peak, but on peak as well. And so if you know
Speaker 23
Projects that would bring down the prices. People can't pay their bills right now. People's electric bills are too high, and you are blocking projects, and you know it better. Because you know better, what I do now wanna ask you is to help clear up a few things for us. President Trump said, "What I do now is when they're near your house."
The noise causes cancer. True or false, mister secretary? False. The noise does not call the American Cancer Society, they have not found any evidence that any kind of noise causes cancer, particularly noise from wind energy. China has very few wind farms.
True or false? The answer is false. China added more wind generation last year than the rest of the world combined. They get 15% of their electricity from wind, which is almost as high as in North Dakota. The most expensive form of energy ever, wind and solar, says the president.
True or false?
Speaker 23
According well, not according to the Department of Energy under the Trump administration. The EIA under this administration projects that over the next five years, solar $58 per megawatt hour on average, wind $56, combined cycle turbines including natural gas $77. So, according to the administration's own data, that is not true. Enough of the games. The American people want lower energy costs.
They want lower prices.
Speaker 23
Want these prices not blocked? The last thing I'll say is this. Chairman Westerman, to his credit, has been working with both sides of the aisle to pass permitting reforms, something that we need to do. The number one thing preventing that from happening is the administration playing games, blocking clean energy from getting to the grid. I'll yield back.
Speaker 3
I just have a question. Can you explain why the states that have pursued the policies you're describing have the highest power prices in the country?
Speaker 23
Does North Dakota have one of the highest power prices in the country? You have one of the highest percentages of renewables.
Speaker 3
Pursuing a policy of let's shut down our base load and go with renewables.
Speaker 23
The right thing when you were governor. Was the right thing when you were governor. Why isn't it the right thing now?
Speaker 3
No. The date, yeah. The data lie. States that have high renewables pay the highest prices. North Dakota pays the highest price.
Speaker 1
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado. Mister Crank, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister secretary, thank you for being here today. Just one quick question. Do you know why my colleagues weren't overly upset or concerned when the average price of gas in June 2022 was $5.01 a gallon? Would it be who was occupying the White House at
Speaker 3
That time? I don't know why they weren't concerned. I don't know why and this so it's, but it's true. It's true that the administration that got the energy prices down the fastest and in the shortest amount of time was President Trump during his first months in office.
Speaker 33
In 2022, we The United States produced, well, in 2019, we produce 12,300,000 barrels of oil a day. In 2022, we produced 11.91, a significant reduction.
Speaker 3
In 2021, 11/2026, almost a million barrels of oil per day less produced. And now today, we produce 13,300,000 barrels of oil per day. Any thoughts on that? Yeah. The energy transition was always a lie.
It was energy subtraction, and the idea that you could take baseload energy and replace it with renewables without maintaining all of the baseload, without adding trillions of dollars of transmission, which are not included in the numbers that were required that were described there. That's how you end up with higher energy prices for the so-called renewables because, and again, it's not what the price of an, what do we pay for the price of an Uber when you don't know if it's gonna get you to your location or not? It may not have enough energy to get there. We have to have the key to the energy grid is having power that runs twenty four hours a day. And the idea of insisting that somehow we can do intermittent weather-dependent with foreign source materials, and not maintain the entire baseload.
So the economics, when they say it's the cheapest, that's the incremental. It's not the whole cost of the base. We still need the entire base. During the winter storm firm this year, wind and solar produced 2% of the energy in 22 states. We would have tens of millions of people without power just four months ago, in our own country.
Wood and trash produced 3% in those states because in Vermont, they still burn wood, and some cities burn trash as part of a local generation. And we spent hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing something. You know what saved our bacon during that storm? Coal flexed up 50%. Natural gas flexed up 50%.
Nuclear was 11% of the power in those 22 states before, during, and after, because there's no dial to turn it up. It was reliable. It was secure. It was clean. But the idea that somehow that we're we have a that we can solve this thing by pursuing Germany spent $500,000,000,000,000 on their green energy, and now they have 20% less electricity at three times the cost, and no one will build an AI data center.
The folks that wanna win this argument are gonna end up with no fight. Win the argument for your state, and you will lose the next CapEx battle because there is no CapEx gonna go to any place where electricity prices are high and energy prices higher. California has designed a set of policies to have the highest energy prices in the country, and guess what? The only thing they're gonna lead in is out-migration.
Speaker 33
Yeah. And we all of us have amnesia from 2022, when prices were well over what they are today. We still need to get what gas prices we'll.
Speaker 3
Get them down again. We know how to get them down. You get them down with more supply, less regulation, and lower taxes. We have the formula. The folks that are saying it's unaffordable were the ones that drove these high prices.
Speaker 33
Yep. Mister secretary, we're blessed with abundant energy and mineral resources, but we can't responsibly develop that if we don't have that fully identified and mapped. Better geological mapping is very important to us. What steps is the interior taking to support and accelerate these mapping efforts so we can better understand and utilize our domestic resource base?
Speaker 3
The new mantra at USGS is going back to the roots. It's my baby map. That's what that group was created for. You use federal dollars to do the mapping. You release that information to the public.
The private sector follows, and we get ourselves back into, get ourselves out of this bind that we're in, being completely out of the critical minerals business. And, I mean, just as the USGS just released a map last week that indicates that in Appalachia, the Northern Appalachia, we have 300 years worth of lithium, which with 300 years worth of imports, we import it now. Of course, we need that for all these little batteries that everybody's holding up. And the last thing I would say, folks that wanna hold up batteries, I would just ask you, how much power, grid based power, if we said everything shut down, we're gonna switch to batteries. It's about twelve minutes of battery power for the nation.
