[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2025 
                         BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
                      BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND 
                           NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, May 15, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-120

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-688 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------                                
                               
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 15, 2024..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Stone-Manning, Hon. Tracy, Director, Bureau of Land 
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
    Sams, Hon. Chuck, III, Director, National Park Service, U.S. 
      Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, accompanied by 
      Jessica Bowron, Comptroller, National Park Service, U.S. 
      Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    28

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        Bureau of Land Management, 2025 Budget Justification.....    49

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Wall Street Journal, ``Why the World Has Gone Cuckoo for 
          Cooper,'' May 14, 2024.................................    52

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Curtis

        National Park Service, Interior Regions 6, 7, & 8, Letter 
          to Rep. Curtis.........................................    63

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Levin

        Federal Land Leasing, Energy, and Local Public Finances, 
          White Paper, Harvard University........................    36

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Malliotakis

        Silive.com, ``Erosion continues at Gateway National 
          Recreation Area Great Kills Park''.....................    79


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Subcommittee on Federal Lands--Aniela Butler, Taylor Wiseman, 
        and Colen Morrow (Aniela@mail.house.gov, 
        Taylor.Wiseman@mail.house.gov, and Colen.Morrow@mail.house.gov, 
        x6-7736); and Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources--
        Ashley McManus, Rob MacGregor, and Jeanne Kuehl 
        (Ashley.McManus@mail.house.gov, Robert.MacGregor 
        @mail.house.gov, Jeanne.Kuehl@mail.house.gov x5-9297)

Date:     Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Subject:   Oversight Hearing on ``Examining the President's FY 2025 
        Budget Request for the Bureau of Land Management and National 
        Park Service''
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold an oversight hearing on 
``Examining the President's FY 2025 Budget Request for the Bureau of 
Land Management and National Park Service'' on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 
at 10:15 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez 
(Will.Rodriguez @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14, if 
their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     The Biden administration's proposed budget for the Bureau 
            of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service 
            (NPS) is out of touch with the issues everyday Americans 
            are facing, like high energy costs, inflation, and lack of 
            access to public lands. The budget harms rural communities, 
            families, and small businesses.

     The BLM budget is a fundamental threat to the Western way 
            of life, focusing on topics like climate change, 
            environmental justice, and clean energy at the expense of 
            rural Americans whose jobs depend on the multiple uses of 
            our public lands.

     The NPS budget inexplicably cuts programs that improve 
            access to our nation's crown jewels and reduce the deferred 
            maintenance backlog to fund vague and undefined 
            administration priorities.

     In contrast, Committee Republicans have advanced 
            commonsense, bipartisan solutions that allow access to our 
            abundant federal lands to support American energy 
            dominance, national security, and rural economies.

II. WITNESSES

     The Honorable Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Bureau of 
            Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
            Washington, DC.

     The Honorable Charles F. ``Chuck'' Sams III, Director, 
            National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
            Washington, DC.

III. BACKGROUND

Budget Totals of Select Accounts

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Bureau of Land Management

    Overview--The BLM manages 245 million acres of public lands, 
heavily concentrated (99 percent) in the 11 western continental states 
and Alaska, and 714 million acres of federal subsurface mineral 
estate.\1\ The BLM manages approximately 1 out of every 10 surface 
acres and 1 out of 3 subsurface acres in the U.S.\2\ Under the agency's 
enabling statute, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(FLPMA), BLM manages public lands based on a multiple-use and sustained 
yield mandate (multiple-use mandate) that supports livestock grazing, 
energy and mineral development, recreation, timber production, 
watershed protection, and wildlife and fish habitat.\3\ In FY 2022, 
activities undertaken on BLM-managed lands supported almost $263 
billion in economic output and approximately 1 million jobs.\4\ BLM 
lands attract over 82 million visitors annually.\5\ The President's FY 
2025 budget includes $1.556 billion in discretionary appropriations for 
the BLM, a 7.1 percent increase from the FY 2024 annualized Continuing 
Resolution (CR). This includes an additional 104 full-time equivalents 
(FTEs), or staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Lands and Related Resources: Overview and Selected 
Issues for the 118th Congress, Congressional Research Service, February 
24, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43429.
    \2\ FY 2025 Bureau of Land Management Greenbook, U.S. Department of 
the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2025-bureau-land-
management-greenbook.
    \3\ Federal Lands and Related Resources: Overview and Selected 
Issues for the 118th Congress, Congressional Research Service, February 
24, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43429.
    \4\ FY 2025 Bureau of Land Management Greenbook, U.S. Department of 
the Interior, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2025-bureau-land-
management-greenbook.
    \5\ Id.

  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Onshore Oil and Gas Program--In FY 2023, Federal oil production 
on Federal and Native American lands totaled 588 million barrels, and 
natural gas production on Federal and Native American lands totaled 
roughly 4 trillion cubic feet.\6\ While oil and natural gas production 
increased on Federal lands from FY 2022, production dropped on Native 
American lands.\7\ Federal and Native American leases generated 
approximately $8.94 billion in bonus bids, royalties, rents, and other 
revenues in FY 2023.\8\ Nearly half of the revenue from Federal leases 
was distributed to states in accordance with statutory revenue-sharing 
provisions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Revenue 
Data, https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Mineral Leasing Act explicitly states that ``lease sales shall 
be held for each State where eligible lands are available at least 
quarterly and more frequently if the Secretary of the Interior 
determines such sales are necessary.'' \10\ In his first days in 
office, President Biden imposed an indefinite pause on new oil and 
natural gas leasing on U.S. federal lands and waters.\11\ On June 15, 
2021, a U.S. District Court judge placed an injunction on the 
Department of the Interior's (DOI's) unlawful moratorium and ordered 
DOI to restart the leasing process.\12\ In response, the Biden 
administration appealed the decision and continued to delay scheduling 
lease sales.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 30 U.S. Code Sec. 226.
    \11\ Exec. Order 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. 19, 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021).
    \12\ Joshua Partlow & Juliet Eilperin, ``Louisiana judge blocks 
Biden Administration's oil and gas leasing pause,'' The Washington 
Post, June, 15, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-
environment/2021/06/15/louisiana-judge-blocks-biden-administrations-
oil-gas-leasing-pause/.
    \13\ Valerie Volcovici, ``Biden administration appeals federal 
court decision to block oil, gas leasing pause,'' Reuters, August 16, 
2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-administration-appeals-
federal-court-decision-block-oil-gas-leasing-pause-2021-08-16/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these actions, the Biden administration has attempted to 
take credit for the increase in production on Federal lands, even 
though most, if not all, of production is occurring on leases issued by 
previous administrations. The Biden administration did not hold an 
onshore Federal lease sale until June 2022 and only held 19 lease sales 
over its first three years.\14\ By contrast, the Trump administration 
held 82 lease sales over its first three years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 
State Oil and Gas Lease Sales, https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-
minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/regional-lease-sales
    \15\ Id.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    The BLM's FY 2025 budget request would continue the Biden 
administration's war on domestic energy production and small businesses 
by requesting a new onshore oil and gas inspection fee, repealing the 
enhanced oil recovery credit and the marginal well credit, and 
proposing to end expensing of intangible drilling costs and the use of 
percentage depletion with respect to oil and gas development.\16\ The 
President's budget does not explain how BLM will address the permitting 
backlogs for oil and gas drilling permits, which stood at 5,492 pending 
permits in the latest published report.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Bureau of Land Management, Budget Justification and 
Performance Information Fiscal Year 2025, https://www.doi.gov/media/
document/fy-2025-bureau-land-management-greenbook. Office of Management 
and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government: Fiscal Year 2025, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/budget_fy2025.pdf.
    \17\ Application for Permit to Drill Status Report: 1/1/2024 to 1/
31/2024, Bureau of Land Management, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/
files/docs/2024-03/BLM-FY2024-Application-for-Permit-to-Drill-Status-
Report-January-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the BLM has recently taken new regulatory actions to 
further impede future oil and gas production on federal lands. Last 
month, for example, the BLM issued a final rule to update its oil and 
gas leasing regulations.\18\ The rule would formally implement 
provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which increased the 
royalty rate for production on federal lands but would also make major, 
non-statutory changes to the BLM's onshore leasing program. 
Specifically, the rule proposes ending nationwide bonding and 
increasing the minimum bond amounts for individual lease bonds and 
statewide lease bonds from $10,000 to $150,000 and from $25,000 to 
$500,000, respectively. These significant increases would tie up 
capital that would otherwise be put back into production. This result 
is unjustifiable, given that only 37 orphaned oil and gas wells are on 
BLM-managed lands.\19\ The rule would also formalize the use of 
``preference criteria'' to inform the BLM's selection of lands for 
lease sales.\20\ The BLM's stated rationale for this change is to avoid 
conflict in areas with cultural, wildlife, and recreation 
resources.\21\ This nebulous methodology could be especially 
problematic if BLM field offices avoid leasing in all areas with 
endangered or threatened species, critical habitat, or a nearby 
recreation area. Additionally, this new criterion would be legally 
binding and could open the BLM up to increased litigation if the agency 
leased in areas with these resources. Lastly, the rule proposes to 
create new fees and increase existing fees while limiting the use of 
lease suspensions and drilling permit extensions.\22\ H.R. 6009, which 
was introduced by Representative Boebert to nullify the rule, passed 
the House of Representatives by a vote of 216-200.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Bureau of Land Management, Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
Process, 89 FR 30916, April 23, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/04/23/2024-08138/fluid-mineral-leases-and-leasing-
process.
    \19\ United States Department of the Interior, Questions for the 
Record Response for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
Full Committee Hearing ``To Examine the Department of the Interior's 
Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act'' held on 
December 13, 2022, June 22, 2023.
    \20\ Bureau of Land Management, Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
Process, 89 FR 30916, April 23, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2024/04/23/2024-08138/fluid-mineral-leases-and-leasing-
process.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Office of the Clerk. U.S. House of Representatives. Roll Call 
95. H.R. 6009. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last month, the BLM also finalized its ``Waste Prevention, 
Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' rule.\24\ 
This rule aims to regulate methane emissions for oil operations on BLM 
lands by forcing companies to pay royalties on uncaptured methane. The 
rule builds off of a similar regulation that was finalized during the 
Obama administration and later vacated by the Federal District Court 
for the District of Wyoming.\25\ Judge Scott Skavdahl, an Obama 
appointee, stated in his decision that ``although the stated purpose of 
the Rule is waste prevention, significant aspects of the Rule evidence 
its primary purpose being driven by an effort to regulate air 
emissions, particularly greenhouse gases.'' \26\ In addition to 
exceeding its statutory authority by trying to regulate air emissions, 
Judge Skavdahl also found that BLM failed to adequately consider the 
rule's costs, benefits, and impacts on marginal wells.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Bureau of Land Management, Waste Prevention, Production 
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, April 10, 2024, 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06827/waste-
prevention-production-subject-to-royalties-and-resource-
conservation#::text= 
On%20November%2030%2C%202022%2C%20the,gas%20from%20venting%2C%20flaring%
2C% 20and.
    \25\ F.R. 83008 (November 18, 2016), https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/18/2016-27637/waste-
prevention-production-subject-to-royalties-and-resource-conservation. 
United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, Scott W. 
Skavdahl, Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS, October 8, 2020, https://
climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2020/20201008 
_docket-216-cv-00285_order-1.pdf.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The new final rule would require operators to submit either a Waste 
Minimization Plan (WMP), including certification of a valid, executed 
contract to sell the associated gas, or a self-certification of 100 
percent capture of associated gas with oil-well applications for permit 
to drill (APDs).\28\ The final rule would also set time and volume 
limits on royalty-free (RF) flaring. It would not allow operators to 
request that flared oil-well gas be deemed RF based on case-by-case 
economic assessments.\29\ The new requirements in the rule would 
significantly impact small oil and gas producers and marginal wells. 
Concerningly, the economic analysis that the rule relies on is 
incomplete. At the end of last month, the states of North Dakota, 
Wyoming, Montana, and Texas filed a claim against the final regulation, 
alleging that BLM has once again exceeded its statutory authority and 
that BLM's cost-benefit analysis fails to meaningfully account for the 
rule's impact on operators.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Bureau of Land Management, Waste Prevention, Production 
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, April 10, 2024, 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06827/waste-
prevention-production-subject-to-royalties-and-resource-
conservation#::text= 
On%20November%2030%2C%202022%2C%20the,gas%20from%20venting%2C%20flaring%
2C% 20and.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ United States District Court for the District of North Dakota 
Western Division, Case 1:24-cv-00066-DMT-CRH, April 24, 2024, https://
subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenews/?id=0000 018f=16b2-da17-
adbf=77b683c10000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 8, 2023, BLM issued a proposed rule, ``Management and 
Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska'' (NPR-A), 
further limiting oil and gas leasing in the NPR-A.\31\ The final rule, 
issued earlier this month, was largely unchanged and would require BLM 
to review and gather public input at least every ten years to determine 
whether BLM should create, expand, or add resources to Special Areas 
within the NPR-A.\32\ In the rule, the BLM essentially reinterprets the 
Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA) by treating 
13.1 million acres of Special Areas in the NRP-A as de facto 
wilderness.\33\ However, NPRPA clearly states that DOI must ``conduct 
an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the 
Reserve.'' \34\ The entire Alaska delegation, along with a majority of 
stakeholders on the North Slope, opposes the rule. They openly 
criticize the administration for ignoring their concerns and limiting 
engagement.\35\ In response, Representative Stauber introduced the 
``Alaska's Right to Produce Act of 2023,'' which passed the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 214-199.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska, 43 CFR 2360 (September 8, 2023), https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2023-09-08/pdf/2023-18990.pdf.
    \32\ Bureau of Land Management, Management and Protection of the 
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, May 7, 2024, https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-07/pdf/2024-08585.pdf.
    \33\ 42 U.S.C. 6501.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Senator Dan Sullivan, Press Releases, ``Delegation, Alaska 
Leaders: Biden Administration Puts American Energy Security at Risk; 
Harms the State and Alaska Native Communities,'' September 6, 2023 
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/delegation-
alaska-leaders-biden-administration-puts-american-energy-security-at-
riskharms-the-state-and-alaska-native-communities. The VOICE of the 
Arctic Inupiat Resolution No. 2024-01, Opposing the Proposed Rule for 
the Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska, https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
VOICE_Resolution_2024-01.pdf
    \36\ https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2024/roll174.xml.