That's what we have now. So, of course, on a teeny little base, you can double the amount of battery power every year, but it would take, it'll take us a century to have a meaningful amount to be able to run the grid when the sun's not shining, which we know happens every day and the wind's not blowing. That happens. The Germans actually invented a word called dark doldrums because they have companies missing their earnings calls because the sun didn't shine as much as they thought because of those cloudy days and the wind didn't blow. And I don't think at a time when we were talking about winning the ARMs race, where we need more electricity than we've ever needed, can take a kilowatt of electricity and turn it into intelligence.
That's even more amazing than turning it into lighter heat at that time that we want to bet on the weather. And if there's one more comment that's made here about China, the comments that are being made here, go look online. They're being posted by pro-China organizations almost immediately when the speakers are done being speaker. And ranking chair laughs. It's true.
I'm not making that up. You they love that when we have all these pro-China things, you know why China's doing all the renewables?
Speaker 3
of China's pursuing all this renewable because they import 11.5 million barrels a day. They're not insulted by our stuff. They wish they had our abundant resources. That's why they were going around the world buying stuff from Iran and Venezuela at a discount. I mean, just ask the.
Speaker 33
Just ask the mayor from California that was just arrested about China. You're welcome.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, as time expired, I recognize myself to submit for the record a report from the National Center for Energy Analytics titled the battery storage delusion. Utility scale batteries are no silver bullet, which reports that utility scale lithium-ion batteries are fundamentally limited as a grid solution. They discharge for only one to four hours, degrade at 3 to 7% annually, last just ten to thirteen years, and deliver real world efficiency closer to 70% than advertised. At a national scale, the material and energy costs are staggering. Backing up a single winter day would require 1,300,000,000 tons of raw materials and 850 terawatt-hours of input energy repeated every decade.
Safety risk from thermal runaway, weak recycling economics for low-value lithium ion phosphate chemistries, and inconsistent global waste regulations that shift environmental harm to lower enforcement jurisdictions further undermine the technology's viability. Treating batteries as a scalable clean energy solution risks misallocating resources, eroding grid reliability, and diverting critical investment away from the firm, dispatchable generating capacity that actually keeps the lights on. And as someone from a congressional district that has one of the world's largest deposits of lithium, I'd love to see more lithium batteries, but we have to improve the technology if we're going to have any kind of grid level storage. Without objection, so ordered. The chair stands very.
Speaker 29
I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter another report into the record. This one is from the International Monetary Fund from December 2022 that is entitled, The World Has Gone from Plentiful Cheap Energy to Scarcity, Mid Low Investment and War. And the important part about this report about global oil markets is that what drove oil prices in 2021, which the gentleman just referred to, was war in Ukraine, just as the largest single oil disruption on planet Earth that's happening right now is the illegal war in Iran and the president's choice to go to war in Iran.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report on the energy storage market outlook, which states that the US is expected to have over 600 gigawatt hours of total capacity. By 2030, about the equivalent of 300 Hoover Dams. This battery storage is significant. Its real grid operators know how to use it in conjunction with renewables to keep the lights on.
Speaker 1
Without objections to the order, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico. Mister Hernández, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Sorry. What I thought. Sorry.
Puerto Rico, you're recognized.
Speaker 34
Thank you, I appreciate it, but I don't wanna leave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, mister secretary, the Compact of Reassociation Amendments Act of 2024 codified the interagency group on freely associated states to address implementation issues as they arise. Your department co-chairs it alongside the Department of State. As you know, the freely associated states continue to serve in the US armed forces at disproportionately high rates, yet many veterans living there still must travel thousands of miles at personal expense to access their earned care benefits.
VA's explanation for why veterans in the freely associated states still cannot access services like telehealth, mail order pharmacy, and beneficiary travel benefits has shifted over time. Initially, VA indicated it lacked the legal authority to act. More recently, VA has suggested appropriations may be the issue, yet implementation still has not occurred. Given DOI's role coordinating implementation of the compact amendments, will you commit to engaging with the VA to resolve whatever barriers remain to implementing these veterans' services in the freely associated states?
Speaker 3
I'll not only commit to it, I've already spoken to Secretary Collins about this, and we're grateful for the high level of military participation among both our territories and our the compact of free associated states. And this health care issue is an issue, and, of course, a lot of them gotta fly to Hawaii thousands and thousands of miles away for care, and that's an impact on them and their families. So, absolutely, we're working on this.
Speaker 34
Do you have a timeline for when you can expect to have a solution for them?
Speaker 3
It's ultimately, that's gonna come out of the VA budget, but I think we're advocating strongly on as part of our role in helping to oversee and manage the territories in the COFA states.
Speaker 34
I'll take that as we don't have a timeline yet. Moving on. Secretary Bergamo, on February 9, a 265-foot fuel barge ran aground at the entrance to San Juan Harbor and struck the structure of El Morro. It sat on the rocks for over 2 weeks. As you know, the National Park Service manages El Morro both as a national historic landmark and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Did NPS assess the structural and environmental damage to El Morro from this incident? And if so, when will you share that assessment with Congress?
Speaker 3
Yeah. We'll be happy to share that publicly when that report's completed.
Speaker 3
I'm certain there's a report in progress, but I don't know when it'll be finished.
Speaker 34
K. You know, El Morro has stood for nearly 500 years. It has survived hurricanes, invasions, and centuries of history. It should not be at risk from a barge with a broken towline. Mister secretary, what formal role does NPS play in protecting El Morro from maritime safety risks, and will you commit to working with the Coast Guard to strengthen that role, so El Morro can stand for another 500 years?
Yes. And has NPS estimated the cost of the structural and operational impacts caused by this incident?
Speaker 34
Do you have a cost estimate of the structural and operational impacts that the barge incident caused to the national park?