    Renewable Energy Program--While the Biden administration has taken 
action to stifle conventional energy sources on BLM lands, it continues 
to push renewable energy development forward. The FY 2025 budget 
justifies this bias by citing the administration's unrealistic 
commitments to achieve a carbon-pollution-free power sector by 2035 and 
reach net-zero emissions by 2050.\37\ Through the Renewable Energy 
Management Program, the BLM oversees the processing of rights-of-way 
(ROW) applications and leases for wind and solar energy, geothermal 
energy leasing and production, and transmission development. The budget 
request includes $53.1 million for BLM's onshore renewable energy 
program, which is $12.1 million above the 2024 CR level.\38\ The BLM's 
increased request aims to help with the permitting process by hiring 
more staff. Still, it fails to include any meaningful legislative 
proposals to streamline permitting processes, like reforming the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which continues to hamstring 
renewable energy development. House Republicans passed provisions in 
H.R. 1, the ``Lower Energy Costs Act,'' sponsored by Rep. Scalise, that 
would streamline the NEPA process for all forms of energy, including 
renewables.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ FY 2025 Bureau of Land Management Greenbook, Page V-90, 
https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy-2025-bureau-land-management-
greenbook.
    \38\ U.S Department of the Interior, FY2025 Budget in Briefs--
Departmental Overview, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy2025-
budget-briefs-departmental-highlights.
    \39\ H.R. 1, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
congress/house-bill/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BLM furthered its bias for renewable energy through recent 
rulemakings. In May, BLM finalized its ``Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and 
Operations for Renewable Energy'' rule to update its procedures 
governing renewable energy and right-of-way programs. Title V of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires ROW 
grant holders and leaseholders to pay the ``fair market value'' for 
using public lands.\40\ The fair market value is paid to BLM in the 
form of rental fees and megawatt capacity fees. The BLM's final 
regulation would significantly reduce acreage rents and capacity fees 
by 80 percent for renewable energy sources on BLM land through 2035. 
BLM is citing the authority provided to the agency in the ``Energy Act 
of 2020,'' which allows BLM to ``reduce acreage rental rates and 
capacity fees'' to ``promote the greatest use of wind and solar energy 
resources.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ 43 U.S.C. 1761-1772.
    \41\ 43 U.S.C. 3003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In January, BLM published its Draft Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement (PEIS) for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development 
(Western Solar Plan) in the Federal Register.\42\ The Western Solar 
Plan amends the 2012 Western Solar Plan to include 11 western states 
(there were only 6 in the 2012 Plan) and identifies 22 million acres of 
land open for solar applications.\43\ The proposed alternative has 
caused dissent among western Republicans, who believe it will limit the 
multiple uses of federal lands. Environmental special interest groups, 
on the other hand, argue that too much land is currently being made 
available for leasing. Additionally, the solar industry and the State 
of Nevada both disagree with the revisions, claiming that they are too 
restrictive and do not make enough land available for solar 
leasing.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Bureau of Land Management, Notice of Availability of the Draft 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Utility-Scale Solar 
Energy Development and Notice of Public Meetings, January 19, 2024, 
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/19/2024-00730/notice-
of-availability-of-the-draft-programmatic-environmental-impact-
statement-for-utility-scale.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Senate Letter to Director Tracy Stone-Manning on the Western 
Solar Plan Revision, May 2, 2024, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/
eenews/f/eenews/?id=0000018f-39a5-d476-ab9f-b9a733e00000. Climate, 
conservation, environmental justice, and tribal organizations letter to 
Secretary Haaland on the Western Solar Plan Revision, 4/18/24, https://
www.wilderness.org/sites/default/files/media/file/
Western%20Solar%20Plan%20NGO%20letter%20to%20Sec.%20 
Haaland_April%202024_2.pdf. Solar Industry Concerns on BLM Draft Solar 
PEIS and Director McClinton letter to Secretary Haaland on BLM Draft 
Solar PEIS, April 2, 2024, https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/solar_industry_concerns.pdf.

    Hardrock Mining--While no recommendations for streamlining the 
permitting process for new hardrock mines are included in the budget 
request, DOI issued a report from the Interagency Working Group (IWG) 
on Mining Reform in September 2023.\45\ Although the report aimed to 
identify recommendations to alleviate permitting delays, some 
suggestions--like imposing a royalty on production and shifting the 
mining claims system to a leasing system--would be detrimental to the 
hardrock mining industry.\46\ On February 12, 2024, BLM posted a notice 
seeking comments on vague mine permitting metrics which were informed 
by the IWG report.\47\ This notice was posted to BLM's website instead 
of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Report 
Outlines Reforms Needed to Promote Responsible Mining on Public Lands, 
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-report-
outlines-reforms-needed-promote-responsible-mining.
    \46\ NMA, Press Release, IWG Recommendation on mining Unworkable 
and Unreasonable, https://nma.org/2023/09/12/iwg-recommendations-on-
mining-unworkable-and-unreasonable/.
    \47\ BLM, Mining Performance Metrics, https://www.blm.gov/programs/
energy-and-minerals/mining-and-minerals/mining-performance-metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the Biden administration's acknowledgment that the U.S.'s 
``over-reliance on foreign sources and adversarial nations for critical 
minerals and materials [pose] national and economic security threats,'' 
DOI continues to shutter domestic mineral development.\48\ In January 
2022, the Biden administration canceled Twin Metals Minnesota's two-
decades-old mineral leases and simultaneously began the withdrawal 
process of over 225,000 acres of mineral-rich land in the same area, 
effectively barring new extraction of minerals such as copper, nickel, 
cobalt, platinum, and iron ore.\49\ In response, the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 3195, the ``Superior National Forest 
Restoration Act,'' by a vote of 212-203 to reverse these 
counterproductive measures.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ White House, Press Release, FACT SHEET: Securing a Made in 
America Supply Chain for Critical Minerals, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/22/fact-sheet-securing-a-
made-in-america-supply-chain-for-critical-minerals/.
    \49\ DOI, Press Release, Biden Administration Takes Action to 
Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed, https://www.doi.gov/
pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-
boundary-waters-area-watershed.
    \50\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More recently, on April 19, 2024, BLM recommended the ``no action'' 
alternative in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road (Ambler 
Road) in Alaska.\51\ BLM's decision to refuse a ROW permit on the small 
section of the proposed 211-mile Ambler Road that crosses federal lands 
not only impedes access to an estimated $7.5 billion in copper and 
other minerals such as zinc, cobalt, silver, and gold, it also hinders 
development that could bring Alaska over 65,000 jobs, $5 billion in 
wages, and $1.3 billion in state and local revenues.\52\ During a May 
1, 2024, hearing before the full Committee, Secretary Haaland testified 
that DOI has ``. . . approved 40 mining or mining modification permits 
since the President has been in office, that includes five critical 
mineral mines.'' \53\ However, she was unable to answer questions about 
which minerals these mines would extract, and DOI has yet to provide 
the Committee with requested, specific data on these actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ DOI, Press Release, Biden-Harris Administration Takes Critical 
Action to Protect Alaska Native Subsistence, Lands and Wildlife, 
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-takes-
critical-action-protect-alaska-native-subsistence
    \52\ Lisa Friedman, ``Interior Said to Reject Industrial Road 
Through Alaskan Wilderness'', N.Y. Times, Apr. 18, 2024, https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/climate/ambler-road-alaska-interior.html. 
DOI, Press Release, Trump Administration Supports Alaskan 
Infrastructure Development to Mine Critical Minerals, https://
www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump-administration-supports-alaskan-
infrastructure-development-mine-critical.
    \53\ Examining the President's FY 2025 Budget Request for the 
Department of the Interior: Hearing Before the Comm. On Natural 
Resources, 118th Cong. (2024) (testimony of Debra Haaland, Sec., Dep't 
of the Interior).

    Coal Leasing Program--While the June 2021 preliminary injunction 
applies specifically to the oil and gas leasing program, the 
administration continued its ban on coal leasing. On August 15, 2022, a 
federal judge fully reinstated the coal moratorium on new leasing.\54\ 
In February 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated this decision.\55\ Despite 
the favorable ruling, DOI has failed to reverse course and resume 
proper review of expansion plans.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Clark Mindock, ``Judge reinstates Obama-era coal-leasing 
ban,'' Reuters, August 15, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/
litigation/judge-reinstates-obama-era-coal-leasing-ban-2022-08-13/.
    \55\ Hannah Northey and Niina Farah, ``9th Circuit ruling axes 
Obama-era freeze on coal leasing'', E&E, Feb. 21, 2024, https://
www.eenews.net/articles/9th-circuit-ruling-axes-obama-era-freeze-on-
coal-leasing/
#::text=The%20appellate%20court%20panel%20found,moratorium%20on 
%20new%20coal%20leasing.&text=A%20federal%20appellate%20court%20on,coal%
20leases%20 on%20public%20lands.
    \56\ Hannah Northey, ``Coal Company sues Interior over delayed 
leasing,'' Mar. 7, 2024, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/
eenews/2024/03/07/coal-company-sues-interior-over-delayed-leasing-
00145339.

    30x30 Initiative and Locking Up Lands--The Biden administration 
continues to conduct orchestrated attacks on public lands, using a 
variety of tools to further the 30x30 agenda. These preservationist 
policies limit access, hurt local economies, and remove uses of public 
lands that benefit Americans. The Biden budget continues to support the 
30x30 Initiative, including through several references in the BLM 
budget.\57\ On May 6, 2021, DOI and other federal departments released 
an ``interim'' report titled ``Conserving and Restoring America the 
Beautiful,'' which outlined a 10-year campaign to preserve 30 percent 
of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.\58\ The administration proposed an 
American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas in this report. Nearly 
three years later, the administration finally published this Atlas, 
even though DOI has already been implementing 30x30 without clear goals 
or definitions and in whatever manner it considers to be convenient on 
any given day.\59\ These measures continually threaten working lands, 
private landowners, and multiple uses of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ BLM, Budget Justification, FY 2025, https://www.doi.gov/media/
document/fy-2025-bureau-land-management-greenbook.
    \58\ DOI, ``Conserving and Restoring America the Beautiful,'' 2021, 
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-
restoring-america-the-beautiful-2021.pdf.
    \59\ American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas, launched April 
19, 2024, https://www.conservation.gov/pages/atlas-and-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President Biden has recently designated several new national 
monuments using authorities under the Antiquities Act of 1906.\60\ 
Earlier this month, the President expanded a BLM-managed monument in 
California that DOI claimed would ``advance'' the goal of conserving 30 
percent of lands and waters by 2030.\61\ DOI also claimed, without 
citation, that the administration has ``conserved more than 41 million 
acres of lands and waters, putting President Biden on track to conserve 
more lands and waters than any President in history.'' \62\ This 
follows a concerning trend indicating that the only lands the 
administration is counting toward its 30x30 goal are lands with the 
most restrictive designations, including national monuments and 
wilderness areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ The White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Expands San 
Gabriel Mountains National Monument and Berryessa Snow Mountain 
National Monument'', May 2, 2024, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2024/05/02/fact-sheet-president-biden-expands-
san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument-and-berryessa-snow-mountain-
national-monument/.
    \61\ DOI, ``Secretary Haaland Celebrates President Biden's 
Expansion of Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument,'' May 2, 2024, 
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretary-haaland-celebrates-
president-bidens-expansion-berryessa-snow-mountain.
    \62\ Id.

    BLM Public Lands Rule--The BLM announced its final so-called 
``Conservation and Landscape Health'' rule (Public Lands Rule) on April 
18, 2024.\63\ The Public Lands Rule will fundamentally upend the 
agency's longstanding, statutory multiple use and sustained yield 
mandate and cede control of federal lands to wealthy elites and 
environmental extremists. The final rule, published on May 9, 2024, 
will broadly allow the BLM to lease lands under new and vaguely defined 
restoration and mitigation leases and change standards around land use 
decisions. If the administration determines uses authorized under 
FLPMA, such as grazing, energy production, mining, or recreation, are 
incompatible with a lease, land health standards, or an Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), those uses would not be allowed. 
They could be prohibited indefinitely from those lands. This would 
effectively lock up lands for multiple uses, including potential 
historic uses of the land. To prevent such abuses, Representative 
Curtis introduced H.R. 3397, the ``Western Economic Security Today 
(WEST) Act'' in May of 2023. The bill, which would prevent the BLM from 
implementing the final rule, passed the House of Representatives with a 
bipartisan vote on April 30, 2024.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Public Lands Rule, Bureau of Land Management, accessed April 
18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2024-04/BLM-
Conservation-Landscape-Health-Final-Rule.pdf.
    \64\ U.S. House of Representatives, Clerk, Roll Call 165, Bill 
Number: H.R. 3397, https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024165.

    Biden Border Crisis--President Biden's policies continue 
exacerbating the southern border crisis. Some of the most dangerous 
areas along the U.S.-Mexico border are the estimated 693 miles of 
federal land, representing approximately 35 percent of the total 1,965 
miles of the southern border.\65\ Of this total, BLM managed 172.8 
miles, or roughly 25 percent, of federal borderlands.\66\ Although the 
federal government seeks to protect the ecological and recreational 
value of these lands, such areas are often targeted by criminals, drug 
smugglers, and human traffickers because they are remote, thinly 
populated, and less frequently patrolled.\67\ The illegal dumping of 
trash and wildfires sparked by campfires from illegal border crossers 
threatens wildlife, destroy habitat, and deprive the public of access 
to federally owned lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ Note: This estimate ranges from 632 miles to 820 miles. 
Federal and Indian Lands on the U.S.-Mexico Border, Congressional 
Research Service, February 21, 2018, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
IF10832.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Statement of Brandon Judd on behalf of the National Border 
Patrol Council, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations Republican 
Forum: ``The Biden Border Crisis: Environmental and Humanitarian 
Consequences'', May 27, 2021, https://naturalresources.house.gov/
uploadedfiles/brandon_judd_testimony_biden_border_crisis_forum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the increasing severity of the Biden Border Crisis, the 
word ``border'' appears just once in the entire 260-page DOI budget 
document, specifically with reference to a $1 million investment in 
water infrastructure along the Texas border and a $11 million reduction 
in requested funds for ``Unites States/Mexico Border Issues--Technical 
Support.'' In contrast, the word ``climate'' appears 128 times, and the 
word ``justice'' appears 33 times (usually in reference to racial and 
environmental justice).\68\ Within the BLM budget, the word ``border'' 
only appears one time in the context of the southern border. The BLM's 
only proposed increase for law enforcement along the southern border is 
$250,000 to hire a Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness 
Coordinator.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ DOI, Fiscal Year 2025 The Interior Budget in Brief, March 
2024, https://www.doi.gov/media/document/fy2025-508-bib-entire-
document.
    \69\ Id. Page V-140.

    Forest and Rangeland Health--While the BLM's budget proposes $11.03 
million for Public Domain Forest Management, an increase of $276,000, 
most of this increase comes from rising fixed costs. The budget 
actually proposes a $63,000 decrease in forest management, which ``will 
result in slightly fewer acres treated'' compared to FY 2023 and a 
reduction of 50,000 for seedlings re-planted.\70\ Perhaps even more 
concerningly, the BLM budget proposes reducing timber outputs by 19 
percent in Western Oregon ``to focus on protection of mature and old-
growth forests and improving forest health and fire resilience.'' \71\ 
This exemplifies the misguided and unscientific approach the Biden 
administration has taken to managing old-growth forests. In fact, the 
administration's own report on old-growth forests found that wildfire, 
insects, and diseases were the leading threats to old-growth forests, 
and ``tree cutting'' generally ``improved or maintained'' managed 
stands.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Id. Page V-45.
    \71\ Id. Page VII-24.
    \72\ U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, ``Analysis 
of Threats to Mature and Old-Growth Forests on Lands Managed by the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, January 2024, https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/MOG-Threats-
Intro.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service

    Overview--NPS manages 429 park units covering over 85 million acres 
in all 50 U.S. states and territories.\73\ Unlike the BLM, which 
manages lands for multiple use, NPS manages units of the National Park 
System ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects 
and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same 
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 
enjoyment of future generations.'' \74\ NPS's FY 2025 budget requests 
$3.58 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $101.1 million 
over FY 2024 CR levels.\75\ This will support an estimated 19,953 FTEs, 
an increase of 134 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ NPS, ``About Us,'' https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/faqs.htm.
    \74\ Id. Bureau Highlights, NPS-1.
    \75\ National Park Service, ``Budget Justifications and Performance 
Information Fiscal Year 2025'', p. Overview-2, https://www.doi.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-nps-greenbook.pdf.

    Deferred Maintenance Backlog--Deferred maintenance at sites and 
facilities throughout the National Park System has proven to be a 
perennial issue plaguing NPS despite unprecedented investments from the 
Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA). Four years after GAOA's passage, 
the NPS backlog has inexplicably risen from $12.7 billion in FY 2019 to 
$23.3 billion at the end of FY 2023 (the most recent year for which 
data is available), a staggering $10.6 billion increase.\76\ Between FY 
2022 and FY 2023, the backlog rose by nearly $1 billion.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Id. p. SpecEx-2.
    \77\ Id.

    One of the most perplexing questions about NPS's rising deferred 
maintenance backlog is the agency's methodology to track and report 
deferred maintenance projects. Earlier this year, the DOI Inspector 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General testified before the subcommittee that:

        NPS was unable to effectively identify and manage its deferred 
        maintenance, in large part due to inaccurate and unreliable 
        data. Furthermore, the NPS applied a blanket 35 percent markup 
        to its FY 2021 deferred maintenance, which resulted in a $3.7 
        billion increase to the estimated costs of the NPS' deferred 
        maintenance in just one year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ House Natural Resources Committee, Testimony Greenblatt, 
https://naturalresources. house.gov/uploadedfiles/
testimony_greenblatt.pdf.

    In its FY 2025 budget justification, NPS stated that it ``continued 
to transition assets to the new methodology,'' although it is unclear 
when the methodology will fully be put into place.\79\ If NPS continues 
to have unreliable and inconsistent data on its backlog, both the 
agency and Congress will be unable to appropriately address the issue 
or provide meaningful solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\ Id. https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/
fy2025-508-nps-greenbook_2. pdf; SpecEx-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For FY 2025, NPS listed 50 priority projects to receive the final 
round of GAOA funding.\80\ Included in the priority project request was 
$40 million in repairs for the Gateway National Recreation Area in New 
York, the same unit that the Biden administration is currently using to 
house thousands of illegal immigrants.\81\ It is unclear whether any of 
these funds will be used to construct or improve housing for illegal 
migrants or how much the misguided decision to use NPS facilities for 
migrant housing exacerbated any deferred maintenance issues. The 
priority project list also included $45 million in repairs for the 
White House. Rather than focusing funding on crown jewels, the 
administration is once again spending tens of millions of taxpayer 
dollars in liberal, urban centers like Washington, DC. Concerningly, 
the project list allocates more than $97 million for the ``Contingency 
Fund.'' The Contingency Fund is designed to ``address cost increases, 
unforeseen site conditions, and adapt project methods'' in addition to 
supporting ``successful completion of major [Legacy Restoration Fund 
(LRF)] projects that encounter challenges, ensuring projects are not 
delayed.'' \82\ The $97 million allocated for the Contingency Fund is 
higher than all other 50 projects on the priority list and represents 8 
percent of the total amount for FY 2025 projects. Given the 35 percent 
markup NPS has already applied to each deferred maintenance project, it 
is concerning that the agency is overestimating and overinflating the 
cost of individual projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``FY2025 National Parks and 
Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund--Appendix'', https://www.doi.gov/
media/document/fy2025-national-parks-and-public-land-legacy-
restoration-fund-appendix.
    \81\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
2024.04.18_hnr_letter_to_white_house_on_ perez_fbf.pdf.
    \82\ National Park Service, ``Budget Justifications and Performance 
Information, Fiscal Year 2025,'' p. LFR-7, https://www.doi.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-nps-greenbook.pdf.

    Facility Operation and Maintenance--One of the most concerning 
aspects of NPS's budget is a $25 million decrease in repair and 
rehabilitation projects in the Facility Operation and Maintenance 
account. Instead, this account proposes $3.1 million for ``Increasing 
Representation on Our Public Lands.'' \83\ Repair and rehabilitation 
projects are critical to ``address complex repair needs that arise on 
an infrequent or non-recurring basis'' and ``halting or correcting 
deterioration where preventive maintenance is no longer sufficient to 
maintain the condition of the facility or infrastructure.'' \84\ By 
decreasing funding for these vital maintenance projects to ``preserve 
funding for Administration priorities,'' NPS is only ensuring that the 
deferred maintenance backlog will continue to grow.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ Id ONPS-67.
    \84\ Id.
    \85\ Id.

    Centennial Challenge--The budget proposes a $2 million reduction 
for the Centennial Challenge Fund, a popular and successful public-
private partnership that matches federal funding 1:1, at a minimum, 
with private donations. These projects ``repair and modernize NPS 
infrastructure, expand recreational opportunities and access to the 
public, and develop new and improved educational and interpretive 
programs for visitors.'' \86\ The budget estimates that this reduction 
will result in eight fewer projects being completed nationwide. Once 
again, the budget justifies this decrease through the vague rationale 
of ``preserv[ing] funding for Administration priorities.'' \87\ 
Reducing funding for the Centennial Challenge Fund will hamper efforts 
to increase access to our nation's parks and reduce the deferred 
maintenance backlog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Id. CC-5.
    \87\ Id.

    Outdoor Recreation and Visitation--Visitation throughout the 
National Park System continues to rise as hundreds of millions of 
people across the globe travel annually to experience the unparalleled 
scenery that so many of our nation's crown jewels have to offer. 
Visitation totaled over 325 million in 2023, marking the fourth year of 
consecutive growth.\88\ Recreation visits are up 11 percent compared to 
the beginning of the decade.\89\ In 2022, visitors spent $23.9 billion 
in local gateway communities, supporting 378,000 jobs, $29 billion in 
economic value added, and $50.3 billion in total economic output.\90\ 
Unfortunately, the FY 2025 budget proposal is largely silent on how NPS 
will work to maximize partnerships with rural gateway communities. Even 
more concerningly, the budget proposes a $9.0 million decrease in the 
National Recreation and Preservation account. Most of these cuts are to 
programs that assist local communities, including gateway communities 
that face significant challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ National Park Service, ``Visitation'', https://www.nps.gov/
aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm.
    \89\ Congressional Research Service, ``National Park Service 
(NPS)'' Appropriations: Ten-Year Trends'', https://sgp.fas.org/crs/
misc/R42757.pdf.
    \90\ National Park Service, ``Budget Justifications and Performance 
Information, Fiscal Year 2025'', p. Overview-2, https://www.doi.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/2024-03/fy2025-508-nps-greenbook.pdf.

    In contrast to this approach, Committee Republicans are committed 
to expanding access to outdoor recreation opportunities on our nation's 
public lands. Chairman Westerman's ``Expanding Public Lands Outdoor 
Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act'' is bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation that streamlines permitting processes for small businesses, 
improves visitor experiences, and increases access and opportunities 
for recreation.\91\ The bill would also address the pressing needs of 
gateway communities, including overcrowding and a lack of affordable 
housing. It successfully passed the House last month by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ H.R. 6492, EXPLORE Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
congress/house-bill/6492.

    Biden Border Crisis--NPS manages approximately 195.1 miles along 
the Southern border, or 28 percent of federal borderland.\92\ This is 
the largest share of federal borderlands among all federal land 
management agencies. Despite this footprint, the NPS budget only 
proposes a paltry $8,000 increase for the Southwest Border Resource 
Protection Program. The NPS budget admits border security is a prolific 
problem, with individual units ``consistently experience[ing] serious 
resource damage due to illegal crossborder activities traversing the 
parks.'' \93\ The budget goes on to state that: ``thousands of miles of 
unauthorized roads and trails have been created, major ecological 
processes and the migration patterns of wildlife have been disrupted, 
important historic sites have been vandalized, and archeological sites 
have been looted.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Id.
    \93\ Id NRP-44.
    \94\ Id NRP-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Housing--As housing costs continue to rise nationwide, finding 
affordable housing for NPS employees has become increasingly 
challenging. This burdens the agency's recruitment efforts and makes it 
difficult to retain park staff. In March 2023, Director Sams testified 
before the House Appropriations Committee, highlighting the declining 
workforce at NPS.\95\ The FY 2025 budget request only allocated $9.0 
million in new funding for additional employee housing while providing 
$4.2 million for Zero Emission Vehicles.\96\ Given the important 
implications of this issue for the agency's overall success, it is 
concerning that NPS is devoting millions of dollars to frivolous and 
inefficient climate goals rather than basic necessities for its 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ Congressional Research Service, ``FY2024 Appropriations'', 
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12436.
    \96\ National Park Service, ``Budget Justifications and Performance 
Information Fiscal Year 2025'', p. Overview-16.
                                     
 
     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2025 BUDGET
  REQUEST FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 15, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Lamborn, McClintock, 
Stauber, Curtis, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Porter, 
Kamlager-Dove, Levin, and Leger Fernandez.