Speaker 3
No. I don't have that today. But, well, I will ask to make sure it's included in the report.
Speaker 34
The report that we're not certain if it exists. Frankly, this incident demonstrates.
Speaker 3
I'm certain it's underway. I just don't know the timeline and when it would be delivered.
Speaker 34
Good management practices set deadlines. Frankly, this incident demonstrates how vulnerable Puerto Rico remains when energy policy and infrastructure planning fail to adequately account for operational risk. The island already depends heavily on fuel shipments because of the fragility of the grid, but if that dependence is not matched with strong oversight, modern infrastructure, and serious contingency planning, the consequences can extend far beyond the energy sector and threaten cultural, environmental, and economic assets that cannot be replaced. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing. You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 35
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, mister secretary, for being here. Mister secretary, I wanna thank you first for championing American energy dominance in your role in the Department of Interior. In particular, your support for coal mining, it's invigorated a crucial industry and helped secure jobs in rural communities, including mines in my home district of Central and Eastern Montana. So first, I'd like to hear your insights on this administration's vision for the future of American coal. Can you explain why the administration believes coal remains a critical component of baseload electricity generation, particularly as we see demand increases from AI data centers and domestic manufacturing growth?
Speaker 3
Well, the coal is critical. It's critical as a baseload energy source. It's, you know, reliable 7 by '24. It doesn't get disrupted by supply chains because most of the power that we're generating is near the mines that produce that coal as it is in your state and my state. The other thing, of course, is that we now know that in some of these coal that we've got really high concentrations, some of the highest in the country, of critical minerals that we need.
The opportunity for co-processing of those critical minerals at the same time we're doing thermal generation is significant. The number one thing we can do to make sure we maintain stability of the grid is to stop shutting down reliable baseload. In this last year, the Trump administration through the 202c authorities that Chris Wright had as secretary of energy, and also just utilities realizing that they were putting themselves in a precarious over rotation towards intermittent, unreliable sources. 17 gigawatts of baseload coal remained open, and that was critical to getting through the peak winter days this winter. So, again, the administration is fully supportive and appreciates your support.
Speaker 35
Well, you. And so, kind of, you know, moving on from there, can you discuss how the prior administration's restrictions on federal coal leasing affected long-term planning and investment decisions for domestic mining companies?
Speaker 3
Well, it was a full on assault. It started during the Obama administration, and then it accelerated during the Biden administration. But in some cases, there were rules and regulations that were put in place strictly to try to shut down coal. And, of course, if there's a coal plant operating in America today, it's clean because it survived this 20-year onslaught. And there's a this is a remarkable how the industry's been able to respond to produce clean power source that they do.
Speaker 35
Thank you. The Trump administration has actively moved to reverse the previous administration's war on coal mining in Montana. And this includes President Trump signing into law my CRA resolution reversing Biden's coal leasing ban on the Powder River Basin, as well as the Department of the Interior under your leadership, implementing emergency permitting measures that have helped sustain mining operations such as the Bull Mountains mine in Musselshell County. So, mister secretary, how important is it for Congress to act to codify these efforts to ensure the long-term viability of coal mining in America?
Speaker 3
Well, I think it's incredibly important because as we've discussed here, I mean, we need baseload power. It is absolutely imperative that we maintain that baseload power, and it would be imperative that we can move some of these energy discussions away from, you know, out of ideology and into having the durability of Congress passing thank laws to support you.
Speaker 35
In the interest of time, I'm gonna move on to something that's very important to me, support an Indian country. I wanna thank you for those answers, but one of the important roles that the Department of Interior has in place in Indian country is supporting our tribes, including the eight tribes that we have located in Montana's 2nd Congressional District. So first, mister secretary, I appreciated you highlighting in your testimony the importance of the federal government upholding its trust responsibilities to our tribes. Can you elaborate on how President Trump's fiscal year 27 budget for the Department of Interior will support fulfilling those obligations?
Speaker 3
The key thing here is driving towards supporting sovereignty, and part of that is making sure that we're creating the right kind of environments for tribes to have their to be self sustaining. And so, again, reviewing programs that are ineffective and laden with overhead, versus making sure that we're getting dollars in the place that actually helps the tribes.
Speaker 35
Thank you. What steps can be taken both at a congressional level and administrative level to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Affairs serves tribes and fulfills its obligations in a timely and efficient manner?
Speaker 3
Well, I think, you know, the number one area for Congress to focus on is ensuring that we've got appropriate funding and staffing for BIA law enforcement because, again, we're finding that there's, you know, cartels and other organized crime are using these as safe havens.
Speaker 35
Yeah. Unfortunately, mister secretary, I've run out of time. So on that, Mister Chair, I yield.
Speaker 30
Mister chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record. Tribal leaders say the Trump administration failed to consult with them on Education Department changes. And so while we're saying that we're committed to strengthening tribal education, administrations failed to consult with tribal nations on significant redistricting of tribal education. This article also highlights concerns that the BIE does not have the necessary capacity to support the transfer without education department staff.
Speaker 1
Without objections ordered, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico. Miss Stansbury, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Bergum, I know it's been a long day, but I really do appreciate you being here today. There are few agencies that have a greater impact for New Mexico than the Department of the Interior and its management of tribal affairs, public lands, our waters, our natural resources. And, you know, as I was preparing for today's hearing, I was looking back at your confirmation and your bio. And one of the things I was really struck by is your personal story.
You know, as I understand it from your statement, when you were sworn in, you were born and raised in a small town called Arthur, raised by a single mom, and you grew up working with your hands. And as somebody who myself grew up in a rural community in New Mexico with a single mom working with my hands, I understand exactly where you come from, and I appreciate that. But I do wanna say that that is what makes this budget particularly perplexing for me, especially because during your confirmation, you made a commitment to both sides of the aisle that you would prioritize tribal trust and treaty responsibilities and consultation. And our tribal communities are not unlike the communities you and I grew up in. You know this.