    Also present: Representatives Hunt, Rosendale, Collins, 
Hageman, Newhouse, Good; and Hoyle.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request for the Bureau of 
Land Management and the National Park Service.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais. 
Actually, it might be better off to name the people that are 
not asking consent.
    But anyhow, the following Members we ask consent to 
participate in today's hearing from the dais: Mr. Wittman, Dr. 
Gosar, Mr. Graves, Mr. Webster, Mr. Rosendale, Mrs. Boebert, 
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Collins, Mr. Duarte, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Huffman, 
Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Good, and Ms. Malliotakis.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. Welcome, Director Stone-Manning and Director 
Sams, back to the Committee to discuss the National Park 
Service and Bureau of Land Management's budget request for 
Fiscal Year 2025.
    It is unsurprising, although still disappointing, that 
President Biden's budget is once again underwhelming. It 
features more of the same radical priorities, broken promises, 
and extreme proclamations that we have seen from this 
Administration over the past 3 years. These priorities are out 
of line with the American people and the communities, families, 
and small businesses that live and operate closest to Federal 
lands.
    With alarming consistency, these budget requests cater to 
environmental extremists at the expense of local communities 
who depend on access to Federal lands for their way of life. 
They double down on the Biden administration's commitment to 
American prosperity and energy independence, and pick winners 
and losers based on ideological concerns.
    The budgets allow unelected DC bureaucrats to enact their 
radical agendas without any accountability from the people they 
serve, all from the comfort of their home offices.
    The BLM has drifted so far from its mission that it has 
become unrecognizable. It is transforming into the Bureau of 
Land Mismanagement.
    Before me today are eight rules and land use plans that the 
BLM recently published in the Federal Register. Together, they 
comprise 6,290 pages of rules and regulations that the BLM 
rushed to get out, instead of meaningfully listening to and 
coordinating with local stakeholders. The only people happy 
with that stack out in fly-over land in America are the paper 
mills.
    Each one of these documents claims to protect ecological 
and sensitive resources on Federal lands. However, these are 
little more than thinly veiled attempts to lock up millions of 
acres of land from multiple uses and shirk the agency's 
statutory multiple use mandate. These rules and land use plans 
harm rural America, make us less energy independent, and 
threaten our national security.
    Today, we will address this shift away from 
congressionally-mandated uses of the land to partisan 
priorities, which include a decrease in forest management to 
increase environmental justice efforts; a backlog of deferred 
maintenance that has been allowed to grow out of control so the 
agencies can buy more electric vehicles; and ranchers, energy 
producers, and outdoor recreationists getting pushed off their 
land so that they can be locked up indefinitely in the name of 
preservation.
    We will also talk about the complete dereliction of duty 
the Department of the Interior has committed with respect to 
Federal lands along the southern border. If ecological and 
resource protections are so critical, then the agencies must 
address the enormous environmental degradation that is 
occurring at the southern border.
    Combined, the National Park Service and Bureau of Land 
Management account for 53 percent of the Federal land along the 
southern border. Trash from illegal immigrants, wildfires 
sparked by migrant campsites, an abundance of illegal trails, 
and the lack of safety for lawful visitors is astonishing. We 
would never accept this level of destruction and vandalism on 
our Federal lands anywhere else in the country, so why is it 
acceptable on the southern border?
    Despite the increasing severity of the Biden border crisis, 
the word ``border'' appears just once in the context of the 
southern border in the BLM's entire 364-page budget request. 
The word ``climate'' appears 77 times, however, and the term 
``environmental justice'' appears 11 times.
    Today, we will also address the Administration's reckless 
spending, particularly the failure of the National Park Service 
to rein in the out-of-control deferred maintenance backlog. 
Earlier this year, this Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Interior's Inspector General, who described the Park Service's 
accounting for deferred maintenance as akin to a house of cards 
built upon a house of cards. The Fiscal Year 2025 budget 
request does little to reassure Congress or the American people 
that these issues have been resolved, let alone taken seriously 
by the agency.
    It should also go without saying that, after years of 
complaints from states across the nation saying they weren't 
having any projects funded, the Park Service would choose to 
spend $45 million updating Joe Biden's home.
    While that is the bad news, the good news is that we have 
recently passed a host of bills on the House Floor with 
bipartisan support to reverse these troubling trends. They 
include the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act to secure mining in 
this country; the Alaska's Right to Produce Act, which reverses 
a harmful decision limiting oil and gas production in Alaska; 
the WEST Act to stop an illegal, vague rule that will upend the 
multiple uses of BLM land; the Superior National Forest 
Restoration Act, which would facilitate the permitting of a 
very important mine in Congressman Stauber's district; and 
finally, the EXPLORE Act, which would cut red tape for small 
recreation businesses and improve outdoor access.
    Having Democrats join Republicans on each of these bills to 
stop the out-of-control preservationists and hurtful policies 
of the Biden administration should be a wake-up call, but I 
fear it won't be. Leadership in DC must listen to local 
stakeholders, engage meaningfully with communities, and, above 
all, follow your mandatory coordination requirements.
    House Natural Resources Committee Republicans will continue 
holding the Administration accountable, demanding answers, and, 
when needed, passing legislation to stop harmful decisions.

    With that, I yield back and recognize the Ranking Member, 
Mr. Neguse, for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman. I want to thank both of 
the witnesses for being here today for this important hearing.
    I would be remiss if I just did not take one moment to note 
my strong disagreement with a number of statements made by the 
Chairman. Only in Washington can colleagues of mine on the 
other side of the aisle rationally argue that the budget 
proposed to fund these incredibly important land management 
agencies are, I think the word that was used was underwhelming, 
after having voted against the appropriation bills that funded 
the very agencies that we are discussing today. Only in 
Washington.
    House Democrats have been working for years to appropriate 
sufficient resources so that the hard-working people at the BLM 
and the National Park Service can do the important work that 
they are statutorily authorized and compelled to do; so that 
the hard-working folks who are at the BLM in Colorado, just by 
way of example, the western headquarters in Grand Junction in 
my district, and across our great country can continue doing 
their important work.
    It is shameful, in my view, that House Republicans, not 
all, certainly most members of this particular Subcommittee, 
including the Chairman, and most members of the Full Committee, 
have chosen a different course. I understand that they have 
disagreements with respect to particular priorities that the 
Biden administration is pursuing. That is their prerogative. 
But the caustic way in which these two agencies have been 
described by my colleagues, I think, is deeply unfortunate.
    I, for one, am grateful to have both Director Sams from the 
National Park Service and Director Stone-Manning from the 
Bureau of Land Management here with us today to talk about the 
important missions of your respective agencies and the work 
that you are doing to be stewards for our national parks and 
our public lands.
    I want to say that, again, while I think we can argue, 
disagree, and discuss interpretations of the two management 
frameworks with respect to both of your agencies, and, of 
course, members of this Subcommittee and the Full Committee 
have been doing so for decades, I am grateful for the work that 
you two are doing and the Biden administration is doing more 
broadly to manage our public lands with future generations in 
mind. I think that is important. It matters a great deal for 
our children, for my 5-year-old daughter, for future 
generations to come.
    It is the same approach that we took in the 117th Congress, 
when I chaired this Subcommittee. We worked to ensure that we 
would invest billions of dollars into the future of our public 
lands. And it is unfortunate, as I said, in my view, that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a 
different course, have not scheduled a single hearing in this 
Subcommittee, for example, to even discuss the climate crisis. 
I think that is unfortunate. Instead, they have done the 
opposite. They pursued any number of policies that ultimately 
would put polluters over the people that we are here to serve.
    At BLM, Director Stone-Manning, your agency has advanced 
rules that ensure public lands are managed for the greater 
good, putting conservation on par with other uses, and 
advancing a framework to promote renewable energy. Now, I don't 
know if, in the stack of regulations here, this prop that the 
Chairman has decided he will use for this hearing, which I 
think is beneath this Subcommittee, but nonetheless I don't 
know if included in this package are the regulations pertaining 
to the Thompson Divide. I hope so, because I will tell you that 
my constituents in Colorado are deeply grateful, deeply 
grateful for the actions that the BLM took to protect the 
Thompson Divide.
    And as I said, while I recognize that we can have 
reasonable disagreements about the extent or propriety or depth 
of some of these particular policies and programs that the BLM 
and the NPS are implementing, I hope we can do so with a degree 
of respect for the witnesses who are here and for the agencies 
that they represent.
    I want to say thank you to both of you and your respective 
workforces, and I look forward to the conversation.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for the opening statement, Ranking 
Member Neguse. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Westerman.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany.
    Thank you, Director Sams and Director Stone-Manning, for 
appearing before the Committee today.
    As Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I have 
focused on advancing policies that achieve four primary 
objectives, and those are access, conservation, innovation, and 
transparency. When it comes to the Biden administration's 
policies and the proposed budget, it seems like there is almost 
an antithesis of these values. And instead of promoting access 
to our public lands, the Administration is locking up millions 
of acres of land and resources, making it harder to produce 
energy, graze cattle, and feed our families.
    And we have to maintain and restore access. And I realize 
that there are forces above the levels that you all work in the 
Federal Government, and you are being good soldiers and doing 
your job in the positions that you are in. But for the sake of 
our Federal lands, we need to actively manage them for multiple 
uses that they offer, whether that be energy development, 
outdoor recreation, timber harvesting, or wildlife habitat.
    And I will state it again: Conservation is an ethic. It is 
not a use, as this Administration is trying to create a new 
lexicon. Conservation should be at the core of what we do, not 
a misinformed headline that has no substance but sounds good to 
the casual listener.
    Conservation has taken a hit in this Administration, but 
the policies that we advance in this Committee can help right 
the ship. This includes the WEST Act, which nullifies the BLM's 
Public Lands Rule, as well as the EXPLORE Act, which expands 
outdoor recreation access.
    Both of these pieces of legislation passed with bipartisan 
support earlier this year.
    While the budget is just a wish list that is never actually 
going to become law, we can't lose sight of the fact that 
policies concocted here in DC have a real effect on the local 
communities closest to those lands. I have seen that firsthand 
with the proposed renovations at the Buckstaff Bathhouse in my 
district. Originally, the Park Service proposed renovating the 
bathhouse in a manner that would lay off 37 employees. And I 
appreciate Secretary Haaland and Director Sam's recent 
commitments to work with Buckstaff to ensure that we avoid that 
kind of an outcome.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and look 
forward to hearing the questions.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now move on 
to witness testimony.
    I would like to remind the witnesses that under Committee 
Rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but 
your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the 
microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please complete your statement.
    First, I would like to introduce Ms. Tracy Stone-Manning, 
Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
    Director Stone-Manning, you have 5 minutes for your 
testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TRACY STONE-MANNING, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 
 LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, 
                               DC

    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Chairman 
Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee. I am Tracy Stone-Manning, the Director of the 
Bureau of Land Management. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on the Fiscal Year 2025 budget priorities and the 
mission of the BLM.
    We are the nation's largest land manager, responsible for 1 
in 10 acres in this country. The multiple-use, sustained-yield 
mission established by the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act, or FLPMA, directs us to sustain the health, diversity, and 
productivity of 245 million acres of public lands and 700 
million acres of mineral estate for multiple uses. These lands 
provide food, fiber, minerals, energy, clean water, habitat, 
and lifetime memories for countless families.
    We owe a great deal of gratitude to the nearly 10,000 BLM 
civil servants that do the hard work of balancing our mission 
day in and day out.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, public lands managed by the BLM 
supported $262 billion in economic output and 1 million jobs. 
In addition, last year public lands generated more than $9.6 
billion in revenue. The country's economic return on its 
investment in the BLM is remarkable. For each dollar Congress 
provided us in Fiscal Year 2023, we generated $6 in revenue, 6 
to 1. And, of course, this return does not consider how we pay 
forward to the future in our work to conserve, protect, and 
restore public lands and waters for the benefit of current and 
future generations.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request of $1.6 
billion ensures that we can meet our multiple use and sustained 
yield responsibilities under FLPMA. While the budget request 
advances many important Administration priorities, I will focus 
on two: prioritizing landscape health and resilience, and the 
transition to a clean energy economy.
    The budget request proposes continued investments to 
prioritize the health and resilience of public lands and waters 
that are increasingly facing impacts of climate change, 
including prolonged drought, increased spread of invasive 
weeds, and more frequent and intense wildland fires. The budget 
requests $317.4 million to improve the health of public lands 
through restoration efforts, including eradicating and 
controlling invasive species and re-establishing native plant 
communities.
    Each of the landscape health activities supported by the 
budget request is key in supporting the multiple use and 
sustained yield of our public lands into the future, helping to 
improve the health and resilience of public lands and conserve 
important wildlife habitat as we facilitate responsible 
development. That approach of managing so that present and 
future generations can enjoy the benefits of our public lands 
is a through line in all of our work and in the rulemakings we 
have recently finalized.
    How we approach the future of energy is also central in 
that work. President Biden has asked us to ensure an 
electricity sector free of carbon pollution by 2035 and 
economy-wide by 2050, and our public lands play an important 
role in that effort. The budget proposes $53 million to support 
siting, leasing, and oversight of renewable energy projects and 
transmission lines on public lands which provide excellent 
solar, wind, and geothermal energy potential.
    During this Administration, the BLM has approved over 7.3 
gigawatts of renewable energy projects, helping to surpass the 
Administration's goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of clean 
energy projects on public lands by 2025. We also leased lands 
in solar energy zones that will yield another 2 gigawatts. To 
help foster the work, the BLM published the final Renewable 
Energy Rule earlier this month, which will lower consumer 
energy costs, improve project application processes, and 
incentivize developers to continue responsibly developing solar 
and wind projects on our public lands.
    While the BLM has made great progress transitioning to the 
clean energy future, oil and gas production continues to be a 
substantial part of the BLM's energy portfolio. Our work has 
ensured that conventional energy development is as 
environmentally responsible as possible, and that it provides a 
fair return to the American taxpayer. To that end, BLM recently 
published the first comprehensive update to the onshore oil and 
gas leasing regulations in many decades. This update implements 
congressional direction in the Inflation Reduction Act and will 
help protect critical wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and 
recreation.
    We also finalized a rule to ensure that we reduce the 
wasteful practice of venting or flaring natural gas.
    Both of these efforts are key in helping to modernize the 
oil and gas program, and ensuring it is fair to the American 
taxpayer for whom the BLM stewards our public lands.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
welcome any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Stone-Manning follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Tracy Stone-Manning, Director, Bureau of Land 
              Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget priorities and mission of the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM). The BLM's 2025 Budget proposal supports the 
critical role the Bureau plays in achieving the environmental, 
conservation, and economic goals of the Biden-Harris Administration, 
while working in partnership with thousands of communities nationwide, 
mostly across the American West and in Alaska.
Introduction

    Managing the BLM's portfolio of approximately 245 million acres of 
surface land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate on 
behalf of the American people is a tremendous honor. As directed by the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM 
sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's public 
lands for multiple uses, such as conventional and renewable energy 
development; livestock grazing; conservation; mining; watershed 
protection; and hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreation. This 
multiple-use, sustained yield mission demands a thoughtful, science-
based approach to management of our public lands and waters, as it 
enables the BLM to sustain the economy, create jobs, and produce 
domestic energy, while generating revenues for Federal and state 
treasuries. The BLM is also charged with conserving, protecting, and 
restoring public land resources and nationally significant landscapes 
for the benefit of current and future generations. To advance this 
broad mission as pressures increase on our public lands, the BLM 
recently announced new rules to help protect critical wildlife habitat, 
cultural resources, and recreational values, and ensure a fair return 
for American taxpayers. Combined, these rules will guide balanced 
management of America's public for decades to come.
    America's public lands are strong economic drivers, and the BLM's 
work contributes significantly to the national economy as well as the 
financial health of the States where BLM lands and resources are 
located. According to the BLM's estimates, activities associated with 
BLM-managed public lands and minerals contributed an estimated $262 
billion to the nation's economic output, supporting approximately one 
million jobs in FY 2022.\1\ In terms of receipts, in FY 2023, 
productive uses of BLM-managed public lands generated more than $9.6 
billion, including a significant share for the States where the 
revenues were generated. The country's economic return on its annual 
discretionary appropriations investment in public lands is remarkable: 
more than six dollars are generated for each dollar provided to the 
BLM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The BLM: Valuing America's Public Lands 2023, https://
www.blm.gov/about/data/socioeconomic-impact-report-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Overview

    The Bureau's FY 2025 Budget requests $1.6 billion, including $1.4 
billion for the Management of Lands and Resources (MLR) appropriation 
and $120.8 million for the Oregon and California Grant Lands (O&C) 
appropriation--the BLM's two main operating accounts.

    The BLM's FY 2025 Budget request advances the Administration's 
priorities in the following areas:

     Strengthening climate resilience by investing in landscape 
            health;

     Facilitating the transition to a clean energy economy;

     Enhancing and expanding outdoor recreation;

     Improving the management of wild horses and burros;

     Conserving and protecting nationally significant 
            landscapes;

     Strengthening Tribal sovereignty and self-determination; 
            and

     Supporting underserved and disproportionately affected 
            communities.

Strengthening Climate Resilience by Investing in Landscape Health

    The FY 2025 Budget request demonstrates the BLM's enduring 
commitment to addressing the impacts of climate change by continuing to 
prioritize investments that promote the health and resilience of public 
lands and waters that are increasingly facing those impacts, including 
prolonged drought, increased spread of invasive species, and more 
frequent and intense wildland fires. For example, the Budget requests 
$317.4 million under the BLM's Land Resources activity to improve the 
health of public lands through restoration efforts, including 
eradicating and controlling invasive species and re-establishing native 
plant communities. Efforts to improve landscape health supported by 
this request will complement the Bureau's ongoing ecosystem restoration 
and resilience work, including activities funded through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--more commonly referred to as 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)--and the Inflation Reduction 
Act (IRA).
    In addition to $11 million for the Public Domain Forest Management 
program, the Budget requests $105.8 million in the BLM's Western Oregon 
Resources Management program. Combined, these funds will support timber 
sales, help restore forest structure and composition to improve 
wildfire and climate resilience, identify and manage carbon sinks, and 
implement projects for reforestation and to protect mature and old-
growth forests.
    The FY 2025 Budget requests $153.4 million in the BLM's Wildlife 
Habitat Management program to identify, protect, conserve, and restore 
wildlife habitat; maintain and improve wildlife corridors and habitat 
connectivity; enhance ecosystem diversity; and improve drought 
preparedness and response. Together, these efforts will help respond to 
the effects of climate change on priority wildlife and plant species 
and habitats. This program supports the development of the native seed 
supply chain, the foundational underpinning of all of the BLM's land 
restoration efforts, and provides significant support to conserve 
greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. This work is bolstered by 
one-time funding provided by the BIL and IRA and coordination with many 
Federal, State, Tribal and other partners. The Budget request also 
includes $59.9 million for BLM's Aquatic Resources program to enable 
the Bureau to continue to work to conserve remaining high-quality lands 
and waters, restore degraded land and water resources, and ensure the 
connectivity of these systems.
    Each of the landscape health activities supported by the FY 2025 
Budget request will be complemented by the Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule, which the BLM finalized on May 9, 2024. Informed by more 
than 200,000 comments from individual Americans, State and local 
governments, Tribes, industry groups, and advocacy organizations, the 
final rule will support multiple use and sustained yield of the public 
lands into the future, helping to improve the health and resilience of 
public lands in the face of a changing climate, conserve important 
wildlife habitat and intact landscapes, facilitate responsible 
development, and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources 
on public lands. The FY 2025 Budget also supports the Administration's 
America the Beautiful initiative, a ten-year, locally led effort to 
protect, conserve, connect, and restore the lands, waters, and wildlife 
upon which we all depend.
Facilitating the Transition to a Clean Energy Economy

    As conventional energy sources continue to play an important role 
in our economy, the BLM is advancing the development of renewable 
energy by providing sites on public lands for environmentally sound 
renewable energy production and transmission projects. BLM-managed 
public lands provide excellent solar, wind, and geothermal energy 
potential and are an important component of the Administration's 
broader strategy to rapidly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at 
least 50 percent by 2030 and achieve a carbon pollution-free 
electricity sector by 2035.
    Consistent with the Energy Act of 2020, the BLM continues to 
accelerate responsible permitting of renewable energy projects on 
public lands. Since January 21, 2021, the BLM has permitted projects 
that are expected to produce over 7.3 gigawatts of clean energy--enough 
to power over 2.8 million homes. In addition to specific project 
approvals, the BLM has also leased eight new areas in Solar Energy 
Zones with the capacity to generate nearly 2.5 gigawatts of additional 
clean energy. These efforts contributed to the Administration recently 
surpassing its goal of permitting 25 gigawatts of clean energy projects 
on BLM-administered public lands by 2025. As of April 2024, the BLM is 
currently processing 65 utility-scale onshore clean energy projects--
including solar, wind, geothermal, and transmission interconnect 
projects--with a combined potential to add approximately 32,500 
megawatts of renewable energy. The BLM is also undertaking the 
preliminary review of almost 200 applications for solar and wind 
development, as well as almost 100 applications for solar and wind 
energy testing.
    In addition, on May 1, 2024, the BLM finalized its Rights-of-Way, 
Leasing and Operations for Renewable Energy Rule, which will lower the 
cost of developing solar and wind projects, improve renewable energy 
project application processes, and incentivize developers to continue 
to responsibly develop solar and wind projects on public lands. 
Consistent with the Administration's commitment to create high-quality 
jobs in the clean energy economy and support American manufacturing, 
the final rule includes incentives for projects to use project labor 
agreements and American-made materials.
    The complexities involved with authorizing bulk energy generation 
and the associated transmission lines necessitate extensive stakeholder 
engagement and coordination and thorough environmental reviews of 
project proposals. To that end, the FY 2025 Budget proposes $53.1 
million in the Renewable Energy Management program to support siting, 
leasing, processing rights-of-way applications, and oversight of 
renewable energy projects and transmission lines on BLM-managed public 
lands. The BLM expects renewable energy demand and workload to continue 
to increase significantly as more utility companies and States seek to 
diversify their energy sources or require increased amounts of 
renewable energy in their electric power portfolios. Helping to drive 
the expected demand is the nearly $400 billion in Department of Energy 
loans for clean energy and transmission infrastructure enacted in the 
IRA. This investment is anticipated to further increase permitting 
workloads on Federal lands through at least 2030.
    While the BLM has made great progress facilitating renewable energy 
development, a substantial part of the BLM's energy portfolio consists 
of oil and gas production from public lands. Since January 21, 2021, 
the BLM has approved more than 11,000 new drilling permits--including 
over 3,800 in 2023 alone--and onshore oil production from Federal lands 
is at an all-time high. At the same time, the BLM has focused on 
efforts to ensure that conventional energy development is 
environmentally responsible and provides a fair return to the American 
taxpayer.
    On April 23, 2024, the BLM finalized its Fluid Mineral Leases and 
Leasing Process Rule, which codifies fiscal provisions that were 
enacted in the IRA. These changes revise outdated fiscal terms for the 
onshore Federal oil and gas leasing program, including royalty rates 
and minimum bids, and will increase returns to the public and 
disincentivize speculation. The rule also strengthens bonding standards 
to help ensure that taxpayers are not saddled with paying industry 
cleanup costs. The rule is the BLM's first comprehensive update to the 
federal onshore oil and gas leasing framework since 1988, the first 
update to minimum bonding levels since 1960, and the first increase in 
royalty rates in more than a century. The rule also implements 
recommendations from the Department of the Interior's Report on the 
Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program and will guide BLM efforts to focus 
oil and gas leasing in areas that are the most likely to be developed--
areas with existing infrastructure and high oil and gas potential--
providing transparency and clarity for industry, while better managing 
public lands for other important uses.
    Additionally, on April 10, 2024, the BLM finalized its Waste 
Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation 
Rule to curb the waste of natural gas during the production of oil and 
gas on Federal and Tribal lands. The final rule modernizes regulations 
that are more than 40 years old. The updates will help hold oil and gas 
companies accountable by requiring operators to avoid wasteful 
practices and find and fix leaks, while ensuring that American 
taxpayers and Tribal mineral owners are fairly compensated through 
royalty payments. By building on technological advances and best 
management practices to help reduce waste, the rule is expected to 
generate more than $50 million in additional natural gas royalty 
payments each year to taxpayers and Tribal mineral owners, while 
conserving billions of cubic feet of gas that might otherwise have been 
vented, flared, or leaked from oil and gas operations.
    Finally, given the importance of critical minerals to the clean 
energy transition, the BLM is working across the Federal government to 
update mining policies, strengthen permitting efficiency, and promote a 
robust, environmentally and socially responsible domestic mining 
industry. Some of these efforts, including much needed reforms to the 
General Mining Law of 1872, will require the assistance of Congress. 
The BLM looks forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee on 
this issue.
Enhancing & Expanding Recreation

    The BLM is a key part of connecting Americans to the outdoors, as 
more than 120 urban centers and thousands of rural towns are located 
within 25 miles of BLM-managed public lands and waters. Public lands 
and waters are widely recognized as a ``backyard to backcountry'' 
treasure, affording a variety of accessible recreation opportunities--
from neighborhood trails to world-class destinations and a diverse mix 
of camping, boating, off-highway vehicle riding, recreational shooting, 
horseback riding, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and many others.
    As a result of the unique opportunities, resources, and experiences 
our public lands offer, recreational use has skyrocketed. In FY 2023, 
the BLM recorded more than 82 million visits, representing a 41 percent 
increase in use since 2012, with almost a third of that increase 
occurring since 2020. In response to this significant growth in 
recreation, the BLM last year released its Blueprint for 21st Century 
Outdoor Recreation (Blueprint), which is intended to guide investments, 
partnerships, outreach, and program development, so the Bureau can more 
effectively respond to current demand and chart a course to meet future 
needs. The FY 2025 Budget request for the Recreation Resources 
Management program is $61.5 million to implement the Blueprint; enhance 
and increase access to recreational opportunities, including access by 
disadvantaged or underserved communities; and maintain, repair, and 
construct recreational trails, facilities (including campgrounds, day-
use areas, and trailheads), kiosks, and directional signs. The request 
will also support recreation site and trail design improvements to 
mitigate recreation conflicts with sensitive natural resources, such as 
by altering traffic and concentrated use patterns.
Improving the Management of Wild Horses & Burros

    The overpopulation of wild horses and burros across the West 
continues to present unique challenges to the BLM's ability to improve 
and maintain landscape health. As of March 2024, there were 
approximately 73,500 wild horses and burros across the 177 herd 
management areas that the BLM administers--exceeding the nationwide 
appropriate management level (AML) of 27,000 animals by over 46,500. Of 
the 177 herd management areas, almost 80 percent are above AML. The 
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 requires that the BLM 
manage wild horses and burros in a manner ``designed to achieve and 
maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands,'' and 
the AML is the population range the BLM sets to best maintain that 
thriving natural ecological balance. The BLM has worked diligently in 
the last few years to address this problem, reducing the on-range 
population from a peak of 95,000 wild horses and burros in 2020 to 
approximately 73,500 today, but we have more work to do. Climate 
change-induced lack of forage and water, as well as competition among 
wild horses and burros, big game species, and livestock over these 
limited resources, have made it even more difficult for the BLM to 
maintain this necessary ecological balance, resulting in further 
degradation of the range and undermining other BLM land health 
investments.
    The BLM is focused on addressing the management challenges with 
this program, particularly through use of fertility control treatments 
and permanent sterilization efforts and through private placements of 
animals. However, the substantial growth in the cost of off-range 
holding has impacted the BLM's ability to deliver fertility treatments 
or remove wild horses and burros from the range while balancing the 
obligations to ensure the wellbeing of the approximately 63,000 horses 
off-range in our care (as of May 2024). The FY 2025 Budget requests 
$170.9 million in the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Management program, 
which will help to offset rising program costs and conduct on-range and 
off-range management activities. This includes a $15 million increase 
to support permanent sterilizations. Given the substantial challenges 
associated with the management of wild horses and burros in the face of 
a changing climate, and the fact that about two-thirds of the program's 
budget is now allocated to the care and feeding of horses off range, 
the BLM would welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to 
address the many challenges with this issue.
Conserving & Protecting Nationally Significant Landscapes