Now I have to say, I know you just answered a question about this, but I used to work at the OMB in the interior branch. I'm very familiar with these budget tables. I actually did BIA and BIE's budget. And though you just said that you're prioritizing tribal self-government, your budget cuts self-governance contracts by $83,000,000. Your budget makes over $1,000,000,000 in cuts to core tribal programs to the BIA and BIE.
It makes over 744,000,000 cuts to the BIA alone. It cuts tribal colleges by 150000000. It reduces school construction in tribal communities by 85%. And when you compare that with the other cuts in the president's budget and HUD and other programs, it eviscerates tribal housing programs, law enforcement, sanitation, and water projects, irrigation projects, basic infrastructure, roads, economic development, and it zeros out basic education and cultural programs. And this is on top of the other budgets that are scattered all across the president's budget that eviscerate the core programs that support low-income communities like the ones we grew up in.
On top of that, I'm sure you're aware, I hope you're aware, that the Department of the Interior is not doing well by tribes right now. It isn't. Tribes are not getting phone calls back from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They cannot get appointments with you. You won't see tribes when they come to Washington, DC.
BIA regional offices are not approving contracts. Tribes have been unable to process basic paperwork to protect their tribal lands, to put land into a trust. Management of drought operations during the worst drought in recorded history. It's bad. This is the worst most tribes have seen it in their lifetime since the self-determination era began in the 1970s.
And when I looked at your budget, I actually went back and did my homework. These are the largest single cuts in tribal funding since before the Reagan era. I don't know how you defend that. I also don't know how you can say that you consulted with tribes when your Department of Interior is seeking to open up one of the most sacred tribal landscapes in the state of New Mexico right now without any tribal consultation, which is Chaco Canyon, which is right behind me. Now, in addition to that, I have to say.
Now I understand how these budgets get made. I know that the White House puts their fingerprint on things, but I don't know how you can sit there and defend a billion dollars for a ballroom at the White House. $15,000,000 for a tribal arch, I mean, for an arch right in front of Arlington Cemetery, which veterans are actually opposed to. And a $10,000,000,000 slash fund for beautification projects in Washington, DC, when we don't even have teachers in tribal schools right now. When you're seeking to zero out tribal housing money, people are going to be homeless because of your budget if it passes.
And you're defending this? That's not okay. That is not okay, and you know it because you and I grew up in the same kind of place, and we weren't raised to do this. So, mister secretary, there isn't time for me to ask you any questions, but what I hope is that I can appeal to you to do right by tribes and to know who you actually serve. While you may serve at the pleasure of this guy, the people you actually serve are the people who hold this place to be the most sacred place on planet Earth, and I hope you'll do right by our tribes.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, just for the record, I wanna, even though I'm not allowed to speak, apparently, I'd wanna acknowledge that there were many misrepresentations made during that previous prior statement.
Speaker 1
I recognize myself for the submission to the record. This US Energy Information Administration report says US battery capacity increased 66% in 2024. But when you look at the footnotes, it says even though battery storage capacity is growing fast, in 2024, it was only 2% of the 1,230 GW of utility scale electric generating capacity in the United States. Being generous, 2% is less than 30 minutes of capacity in battery storage. And, again, if we could build batteries that could store at the grid level and actually meet our needs, that would be a good thing.
So I ask unanimous consent, without objection, so ordered. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado. Miss Bobert, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 36
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, mister secretary, for being here. I'm going to actually cut some of my questions at the end and give you an opportunity to respond to the statements that were made prior to my time here. So I'll try to keep mine quick. Secretary Bergam, in December, in your December statement, you issued a clear warning to Colorado, quote, this is a warning. If Colorado does not get control of the wolves immediately, we will, end quote.
You and the US Fish and Wildlife Services threatened to terminate the memorandum of agreement and reclaim management authority after the state released 15 Canadian gray wolves between January 2025 without any notification to citizens or local governments, and then re-released wolves, wolf number 2403, a known predator from Copper Creek Pack that has already cost ranchers in Colorado over $450,000 in compensation. So what specific actions have you and this department been able to take since that warning on January 18, reporting a deadline to hold Colorado accountable?
Speaker 3
Well, we've been in direct discussions with the governor, the governor's office, and they're the head of Colorado fish and wildlife with our head, Brian Nezvik, who's the head of US fish and wildlife. You know, Colorado finds itself in a predicament of having this narrowly passed ballot measure around, you know, wolf releases. And, of course, as it is, you know, I'm sure the Denver Metro Area carried it over the top by a few votes, but then all the people that live in ranch country that have to deal with the outcomes are dealing with it. And, again, we're trying to find a solution to manage that to make sure it's safe for schoolchildren, safe for, and safe for people that are raising livestock.
Speaker 36
Yes. Thank you. And did Colorado provide the complete reporting on wolf activities from December 2023 onward as demanded in the FWS letter? And if they haven't, or if their reporting is insufficient, will the department term terminate the Biden era, MOA and 10 j, experimental population agreement and take back federal management of the wolves in Colorado?
Speaker 3
I don't wanna be predeterminate, but, you know, all options are on the table in terms of making sure that we get the wolf situation under control in the West.
Speaker 36
Yes. I do wanna note that I'm grateful to my neighbors in Wyoming every time we get a phone call and they say you have a caller to pick up. But I recently detailed in a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service how the current 10-j rule is failing ranchers. How is the department addressing CPW's pattern of rereleasing or translocating problem wolves and sidelining local counties and or ranchers?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Releasing wolves that were known to have predatory, you know, prior action is not a good idea. And, of course, we would if the US Fish and Wildlife gets involved, that's something that would not be happening.