    As specified in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, the 
BLM's National Conservation Lands ``conserve, protect, and restore 
nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, 
ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future 
generations.'' The National Conservation Lands currently encompass 905 
units covering over 37 million acres, including national monuments, 
wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, national 
conservation areas, and national scenic and historic trails. Designated 
by Congress or the President, the National Conservation Lands represent 
some of the nation's most spectacular landscapes and are also the 
current and ancestral homelands of Tribal Nations and Indigenous 
peoples, many of whom have deep cultural, historic, and spiritual 
connections to these places.
    An estimated 12.5 million people visit units of the National 
Conservation Lands each year, providing significant economic benefits 
to surrounding communities and sustaining long-term jobs within them. 
To support the conservation and management of these special places, the 
FY 2025 Budget requests $65.8 million in the BLM's National 
Conservation Lands program, $19.6 million in the Wilderness Management 
program, and $7.1 million in cross-cutting funds for wild and scenic 
rivers.
Strengthening Tribal Sovereignty & Self-Determination

    The BLM's management of heritage resources informs the public about 
climate change and human interactions with the natural environment; 
offers educational, interpretative, and recreational opportunities to 
the public; and affirms public, Native American, and other descendent 
community connections to the landscape. Under the Native American 
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, the BLM has a 
responsibility to identify Native American human remains, funerary 
items, and objects of cultural significance in its museum collections 
and consult with Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to repatriate 
these remains and objects. The FY 2025 Budget includes an increase of 
$250,000 in the Cultural Resources Management program to support and 
expedite this critically important work.
Supporting Underserved & Disproportionately Affected Communities

    The impacts of climate change and environmental degradation in the 
United States are not evenly distributed across our society. 
Communities of color, low-income families, and rural and Indigenous 
communities have long suffered disproportionate and cumulative harm 
from air pollution, water pollution, and toxic sites. The BLM, as part 
of its work, dedicates time and resources to engage a wide range of 
stakeholders and communities in all its land management decisions, as 
well as to conduct formal consultation with Tribes in recognition of 
the Federal government's trust responsibilities.
    The FY 2025 BLM Budget will advance the Administration's efforts to 
create good-paying jobs through its program to remediate and reclaim 
orphaned wells and abandoned mines. These jobs will support communities 
that may have been disproportionately affected by energy and mining 
activities and ease the transition for oil and gas field workers, coal 
miners, and conventional energy and mining communities as the market 
transitions toward cleaner energy sources. The FY 2025 request in the 
BLM's Oil and Gas Management program includes over $23 million to 
enable the agency to continue remediating wells on Alaska's North 
Slope. The BLM expects to address orphaned oil and gas wells in the 
Lower 48 states with funds provided by the BIL (through the 
Department's Energy Community Revitalization Program), in addition to 
annual appropriations. Plugging these wells will mitigate risks to 
groundwater and air pollution. The request also includes $58.4 million 
in the Abandoned Mine Lands and Hazardous Materials Management program 
for the remediation of both physical and environmental impacts of 
legacy abandoned mine lands and the prevention, mitigation, and 
remediation of the effects of hazardous substance releases.
Conclusion

    The BLM's FY 2025 proposed Budget reflects the Administration's 
continued commitment to managing America's public lands in a balanced, 
science-based manner. It is incumbent on us as stewards of our public 
lands to ensure their use is sustainable and beneficial to current and 
future generations of Americans, regardless of who they are or where 
they live, and we take that responsibility seriously. I look forward to 
working with the Subcommittee to ensure that the BLM has the tools and 
resources necessary to achieve these important objectives. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify here today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Tracy-Stone 
              Manning, Director, Bureau of Land Management

The Honorable Tracy-Stone Manning did not submit responses to the 
Committee by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed 
record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. How much funding has the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) spent to initiate, administer, and grow the 30x30 initiative?

    Question 2. How many acres of federal lands under the BLM's 
jurisdiction are already under some level of protected or restrictive-
use status?

    Question 3. How will Congress know if the administration has 
reached its 30x30 goal? Will you commit to promptly informing Congress 
once the 30x30 goal is reached?

    Question 4. What happens after the administration reaches its 30x30 
goal?

    Question 5. On conservation.gov, there is a diagram that summarizes 
the Biden administration's ``preliminary framework for assessing 
progress toward the nation's goal of conserving at least 30 percent of 
U.S. lands and waters by 2030.'' Notably, BLM lands ``that are 
conserved and restored'' are listed as only ``potential additions'' to 
the ``National Conservation Goals.''

    5a) How many acres of BLM lands are currently listed as ``potential 
additions''?

    5b) What data is required before this acreage can be added to the 
``National Conservation Goals''?

    5c) What steps has the BLM taken to get this acreage added to the 
``National Conservation Goals''?

    5d) What are the current uses of the specified BLM lands? Please 
give a percentage breakdown of primary uses (e.g., x percent is 
primarily used for wildlife habitat, y percent is primarily used for 
timber harvesting, z percent is primarily used for grazing, etc.).

    Question 6. The final Public Lands Rule states:

        ``Some commenters raised concerns about the ability of foreign 
        entities to use conservation leases to block development of 
        critical mineral or energy projects on public lands or to 
        obtain conservation leases near military bases or other 
        sensitive government installations.''

        ``In response to these and other comments on the potential use 
        of conservation leases in ways that would excessively interfere 
        with other uses or to intentionally block development, the BLM 
        clarified that restoration and mitigation leases may only be 
        issued for two discrete purposes: restoration of degraded 
        landscapes or mitigation to offset the impacts of 
        development.''

    6a) To confirm, does this mean that the BLM will not issue a 
restoration or mitigation lease to block development of critical 
mineral or energy projects on public lands?

    6b) Will the BLM commit to not issuing restoration or mitigation 
leases near military bases or other sensitive government installations 
to any entity?

    Question 7. The final Public Lands Rule states that the BLM will 
not issue any restoration or mitigation leases to foreign entities. The 
rule also states that the BLM will use standard lease adjudication 
processes to determine whether an applicant is a foreign entity. The 
processes cited in the rule, however, say nothing about determining 
whether an entity is foreign-controlled or not.

    7a) What specific processes will you put in place to ensure that a 
foreign entity--especially a bad actor, like China or Russia--will not 
obtain a restoration or mitigation lease under the guise of a non-
profit or American entity? For example, U.S.A. Conservation Leasing 
Group LLC may sound fine, but what if it's an entity funded by China?

    7b) Does the BLM have employees who are trained to identify 
foreign-owned or--controlled entities? If not, whom will the BLM use to 
make such identifications?

    7c) Will restoration and mitigation leases be subject to a 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review?

    7d) Has the BLM ever conducted a similar process before or will a 
new system have to be put in place to verify these leases are not held 
by foreign entities?

    Question 8. Will the BLM commit to not issuing any restoration or 
mitigation leases that would block development of critical mineral or 
energy projects on public lands that are necessary to counter China's 
influence?

    Question 9. Can any citizen, group, organization, non-governmental 
organization, or similar entity--assuming that it meets the minimum 
requirements--apply for and potentially secure a restoration or 
mitigation lease?

    Question 10. Can the same leaseholder infinitely renew their 
existing restoration or mitigation lease?

    Question 11. What safeguards are there to prevent one of the many 
anti-multiple-use groups from leasing federal lands to prevent wind and 
solar development, transmission infrastructure, grazing, mining, or oil 
and gas development?

    Question 12. What safeguards are in place to keep the DOI from 
identifying and leasing public lands for conservation that have 
significant benefits for other multiple-use activities in an effort to 
administratively bar those other activities from taking place?

    Question 13. Please explain how restoration and mitigation leases 
and required avoidance and mitigation portions of BLM's Public Lands 
Rule will not preclude all other multiple-use activities on public 
land?

    Question 14. What does Section 103(l) of FLPMA say? How does the 
BLM interpret this?

    Question 15 The Public Lands Rule clarifies that conservation is a 
use on par with other uses of public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use 
and sustained yield framework.

    15a) Can we expect additional and competing ``uses'' of public 
lands out of this Administration?

    15b) Will the BLM elevate another ``use?''

    Question 16. Will each restoration and mitigation lease be subject 
to a NEPA analysis?

    Question 17. If a restoration lease is proposed on an area at high 
risk for wildfire, will the BLM require the restoration lease to treat 
the area to reduce its risk of wildfire?

    Question 18. Will lease applications for restoration or mitigation 
leases, or both, be public? Once approved, will leases for restoration 
or mitigation be public?

    Question 19. What guidance have you given state directors and field 
managers on restoration and mitigation leases? What do they do if 
someone walks in the door with a proposal for a restoration or 
mitigation lease?

    Question 20. Will this guidance be finalized and made available to 
the Committee before June 10, 2024?

    Question 21. Have you provided any direction to current users of 
the land for what to expect concerning restoration and mitigation 
leases?

    Question 22. Have you provided any direction to any outside groups, 
like environmental and non-profit organizations, concerning restoration 
and mitigation leases?

    Question 23. Will you commit to sharing information about the 
process of the new leasing system with all current users of BLM land 
when developed, not just to certain groups?

    Question 24. The final Public Lands Rule states:

        ``Sec. 6102.5.1 Mitigation

        (a) The BLM will apply the mitigation hierarchy to avoid, 
        minimize, and compensate, as appropriate, for adverse impacts 
        to resources when authorizing uses of public lands. As 
        appropriate, the authorized officer may identify specific 
        mitigation approaches or requirements to address resource 
        impacts through land use plans or in other decision 
        documents.''

    24a) Are grazing permits included in the land uses that require 
mitigation?

    Question 25. Are there circumstances under which you believe that a 
grazing permittee in good compliance with their permit and terms and 
conditions would be required to mitigate their grazing management?

    Question 26. Does the BLM consider grazing to be a form of 
conservation?

    Question 27. Does the BLM consider forest management to be a form 
of conservation?

    Question 28. The final rule references uses that it claims are 
compatible with conservation, like ``sustainable recreation.''

    28a) What is sustainable recreation?

    28b) Which types of recreation does the BLM believe to be not 
sustainable?

    28c) Is rock climbing, including the use of fixed anchors, in a 
wilderness area considered sustainable recreation under this 
definition?

    28d) Please provide a definition and example of unsustainable 
recreation.

    Question 29. Private investment in restoration and mitigation 
leases will require an expectation of durability for the investor. Did 
the BLM meet with potential investors in restoration and mitigation 
leases before finalizing the Public Lands Rule?

    Question 30. The rule provides for the agency to do landscape 
health analyses for uses other than grazing but says that, until new 
processes are developed for ecosystems other than rangeland, no 
assessments shall occur. When does the agency expect assessments for 
other ecosystems will be developed?

    Question 31. Which BLM lands are available for a restoration or 
mitigation lease? Will all 245 million acres of BLM land be available 
for restoration or mitigation leases? If not, how is this distinction 
between leasable and non-leasable BLM lands to be made?

    Question 32. Pursuant to the final Public Lands Rule, would it be 
possible to have a wilderness area in an ACEC in a national monument 
and then issue a restoration lease on the land?

    Question 33. The National Park Service (NPS) FY 2025 budget 
justification states that illegal immigration along the Southern border 
is a serious problem affecting our parks. Specifically, the NPS 
document states that some of its units along the U.S.-Mexico border 
``consistently experience serious resource damage due to illegal cross-
border activities traversing the parks.'' The budget goes on to say 
that ``[t]housands of miles of unauthorized roads and trails have been 
created, major ecological processes and the migration patterns of 
wildlife have been disrupted, important historic sites have been 
vandalized, and archeological sites have been looted.''

    33a) Do you agree with the NPS's assessment that illegal 
immigration is causing significant amounts of damage to our federal 
border lands?

    33b) Why is BLM's budget justification virtually silent on the 
border?

    Question 34. The U.S.-Mexico border has become the site of a large-
scale humanitarian disaster. How many migrants and suspected migrants 
have perished on BLM lands along the U.S.-Mexico border since 2021? 
Please provide annual data.

    Question 35. In a response to the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee's Ranking Member Barrasso during your confirmation, 
you promised: ``If I am confirmed as BLM Director, I will work with the 
Department of Homeland Security and other relevant Departments and 
agencies, as appropriate, to address border related issues on the 
public lands.''

    35a) Will you commit to meeting with Secretary Mayorkas this year 
and discussing the environmental and resource degradation at federal 
lands along the southern border?

    35b) Have you met with CBP agents about how to improve operational 
control of federal borderlands and protect the life and safety of 
officers?

    Question 36. From 2003 to 2016, BLM conducted the Southern Arizona 
Project, in which the agency published detailed annual reports covering 
the millions of pounds of trash that migrants and drug smugglers had 
left along Arizona's border with Mexico. Why was this project 
discontinued?

    Question 37. In 2018, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) estimated that each border crosser leaves behind 
approximately six to eight pounds of trash. Since the number of 
migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has reached record highs under 
the Biden administration, does the BLM believe that the amount of trash 
along the border has increased since 2016?

    Question 38. How many pounds of trash did the BLM collect along the 
U.S.-Mexico border in FY 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively?

    Question 39. How many trash pick-up events did the BLM conduct 
along the U.S.-Mexico border in each of those fiscal years?

    Question 40. How much annual funding has been devoted to trash 
collection along the U.S.-Mexico border in FY 2021, 2022, and 2023, 
respectively?

    Question 41. How much funding has the BLM requested for FY 2025 for 
removing trash from BLM-administered lands along the U.S.-Mexico 
border?

    41a) How did the BLM decide to request this amount?

    41b) Please describe, in detail, how the budget request corresponds 
to increased migration and trash totals along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Question 42. The proposed BLM budget anticipates a decrease of $4 
million in 2024 and into next year for recreation fees. There is also a 
decrease of 3 full-time equivalents (FTE).

    42a) Will you explain why the anticipated decrease in recreation 
fees?

    42b) Is this due to improving access and limiting feed or a 
reduction in users of the land?

    42c) Are the 3 FTE positions being eliminated or moved to another 
area in BLM?

    Question 43. The BLM Budget proposes $1 million for the BLM 
Foundation established in P.L. 115-31.

    43a) How was it determined that $1 million was the appropriate 
amount?

    43b) How will this money be spent?

    Question 44. When the President designates a new national monument, 
does the BLM receive funding to complete the resource management plan 
(RMP)? If so, please list how much and from what source. If not, please 
list where the BLM is reducing funding to compensate for the increased 
need for national monuments.

    Question 45. The BLM Budget states: ``In FY 2025, the BLM 
anticipates completing approximately 15 RMPs and RMP amendments.'' Will 
you provide a list of the 15 RMPs and RMP amendments the agency expects 
to complete this year?

    Question 46. On March 20, 2024, before the Subcommittee on Federal 
Lands, Deputy Director Nada Wolf Culver admitted that she did not read 
the testimony of Sweetwater County Land Use Director, Eric Bingham. On 
May 1, 2024, when Representative Hageman asked Secretary Haaland if she 
has heard of the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan (RMP), the 
Secretary replied, ``No.'' The next day, Secretary Haaland read a 
prepared response claiming she referred to it as the Sweetwater County 
RMP. The official name in the Federal Register is ``Notice of 
Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming'' [emphasis 
added]. The name ``Rock Springs'' appears 10 times more frequently in 
the RMP than does the name ``Sweetwater.'' On May 15, Representative 
Hageman asked if you had read the full draft Rock Springs RMP. You 
replied, ``that's what my staff does.'' Sweetwater County and the State 
of Wyoming continue to insist BLM has shut them out of the process and 
has intentionally misled them. These three examples from Secretary 
Haaland, Deputy Director Culver, and you only confirm their 
accusations.

    46a) Will you commit to reading the Rock Springs Resource 
Management Plan in its entirety? If not, why not?

    46b) Will you take any steps to address the concerns of the Wyoming 
and Sweetwater County governments, which strongly oppose the BLM's 
preferred alternative for the Rock Springs RMP Revision?

    Question 47. How many Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACECs) does the BLM manage? How many have completed RMPs?

    Question 48. How many ACECs and National Conservation Areas (NCAs) 
currently allow livestock grazing?

    Question 49. How many ACECs and NCAs designations resulted in 
removal of grazing activities, including cancellation of permits, in 
the past 10 years?

    Question 50. Energy projects of all kinds on federal lands are 
routinely held up by lawsuits filed years after the BLM's NEPA process 
concludes. These lawsuits, in many cases frivolous, foster uncertainty 
among project developers and limit the potential of the public's energy 
resources. Do you agree that a statutory limitation on when such 
lawsuits may be filed would be a useful tool to promote the responsible 
production of more American energy resources?

    Question 51. What is the Bureau doing to expedite rights-of-way 
approval for oil and gas infrastructure, like gathering lines, on 
Federal lands?

    Question 52. How many times has the Bureau used the gathering lines 
categorical exclusion (CE) created by Congress?

    Question 53. Must operators ask BLM to use the gathering lines CE 
when submitting a right-of-way application?

    Question 54. The BLM's new Waste Prevention rule requires operators 
to either submit a Waste Minimization Plan including certification of a 
valid, executed contract to sell the associated gas, or a self-
certification of 100 percent capture of associated gas with oil-well 
APDs. How common is it for an operator to have an executed contract to 
sell the associated gas on the date they submit their APD?

    Question 55. The Final Waste Prevention regulation explains how the 
BLM relies on venting and flaring data on oil wells from 1990 to 2000 
to establish flaring thresholds. As you know, oil wells from the 1990's 
are much different from modern, unconventional oil wells. Why would you 
use data from the 1990's to establish standards when you have more 
recent data?

    Question 56. What evidence does BLM have that the Waste Prevention 
rule will result in better capturing of methane than state rules?

    Question 57. Why does BLM insist on refusing variances for state 
rules that are effective in increasing the capture of methane, whether 
that be for environmental purposes or financial purposes?

    Question 58. According to the BLM's website there are currently 20 
proposed renewable energy projects in the NEPA process. Do you look at 
the lifecycle emissions for these projects as a part of the NEPA 
analysis?

    Question 59. In the BLM's Final Renewable Energy regulation it says 
that the BLM will review and process applications, including on a non-
competitive basis, for proposed solar and energy generation rights-of-
way inside designated leasing areas.

    59a) What is the process for awarding someone a lease on a non-
competitive basis?

    59b) Is the public notified for awareness or for comment?

    Question 60. Much like with the oil and gas industry, minerals 
projects take significant lead-times to go from exploration to 
operational mine, often taking decades for the federal permitting 
process and litigation to play out. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence has 
forecasted that, based on average mine size, 384 new mines are needed 
by 2035 to meet the demand for electric vehicles and energy storage 
batteries. Secretary Haaland recently told the House Natural Resources 
Committee that, since 2021, the Biden administration has approved five 
new mines requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, or the type of 
mines that Benchmark is referring to in their forecasting. You 
corrected the record in your testimony by indicating that one of the 
mine approvals was actually done under the prior administration.

    60a) Are the IWG Report recommendations--which propose fee 
increases, new fees and royalties, restricted land access, and other 
provisions on the domestic mining industry--sufficient to attract the 
investment needed to support President Biden's mineral-heavy energy 
transition goals?

    60b) With only four mines approved since 2021, what is the Biden 
administration doing to sufficiently build the pipeline of projects 
needed to supply skyrocketing mineral demand in the future?

    Question 61. In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee last September, Dr. Daniel Yergin, the Vice 
Chairman of S&P Global stated that based analysis, ``if you start a new 
mine today, you wouldn't see production till 2040.''

    Is the Biden administration appropriately positioned, with a 
pipeline of domestic mining projects, to meet U.S. manufacturing, 
infrastructure, energy and national security priorities now and in the 
future?

    Question 62. As Director, you oversee the permitting of the Burning 
Man event on BLM land.

    62a) Have you ever attended the Burning Man event either as 
Director or before your current role as Director?

    62b) Do you have plans to attend the Burning Man event in 2024?

    Question 63. How much land does the BLM manage without a partner?

    Question 64. How much land does the BLM manage with no lease 
holder?

    Question 65. When asked for an extension on the NPR-A regulation, a 
BLM employee responded quote ``Yeah, I wish we could . . . In other 
contexts we might have that kind of time, but I'm happy to regale you 
with the ins and outs of the Congressional Review Act, but 
unfortunately we're on a schedule with this one that we don't have any 
control over, so we just don't have that kind of time for this rule.''

    65a) Did you issue any kind of internal directive either formally 
or informally to expedite comment periods in order to meet the 
timelines of the Congressional Review Act at all costs?

    65b) During the hearing, you mentioned the employee who said this 
was no longer with the BLM. Was she fired due to making this statement?

    Question 66. Is BLM able to fully comply with FLPMA section 512?

    Question 67. Are there any regulations, land use plans, internal 
manuals, memos, or policy documents that must be updated for BLM to 
comply with section 512 of FLPMA?

    Question 68. Are there any laws or congressionally directed actions 
limiting compliance with section 512 of FLPMA?

    Question 69. Will the BLM need to create a regulatory framework to 
comply with section 512 of FLPMA? If so, when will this be complete?

    Question 70. In a QFR response from last year's budget hearings, 
the Department outlined its telework policy which states that ``an 
employee approved to telework must physically report to their official 
duty station at least two full workdays per bi-weekly pay period.''

    70a) What percentage of employees met this benchmark every month 
for the past year?

    70b) Does the Field count as a duty station, or is the duty station 
the office?

    70c) If so, telework employees only have to either go into the 
office or into the field two times every two weeks?

    70d) How can the Bureau ensure appropriate customer service using 
this model?

    Question 71. BLM's Greater Sage-Grouse land use plan amendment 
affects ten states, 121 million acres of BLM-administered public lands, 
and 77 RMPs. The document covers highly complex protection measures 
such as triggers, buffers, and density and disturbance caps, and 
introduces extensive new scientific studies, including novel concepts 
such as neighborhood and climate clusters and a Targeted Annual Warning 
System that have not been sufficiently peer reviewed nor vetted with 
cooperating agencies and the public.

    How can BLM expect the public to read, comprehend, and 
substantially comment on a 2,428-page document and the many associated 
scientific studies within 90 days?

    Question 72. In 2017, Congress struck down the BLM Planning 2.0 
rule, partly because BLM attempted to eliminate both the local 
administrative and local geographic focus of land use planning by 
centralizing all planning authority in BLM's Washington DC headquarters 
and allowing centralized land use planning efforts to have potentially 
unlimited geographic scope. Despite that clear message from Congress 
and the CRA's prohibition of an agency to issue ``a new rule that is 
substantially the same'', BLM is attempting to do the same type of 
centralized planning covering 121 million acres and ten states with the 
Greater Sage-Grouse land use plan amendments.

    72a) Do you believe that the manner in which these plans are being 
developed violates BLM regulations under FLPMA and are contrary to 
state and local government participation required by NEPA?

    72b) Are you concerned that the plan may be legally vulnerable 
under NEPA, FLPMA, APA, and CRA?

    72c) Wouldn't it be better to develop appropriate state-based plans 
for each of the ten states?

    Question 73. Section 50625 (b)(1) of the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) states the following:

    ``(1) the Secretary may not issue a right-of-way for wind or solar 
energy development on Federal land unless--(A) an onshore lease sale 
has been held during the 120-day period ending on the date of the 
issuance of the right-of-way for wind or solar energy development; and 
(B) the sum total of acres offered for lease in onshore lease sales 
during the 1-year period ending on the date of the issuance of the 
right-of-way for wind or solar energy development is not less than the 
lesser of--(i) 2,000,000 acres; and (ii) 50 percent of the acreage for 
which expressions of interest have been submitted for lease sales 
during that period;''

    73a) Please provide the Committee with a list of all wind and solar 
and wind projects (including acreages) that were issued rights-of-way 
since the passage of the IRA, pursuant to this section, along with the 
dates they were issued.

    73b) BLM's website lists the status of active renewable energy 
projects and their most recent regulatory actions (DR Executed, ROD 
Executed, Lease issued, etc.). Pursuant to Section 50265 of the 
Inflation Reduction Act, at what stage of the regulatory process does 
BLM consider a solar-right-of way to be issued?

    73c) The Committee is concerned that the BLM's approval of the 
Ancient Trails Solar Project may have failed to meet the requirements 
from Section 50625. Please provide sufficient evidence as to why you 
believe the issuance of that right-of-way met the criteria from Section 
50625.

    Question 74. How does BLM have authority to manage or regulate 
lands in the NPR-A under FLPMA? Can BLM identify where in the law the 
agency is authorized to manage NPR-A under FLPMA?

    Question 75. Regarding the NPR-A:

    75a) Do you think the new NPR-A rule will have any negative effect 
on future leasing in the NPR-A?

    75b) The new NPR-A rule adds new processes and decisions that BLM 
must undertake and make when permitting activity in the NPR-A. Did BLM 
perform any analysis of the added time and cost for permitting 
activities in the NPR-A as a consequence of the new rule? If so, please 
provide.

    75c) If an existing leaseholder proposes a new development in a 
Special Area, does the new rule's presumption against new 
infrastructure in Special Areas apply?

    Question 76. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 designated permit 
processing Pilot Offices in seven BLM Field Offices. These ``pilot 
offices'' were redesignated as ``Project Offices'' by Section 3021 of 
the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. How many staff are in each 
of these ``Project Offices''?

    Question 77. Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
permanently directs that 50 percent of rents from onshore mineral 
leases for oil and gas, coal, and oil shale on Federal lands are to be 
deposited into the Permit Processing Improvement Fund (PPIF). 
Additionally, section 3021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2015 permanently extended the BLM's access to the rent receipts in the 
PPIF and section 3021 added fees for APDs as a source of receipts to 
the PPIF. Specifically, Section 3021 authorizes the Secretary in fiscal 
years 2016 through 2026 to charge and collect a $9,500 APD processing 
fee, indexed for inflation. According to the FY 2025 Bureau of Land 
Management Greenbook, in 2023, the BLM deposited $51.8 million into the 
Permit Processing Improvement Fund (PPIF), including both rental 
receipts and APD fees. How much money has the BLM allocated for permit 
processing for oil and gas outside of fee collection by year over the 
last 20 years?

    Question 78. The BLM's budget proposes a $63,000 decrease in Public 
Domain Forest Management.

    78a) Why is the BLM cutting funding for forest management?

    78b) Is this funding decrease consistent with DOI's 5-year strategy 
to reduce wildfire risk?

    Question 79. The budget states: ``The decrease in funding will 
result in slightly fewer acres treated to restore forest structure and 
composition for fire and climate resilience compared to 2023 levels.'' 
Please provide the exact acreage the agency treated in 2023 and the 
expected acreage decrease for 2024.

    Question 80. What percentage of the agency's reforestation targets 
are accomplished annually?

    Question 81. How large is the BLM's reforestation backlog?

    Question 82. Is the BLM meeting the targets set forth in the 5-year 
strategy to reduce wildfire?

    Question 83. The budget states: ``The BLM is shifting program 
emphasis in response to E.O. 14072, Strengthening the Nation's Forests, 
Communities, and Local Economies. In keeping with the E.O., BLM will 
reduce timber outputs to a total volume offered of 215 million board 
feet to focus on protection of mature and old-growth forests and 
improving forest health and fire resilience.''

    83a) Does the BLM view active forest management as a threat to 
``old-growth'' or ``mature'' forests?