Speaker 36
Okay. And, you know, ranching families in my district, we are stewards to 32,000,000 acres and over 4,500,000 head of council, cattle. They're seeing mounting verified depredations, compensation claims exceeding $1,000,000 annually, and outstripping funds plus indirect losses from herd stress, reduced weight gain, and expensive nonlethal measures. I introduced HR 74 87, the rural jobs, excuse me. Sorry.
I introduced my pet and livestock protection act, and that has passed the house. We would love for that to pass the Senate and help you in this. And I do wanna jump ahead just quickly to my hydropower bill here that I would hope that you'd be supportive of, in this administration, and that we could get it over to the White House and have that signed into law. But I introduced the Rural Jobs and Hydropower Expansion Act to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and give the Bureau of Rec exclusive authority on non federal hydropower development within the reclamation projects. How would granting reclamation sole authority under my bill reduce these delays that we have seen in the past and unlock more clean, reliable hydropower energy?
Speaker 3
Well, hydropower is key to this country, and the Bureau of Reclamation operates over 400 dams. We think that there's a big opportunity to repower those to generate more power.
Speaker 36
Thank you. And I don't have a lot of time to give you, but I would love for you to have a response since you had five minutes to just sit and listen to someone lecture you. I yield to the secretary.
Speaker 36
Oh, she went 30 seconds over. Give him thirty seconds to respond to her, if you will, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
We're gonna have to stay on schedule. The chair recognizes a gentleman from California. Mister Gray, you're recognized for thirty-five minutes. Thank.
Speaker 37
You, mister chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Nice to have you here. You may remember on your last visit that my grandparents farmed in Cooperstown, North Dakota, and my mother grew up there. And I have very fond memories of visiting your state.
But you also may remember that I represent the largest agricultural valley in the world, in California, San Joaquin Valley, most productive, over 20, $1,000,000,000 annually in production. And California water policy, especially as it relates to agriculture, is extraordinarily complex. And the Central Valley project remains one of the most important water infrastructure systems anywhere in the country. Last year, you and I discussed the need for better outcomes for the CVP, and the importance of making real investments in water infrastructure. In fact, when the reconciliation package came through this committee, I offered an amendment to spend $8,000,000,000 on 20 some projects throughout California that would actually add 2,000,000 acre-feet of water to the system and really help the Western states in a significant way.
Unfortunately, this committee rejected that proposal. But the final bill did include about 1,000,000,000 for Western water infrastructure, with roughly 540,000,000 of that allocated to California, which certainly is a start. Although I'll note it falls far short of the scale of the problem we're dealing with and what is necessary. Not only did the administration's reconciliation bill fail to seriously address the level of infrastructure investment that we need, but it also appears to have failed to maintain adequate staffing levels, specifically at the Bureau of Reclamation. I bring this up because we continue hearing serious concerns about staffing shortages, and my understanding is that staffing levels have dropped by more than 40% since last year.
Now I wanna note for the public, these are the people responsible for reviewing permits and moving projects forward, which is what we need to happen. In my district alone, at least five water projects are effectively stalled because there aren't enough staff to process approvals. And, mister secretary, that undermines the work this committee is trying to do. The bipartisan work, I'll note, on permitting reform. You know, legislation like the Speed Act, of which I'm a cosponsor, the SAMMs Act, my bill, the Valley Water Solutions Act.
So from where I sit, there's just a real gap between what California farmers are being told and what they're seeing on the ground, whether it's project delays, low CVP allocations, or the lack of long term infrastructure investment. The other issue I wanna raise is, you know, I have several major hydropower relicensing efforts underway before FERC in my district. And hydropower remains an important source of reliable base load energy, and it's certainly critical to our local economy and to agriculture. And so the two questions I have first, what specific steps will the department take to make sure the investments Congress has already approved actually translate into more water reliability and real infrastructure improvements for Central Valley producers in my district? Two, can you commit to working with me and others to ensure those relicensing processes move forward efficiently, fairly, and in a way that keeps cost manageable for both ratepayers and local communities.
Because I think what's happening in hydropower now is not that. And I think we need your help, and you to engage directly. So those are my two questions, and you got about a minute left. So I'm happy to make time to meet with you one on one, you know, at a different, later date to go over these in depth, but I'd like to hear your response.
Speaker 3
Well, I think the next steps are specifically that. I mean, we're interested in and I appreciate your coming with specifics, representative. If there's five projects that you're looking at, we should go one by one, find out where the permitting issues are, find out if it's being held up because of staffing or some other reason why it's not getting done. But we're interested in working with you to solve all of the issues that you described. I mean, water is critically important, and the agriculture in your area is renowned around the country, and it's important that we make sure we're managing those scarce water resources in a smart way.
Speaker 37
I appreciate that response, Mr. Secretary. I'll follow-up with your office and get those specifics to you. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 30
Mister speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a Grist article titled how the Trump administration is putting hundreds of sacred sites at risk, which speaks to how Trump's so-called national energy emergency has cut the window for tribal historic preservation officers to review projects that could have impacts on tribal sites and resources from 30 days to seven, all while cutting funding for the THPOs.
Speaker 1
Without objection, so ordered. And I will commend, mister Gray who just left for yielding back the most time of any member today. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, mister Bentz. You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience. So your department is extraordinarily, unbelievably important to Oregon. And the reason, of course, is that for the past 40 years, Oregon has been governed by Democrats from the governor's office for 40 years. And for the last 20, approximately, it's been governed by Democrats from the House and the Oregon Senate.
I was in the Oregon House and Senate for a total of 12 years, not one day in the majority. So I'm happy to be sitting here talking to you right now about your department, which controls about 75% of my district of 70,000 square miles. And so you are incredibly important, and your agency is incredibly important. Let me just share with you why we have to look to your agency for help. Under the forty years of Democrat administration in Oregon, we have become 47th out of 50 when it comes to being attractive to business.
Forty-seventh out of fiftieth. Under Democrat leadership, we are 49th out of 50 when it comes to fourth grade math and reading proficiency. Forty-ninth out of 50 under Democrat leadership. Under Democrat leadership, we are often the worst in the nation when it comes to wildfire occurrence. Under Democrat leadership, we are 43rd out of 50 when it comes to economic outlook.
Thank goodness we have Medicaid, because we are third fifth in the nation when it comes to needing Medicaid. Thank goodness we have that program, fifth in the nation. Thank goodness we have Snap because we are second or third in the nation when it comes to needing it. And, again, it's because our economy is in shambles, particularly when it comes to the rural areas where your agency is in place to do some things about this. Oregon is 42nd in the country when it comes to housing affordability.
Oregon is thirteenth highest when it comes to closing businesses, and Oregon has land zoned for industrial use near the lowest amount in the nation. Other than that, Oregon's doing great. So we have to look to you and say, what in the world can we do? And I wanna start by talking about the Oregon and California lands, the ONC lands, 2,000,000 acres of land in the Southern part of Oregon that your agency has control over. And thank goodness you are looking at the possibility of increasing the removal of timber from that ONC land.
That land was under a 1937 law set up to provide timber to the local communities on a sustainable basis. I know you're aware of this, but can I ask if I can help in any way in you in that process of getting us to more timber off that land? Because what we're doing right now, you mentioned it earlier, is we're just setting all of that wonderful timber up for burning, is what we're doing. Perhaps you can comment on that.
Speaker 3
Well, first of all, would love to engage with you representative on how we could help revitalize those rural areas on public lands, particularly as it relates to timber development because timber development by the private sector and saving our forest from catastrophic fires go absolutely hand in hand about reducing that fire load. And so we're very much looking forward to doing that. We there's not enough dollars in the world for us to have the federal, you know, government just go in and send in crews when we could actually have the private sector who knows how to today with the technology to be able to remove timber and still maintain and protect the watersheds, protect the forests, and then help rebuild the economies in those rural communities. But, anyway, we look forward to partnering with you.
Speaker 31
And so do I. Let me turn to mining. Again, my district is 70,000 square miles, and a huge part of it is blessed with incredible mineral resources. Now the president today is in China, and his ability to negotiate for us is dramatically curtailed by our lack of having access to rare earth minerals and the ability to process them. Yet we have them in my district.
And so is your agency looking to try to help access those minerals on the lands that you are in charge of?
Speaker 3
Well, the answer is yes. And we're working closely with the National Security Council, the National Energy Dominance Council, where there's a team that's working to identify potential areas for critical mineral development, mining, and processing in this country. And so if you've got either specific projects or things you'd like to meet with, happy to have you meet with that team and make sure that they're aware of what the opportunities are as we look to try to rebuild this industry in America.
Speaker 31
Right. We will definitely take you up on that. And I wanna thank you, take this opportunity to thank you for your work on the Klamath because the Klamath, lake and that area is in my district. And your help in trying to balance the application of the limited water resources has been invaluable, and we look forward to continue to work with you to keep or you can reach a better outcome for all concerned in that basin. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Virginia. Miss Kiggins, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 38
Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this oversight hearing to discuss the president's fiscal year 27 budget request for the department of the interior. Secretary Bergham, thank you for taking the time to be with us today for so long. As you know, I have the privilege of representing Virginia's 2nd Congressional District in Southeast Virginia, home to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, the entire Atlantic coastline in Virginia, and our East Coast master jet-based naval air station, Oceana, and one of the highest densities of military personnel and installations anywhere in the country. Because of that, my district sits at the intersection of energy development, environmental stewardship, and national security in a very real and immediate way. That balance is not theoretical for us.
It directly impacts our economy, our grid reliability, and our military readiness. As I reviewed the '27 budget request, I took note of several proposals aimed at streamlining permitting and improving efficiency, including the consolidation of BOEM and BSEE into the proposed Marine Minerals Administration. I also recognize the department's role in advancing domestic energy production across a range of resources, while ensuring that projects are developed responsibly and in coordination with our national security priorities. At the same time, I think it's critical that we pursue these goals. We ensure that projects that have already undergone years of federal review and coordination are able to move forward with certainty, and that interagency processes, particularly those with the Department of War, remain consistent, predictable, and effective.
In coastal districts like mine, where energy infrastructure and military operations operate side by side, that coordination is essential, not just during permitting, but throughout the life of a project. So with that in mind, I want to better understand how the department is approaching coordination, reliability, and implementation under this budget. How does the Department of Interior coordinate with the Department of War to ensure that we balance the speedy development of new energy projects with national security and the need to preserve military priorities?
Speaker 3
Well, one of the things that we're coordinating with the Department of War which affects your district is this eval project, which is the, you know, this giant offshore project. It was the Department of War's request, and their secure report that was essentially states what I think we all would understand, which is that if you've got large scale offshore wind that interferes with radar and also interferes with underground sonar, even if these things were permitted and approved even four or five years ago, if you go back pre Ukraine, Russia, pre, what's going on in Iran right now is that the warfare today is very different than we might have thought it was even five years ago, which is low flying, large scale, drone attacks is a key thing. And if you're gonna attack The United States, if you were an adversary that was gonna do that, you would launch large scale drone attacks. It wouldn't hide you, you wouldn't be hijacking an airplane. You wouldn't be shooting a rocket at us.
You would just go against our defense facilities like in Virginia or high population areas like the Northeast, and you would be launching those drones through that. So it is, you know, I know people will keep saying it's ideological. It's not. There's a real national security risk. And so the request for us to review those actually came from the Department of War.
So we supported them in that request. Notwithstanding that, if you're not talking about offshore and you're not talking about, you know, protecting those things, then there are other considerations like, you know, grid stability and security of supply. But in this case, its actual physical kinetic security was one of the concerns with the offshore.
Speaker 38
And you mentioned grid security, and I'm glad you did, because right now my naval air station on the East Coast has no grid security. And you know the benefit of that one offshore project and why I personally am very protective in our former governor Glenn Junkin and congressman Whitman as well, because of the benefit net of Dominion Energy giving a $500,000,000 power grid upgrade to my naval air station that we cannot do with our defense budget. So I just hope you look at the whole picture when we're talking about funding, especially in our funding challenges and that we need to, of course, the defense budget side, devote that to warfighting, to our warfighters, to our military families. So that public-private partnership, I wanna maximize that benefit. So I just throw that out there, but thank you for sharing your opinion as well.
And with the proposed consolidation of BOEM and BSEE into the Marine Minerals Administration, how will funding be used to improve permitting timelines and provide more certainty for projects already in the pipeline? Additionally, how will this new structure improve coordination with the Department of War for some of those offshore energy projects?
Speaker 3
Well, the key here is a unification where we, you know, increase our ability to do not just permitting, but also inspections once projects are up and running. And with the unification, we can do that. So it's reducing overhead, whether, you know, HR, communications, IT, but more people on the ground doing the actual work and then separating what was honored the offshore natural resources revenue group, keeping that separate. But Bohm and Bessie coming together because those two work hand in hand today. And if we can send one person to a platform instead of two to do the job, we're not sacrificing any outcome, but we're being more efficient.
Do more inspections, visit more sites.
Speaker 38
And I know my time has expired. I appreciate that. I just ask that we, again, take a look at how we can integrate national security and the concerns that you listed with the benefits of some of our energy projects that we have, especially in Virginia. Thank you. Now you're back.
Speaker 1
Ladies, time's expired. The chair recognizes this gentleman from Alaska. Mister Beckett, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, mister secretary, I wanna thank you for the outstanding job that you and your department are doing with respect to tribal consultation in Alaska under the previous secretary. There were a number of groups in Alaska that attempted to get meetings with Interior, and were unable to do so. And we appreciate you prioritizing our tribal membership in Alaska. So, thank you.
I'd like to talk a little bit about a challenge that's facing Alaska's Southeast communities. The sea otter population in Southeast Alaska has expanded dramatically. And while that is a conservation success in one sense, it is coming at a steep and growing cost to shellfish, crab, and mariculture operations that Alaska native communities and commercial fishermen depend on for their economic survival. Sea otter predation is devastating these fisheries. One important management and cultural tool is the licensed tannery system under the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which enables Alaskan native artisans to process sea otter pelts consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
There is a critical shortage of licensed tanneries, and a primary driver of that shortage is the federal reporting requirements are simply too burdensome for small operations to sustain. The result is that this cultural and management tool is functionally unavailable to the communities that need it most. My understanding is that the secretary has the administrative authority to calibrate the tannery reporting requirements. Would you commit today to having your team engage with my office on this issue specifically, to explore whether reporting obligations for small tanneries can be right sized to maintain appropriate oversight while making participation operationally feasible.
Speaker 11
Outstanding. Mister secretary, I wanna take a moment as well to give you the opportunity to speak directly about what this administration has accomplished for Alaska. The NPRA lease sale in March was historic by every measure, the most revenue ever generated in the NPRA. The most tracts receiving bids in a single lease sale under a predictable leasing schedule that the previous administration simply refused to maintain. The work on the PLO 51 50 conveyance, the Anwar leasing schedule, the permitting process reforms at BLM, the King Cove Rove, they're all tangible wins.
In fact, the Financial Times just yesterday named Alaska as the hottest oil play anywhere in the world. Can you walk this commute committee through the headline accomplishments Interior has delivered for Alaska under this administration, and give us a sense of what is in the pipeline for Alaska?
Speaker 3
Well, I would say you you've touched on a number representative, but I just wanna talk about the geopolitical importance of Alaska. Alaska, of course, we've got our traditional Pacific allies, South Korea, we've got 29,000 troops there. Japan, we've got 50,000 troops. Our US territories, our COFA states, we've got troops in places like Guam, where, you know, the military is the biggest economic developer employer. All of those states and all of those countries that are our allies are, you know, highly dependent on energy coming from the Middle East.
That could all be displaced by energy coming from Alaska. The interest in Alaska being a supplier to both our territories, our states like Hawaii, and include California in that as well, that we have an opportunity to be supplying US territories and states and allies. This is sell energy to our friends and allies, sell energy to ourselves as opposed to not have to buy it from our adversaries that are holding the world hostage. That this is Alaska plays just a, it's just an incredible role. And when you talk about, you know, a renaissance, with this lease sale, the reason why it was a record lease sale is that the private sector ahead of the USGS is uncovering the fact that we've got reserves in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska.
Not a wilderness area, not a national park. An area the size of Indiana that was set aside to be a national patrolling reserve, that the reserves there could be multiple folds larger than anybody ever anticipated. And so whether it's oil or gas, the future for Alaska is very bright. We just have to be able to build that infrastructure and get the permitting done to be able to build it out for Alaskans, America, and our allies to benefit.
Speaker 11
Thank you. And it is such a refreshing experience knowing that we have an ally again with interior. You know, Alaska's 365,000 acres, and more than 60% of that is owned by the federal government. In order for Alaska to benefit and for our nation to benefit, we've got to unlock the oil and gas and other energy resources of our state, the mineral resources of our state, and every other resource that we can offer to make our industries self reliant in this country again. And I appreciate your leadership at the Interior.
I look forward to seeing you in Alaska in the coming days, and I just can't tell you how much we appreciate, as Alaskans, your commitment to the prosperity of our state and our nation. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields back. Looks like the dais is pretty much emptied out, but Secretary Bergamo, I wanna thank you again for being here, for enduring several hours of questions, and for your candid answers, and also, a bit of an apology for the questions you got with no time to respond. And we got one more round of questions for you since Miss Malloy is here right at the bell. Chair, I recognize it's a gentlelady from Utah. Miss Malloy, you're recognized for.
Speaker 39
Mister secretary, I'm sorry. I walked in right at the end. I'm stuck in an appropriations markup today, so I was hurrying over as quickly as I could. Have a couple of things. One, we've talked about this before, but as you're aware, the president included 1 billion dollars for the Great Salt Lake in his budget, as the only appropriator in the state of Utah.
I'm working to make sure we can get as much of that in the appropriations bills as we can. Will you work with my team and with the state on a plan for what that should look like?
Speaker 39
Okay. Thank you. As we're trying to get language in the appropriations bills, the number one question is, what does Interior want? So I would love for us to figure that out together. And then I have been kind.
Speaker 3
While you're catching your breath, I would just say big opportunities in the basin on water supply, water infrastructure, water conservation. As I described earlier, I mean, it's a unique thing. It's not part of the Colorado River Basin. It's not part of Missouri. It's not part of Columbia.
This is a basin that flows into itself, and has the unique set of opportunities and challenges. And it's been overlooked and underfunded, and there's a lot that we could do together. But with the states, with the tribes, and, again, with, you know, 60 plus percent of the land in Utah being federal land, for us to be able to get the most return on that federal land, whether it's recreation, whether it's grazing, whether it's mineral development, we need to have water infrastructure. So this is an investment actually back into The United States. This is developing a resource that we have for the benefit and use of the American people.
So we look forward to coming up with a plan that has smart usage and a high ROI.
Speaker 39
Thank you. I appreciate that. This is a top resource concern for the state of Utah, and I'm excited about the opportunity to have the state and the administration working together to solve it. And thank you for the opportunity to catch my breath. In return, I'm going to give you some of my remaining time.
I've been kind of following the hearing, and I know there have been several points brought up that you didn't get a chance to respond to. I have just a little under three minutes left. Is there anything you would like to say, especially about staffing or solar power, that you haven't had a chance to say because the time keeps running out?
Speaker 3
Well, I think one thing that I would say was in the comments related to in the five minute discussion with no chance to respond relative to tribal issues. Again, just for those folks that are working on the budgets, to take a close look. I mean, when we're moving the wildland fire group, you know, out of things like BIA, you know, into a wildland fire things. It looks like a cut if you're just comparing two numbers, but we've taken a big function and large amounts of staff, moved them from national parks, moved them from BIA, moved them from UN Fish and Wildlife, and put them into a new bucket. And no one is like, oh, there's a big increase over here.
No. It's a transfer as far as the unification. So that's one. The second thing we're doing to achieve these efficiencies is taking all of comms, all of IT, and all of HR, and pulling all those into the secretary's office. So that'll look like a cut to, you know, pick your bureau, NPS, US Fish and Wildlife or BIA.
It looks like a cut, but it's actually a place where we can have an opportunity to be more efficient. So that's just one thing to point out. So then that's a misstatement to describe these things as cuts when it's actually about unification. But the assertion that we're that you a tribe can't get a meeting is that's absurdly false. From my first week in office, we were meeting with tribes, and a week doesn't go by that I don't meet with tribes.
And when I go out on to the thing as representative from Alaska knows, that's what we're doing. I mean, one of the first groups that was in my office was the North Slope, Bureau, which is all native Alaskans that were there. And they were in my office, and it was a memorable meeting. Because what did they say to me? They said they had come to DC 8 times in 4 years and never got a meeting with a secretary.
I've met with them four times, and I'll be meeting with them the fifth time. And that's in person, and that doesn't count my deputies, and it doesn't count other staff. We're working with all of them. So in terms of the particularly related to New Mexico, one of the first in the second week I was in office, the Navajo entered my office, and they said, we've lost our mineral rights on this buffer zone around the Chaco Monument, which is a new thing. It's not in the law.
Buffer zones aren't a thing. They're not part of the Antiquities Act. They're not part of creating national monuments. It was a thing that got created, and it's 535 square miles of buffer that covers Navajo land, including people that had private allotments for mineral rights. And I think everybody in this group probably believes in personal property rights.
So in my second week in office, I had Navajo in my office saying that they were encroached on. And now someone is saying that we don't do tribal consultation. Sometimes even the tribes don't agree with each other, and we talk to both sides. So it's a gross misstatement to say that we're not doing it. We believe in it.
We're committed to it, and we're looking for challenge solutions to these challenging problems. But we absolutely do listen with our tribal partners with whom we share geography.
Speaker 39
Thank you. I appreciate that. And my time has expired, so I will yield.
Speaker 1
Ladies, time has expired. And, mister secretary, I don't think there's any member on either side of the dais that hasn't used their time today. So, again, we appreciate your willingness to be here to answer questions. And for those questions you didn't get a chance to thoroughly answer, you can provide written answers for the record, and there could be additional questions that members would want to ask for you to respond in writing as well. Under committee rule three, members of the committee must submit those questions to the committee clerk by 5 PM on Monday, May 18.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. If there's no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.