    83b) How is the BLM defining ``mature and old-growth'' forests?

    83c) What is the biggest threat to forests in Western Oregon?

    83d) How many acres of land have been lost to catastrophic wildfire 
in Western Oregon in the past 10 years?

    83e) How many acres in Western Oregon are already under a 
restrictive land designation, such as a wilderness or national 
monument?

    83f) Of the acreage identified in 83(e), how much has burned in the 
past 10 years? How does this compare with acreage not under some type 
of restrictive land designation?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn

    Question 1. The BLM's Landscape and Conservation Health Rule allows 
for mitigation and restoration leases which have no acreage limits. How 
will the BLM determine an adequate price per acre for these leases?

    Question 2. What mechanism is in place to ensure that radical 
environmentalist 501c3s do not use massive donation-based funding to 
lock up tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of land?

    Question 3. Will the BLM require these leases to pay royalties like 
oil and gas do?

    Question 4. Will these leases require any right of way or bonding 
requirements?

    Question 5. The BLM's Fluid Mineral and Leasing rule establishes a 
preference criterion for leases.

    Question 6. Where do mitigation and restoration leases rank in this 
criterion?

    Question 7. BLM has stated that restoration and mitigation leases 
are only necessary until the land has been restored to a usable 
condition.

    Question 8. What is the measurement criteria that defines when the 
land has been returned to a usable condition?

    Question 9. Years worth of the worst wildfires our country has ever 
seen have proven that hands-off preservation is not a viable land 
management method.

    Question 10. Do you believe that restoration and mitigation lease 
holders should be required to put up a bond for wildfires that occur on 
their lease as a result of mismanagement or no management?

    Question 11. As you know, oil and gas lease sale revenue is split 
roughly 50/50 between states and the federal government. The money 
provided to states is used for education, public safety, and other 
essential services. In the first 3 years of the Trump administration 
the Department held 11 oil and gas lease sales, leasing 221,000 acres, 
bringing in $8.8 million in revenue to the state and federal 
government. In the first 3 years under your control, the Department has 
held 1 lease sale in Colorado, leasing one 290 acre parcel, bringing in 
$1.2 million in revenue to the State and federal government.

    Question 12. How are western states and communities supposed to 
provide essential services to their constituents when you are locking 
up their lands and failing to hold regular lease sales?

    Question 13. It looks like the BLM has one upcoming lease sale in 
Colorado for a paltry 120 acres. This lease sale along with the only 
other lease sale held by this administration neglects the Western 
Slope.

    Question 14. Will you commit to holding a lease sale on the Western 
Slope this year?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher


    Question 1. Just recently, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency (CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
forecasted a very high risk for wildfires in the West this year. This 
is due to low precipitation combined with high fuel mix creating 
significant challenges for rural communities and the electric utilities 
that serve them. In response to this threat, electric cooperatives in 
my district are doing everything within their power to mitigate 
wildfire risks. However, the unpredictable nature of extreme weather 
conditions complicates long-term planning efforts. It's important to 
note that these utilities operate on a non-profit basis, meaning any 
additional expenses incurred ultimately burdens their customers. 
Unfortunately, I've learned that the Bureau of Land Management is 
considering imposing substantial charges on these utilities for using 
power line corridors across BLM lands, nearly totaling $3 million per 
fire incident in strict liability damages. This approach presents a 
severe financial strain for smaller, rural electric cooperatives and 
the communities they serve. Already these utilities are finding it 
difficult to obtain wildfire insurance and such levels of damage could 
bankrupt them. Given the gravity of this situation, I question BLM's 
authority to unilaterally raise strict liability damages for powerline 
coordinators, especially considering the significant risk it imposes on 
utilities.

    1a) Is it BLM's intention to pursue this course of action, and if 
so, would the agency be willing to engage with my office or the 
committee to collaborate with utilities on addressing this issue?

    1b) Under what authority can BLM charge strict liability damages 
and how does the agency justify this one-size-fits-all level of 
damages?

    Question 2. Director Stone-Manning, there is a project in 
Southeastern Idaho under review now by the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) that is of great importance to American agriculture. The project 
is known as the ``Caldwell Canyon Mine'' and the proponent is P4 
Production, L.L.C.

    When complete, Caldwell Canyon Mine will provide the only source of 
elemental phosphorus in the United States (and indeed only source in 
the western hemisphere), which is critically important to our Nation's 
and the world's food supply, along with other important applications. 
It is important to note that P4's current mine, Blackfoot Bridge, is 
nearing the end of its economic life so there is a need to ensure that 
the permitting review of the Caldwell Canyon project is completed in a 
timely fashion.

    In addition to its importance to American agriculture, the Caldwell 
Canyon project is critically important to the Idaho economy. Mining 
operations at the Blackfoot Bridge mine and the processing plant in 
Soda Springs, Idaho support over 1,200 direct jobs, and approximately 
2,000 indirect jobs in the southeastern Idaho region. Once operational, 
the Caldwell Canyon Mine will provide an estimated $115 million in 
direct economic benefits annually in Idaho and about $230 million 
annually in indirect economic benefits. Anticipating over 40 years of 
production at Caldwell, P4 would also pay an estimated $80 to $120 
million to the state and federal governments in royalties for the 
project.

    The BLM has been diligently working on this project for many years. 
I appreciate its focus and dedication in the face of surprising and 
disappointing court decisions by the federal district court in Idaho 
last year--over three and a half years after the BLM's initial 
approvals to proceed--vacating all of the BLM's work and remanding the 
project back to the agency. Of note, the vacatur came after significant 
investment and project development activity.

    As I understand it, part of the problem was that the applicable 
ARMPA standards changed in the midst of the NEPA review and before the 
Record of Decision was issued, causing confusion and delay and as noted 
by the federal court. I am concerned that with the timing of your new 
Greater Sage Grouse plan amendments and the ongoing Caldwell Canyon 
Mine Environmental Impact Statement, that the same thing could happen 
again with changing standards at the last minute after years of review 
disrupting and delaying the permitting process.

    I am also concerned with the impact of the newly released 
Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which I strongly oppose, and 
want to ensure it does not significantly disrupt and delay the Caldwell 
Canyon permitting process.

    2a) Will you ensure that a decision for the Caldwell Canyon Mine 
stays on track with a timely ROD in 2025?

    2b) Will you ensure that any decision to approve the Caldwell 
Canyon Mine is not disrupted again by the Greater Sage Grouse plan 
amendment process? This could be done by including election language 
for Caldwell Canyon in the EIS for the 2024 ARMPA which allows the BLM 
the option to apply either the best combination of old and new ARMPA 
standards that keep the project on schedule and ensure its durability.

    2c) Will you ensure that any decision to approve the Caldwell 
Canyon Mine is not disrupted by the BLM's Conservation and Landscape 
Health rulemaking?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. At the start of this year, the Department's final rule 
for the Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act went into effect. Within this budget request, there is 
$250,000 for NAGPRA in the Cultural Resources Management Program, could 
you share how this funding will be utilized to ensure compliance and 
implementation of the new rule?

    Question 2. There are two provisions under the John D. Dingell, Jr. 
Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act that expressly require the 
Department of the Interior to consult with Indian Tribes demonstrating 
ancestral, cultural, or other ties to the resources within the 
Management Area, to develop a cultural resources survey for the Vinagre 
Wash Special Management Area and a cultural resources management plan 
for the Xam Kwatchan Trail network, both of which are within lands 
managed by BLM.\1\ DOI delegated these responsibilities to BLM through 
Secretarial Order 3374. These requirements were statutorily required to 
be completed by March 2021. Could you provide an update on the status 
of these provisions and how BLM will use congressional appropriations 
to fulfill these statutory obligations?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 410eeee(f)(8); 410aaa-75(d).

    Question 3. BLM's budget requests significant investments to 
support President Biden's agenda, including thoughtful stewardship of 
public lands and water and implementation of the recommendations of the 
Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations, and Permitting. 
The Interagency Working Group report recognizes the challenges Tribes 
face to protect lands beyond their reservation and trust land 
boundaries from harmful mining activities and emphasizes the importance 
of regular, meaningful, and robust tribal consultation to appropriately 
assess the impacts of mining on tribal communities. While I support the 
administration's efforts to implement the recommendations, I often hear 
from Tribes that BLM has not engaged in meaningful tribal consultation 
for lands containing important tangible and intangible cultural 
resources, consequently leading to lands significant to tribal 
communities having been mismanaged and severely damaged by mining and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
other commercial activities.

    3a) Could you briefly explain how BLM will ensure regular, 
meaningful, and robust tribal consultation in implementing the 
recommendations of the Interagency Working Group and prior to project 
approvals that could adversely impact culturally significant areas and 
resources?

    3b) How is BLM utilizing funding and resources to train staff and 
improve implementation and enforcement of its tribal consultation 
policies and procedures?

    3c) What efforts is BLM engaging in to resolve dispute between 
Tribes and the agency, has there been consideration of engaging 
independent, third-party mediators to assist with resolving disputes?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Director Stone-
Manning. I would now like to recognize Representative Bentz to 
introduce our next witness.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my privilege to 
introduce my friend, Director Chuck Sams, today.
    Director Sams is an enrolled member of the Confederated 
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation of Northeast Oregon, 
and is a constituent of mine in Congressional District 2. He 
served as Executive Director for the Confederated Tribes of the 
Umatilla Indian Reservation. He is a U.S. Navy veteran, where 
he served as an intelligence specialist. He holds a bachelor of 
science in business administration from Concordia University, 
and a master of legal studies in Indigenous peoples law from 
the University of Oklahoma School of Law.
    Prior to his appointment to Director of the National Park 
Service, he served as Oregon Governor Kate Brown's appointee to 
the Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council. I was 
proud to support his confirmation as Director of the National 
Park Service.
    Welcome, Director Sams.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Sams, you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHUCK SAMS, III, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK 
   SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC, 
   ACCOMPANIED BY JESSICA BOWRON, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK 
    SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sams. [Speaking Native language.] Thank you, Chair 
Westerman, for meeting with me earlier.
    Thank you, Chair Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, for 
having me here today.
    Thank you, Congressman Bentz. It is always nice to see 
somebody from home, especially eastern Oregon.
    I also want to thank the members of the Subcommittee for 
the opportunity to appear before you on the Fiscal Year 2025 
budget request for the National Park Service. I would like to 
summarize my testimony and submit my entire statement for the 
record.
    The discretionary budget request for the National Park 
Service is $3.6 billion, an increase of $251.3 million compared 
to Fiscal Year 2024 enacted funding. I want to highlight for 
you a few critical components.
    The Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposes $15.1 million in 
increased investments to advance racial justice and equity for 
underserved communities, including the strengthening of Nation-
to-Nation relationships with tribes. This includes an 
additional $3 million for expanded tribal co-stewardship of 
park resources, $1.5 million to increase tourism that benefits 
tribes, $2.5 million in dedicated funding for tribal heritage 
grants, and $1 million for management of subsistence uses of 
National Park Service lands and waters in Alaska.
    The initiative also invests in new parks that expand access 
and tell important stories, like the Emmett Till and Mamie 
Till-Mobley National Monument, the Somerton site expansion of 
Brown versus Board of Education National Historic Park, and the 
Amache National Historic Site. Through these efforts we intend 
to create greater opportunities for underserved communities to 
enjoy and engage in their national parks.
    The Fiscal Year 2025 request also invests $180 million in 
support of operational needs. The National Park Service has 
lost almost 15 percent of its operational capacity since Fiscal 
Year 2010. Over the same period, over 35 units have been added 
to the National Park System, and annual visitation has 
increased by tens of millions. This new funding includes $46 
million in support of the proposed 2025 employee pay raise, as 
well as the $105.8 million in baseline capacity due to the 
absorption of the 2024 pay increases that eroded parks' 
purchasing power. And to help meet this growth in operational 
demand, the budget seeks $11.2 million to address new and 
critical responsibilities across parks and offices, such as 
addressing significant physical security issues at Mount 
Rushmore National Memorial, and providing increased resource 
and visitor protection at Stonewall National Monument.
    The Fiscal Year 2025 budget also proposes $6.8 million in 
wage-grade and locality adjustments to support required 
increases in personnel expenses, and $10 million to restore 
staff capacity lost in Fiscal Year 2024.
    Also, to help prevent the growth of deferred maintenance, 
the request proposes $193.2 million for cyclic maintenance, a 
$5 million increase over Fiscal Year 2024. This funding 
supports projects that address routine maintenance and 
recapitalization needs, and contributes to the National Park 
Service's approach towards life cycle investments that sustain 
assets in the long term.
    Lastly, the budget proposes to invest more than $100 
million across fund sources for housing needs. The National 
Park Service has more than 5,600 housing units across 213 parks 
that house more than 15,000 people. While many of these units 
are in good condition, many have deferred maintenance and 
modernization needs, and the market for housing in gateway 
communities around parks is rapidly changing. There has been an 
increase in both the cost of housing, as well as the use for 
vacation rentals, leading to a lack of affordable and available 
housing for park employees in these communities. In areas that 
have seen significant increases in housing costs, housing is a 
common factor cited in job offer declinations. And some staff 
have been lost due to the housing challenge.
    We take the responsibility of providing sufficient housing 
to our employees seriously. Therefore, the budget also includes 
an increase of $9 million to construct, improve, and modernize 
housing for National Park Service employees. This funding 
increase will support compliance, design, and construction of 
housing units that will replace obsolete and deteriorating 
housing or add housing capacity at multiple parks, including at 
Rocky Mountain National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon Park, 
and Mammoth Cave National Park.
    Finally, I am pleased to update you on our progress to 
implement the Great American Outdoors Act. Funding from the 
Legacy Restoration Fund has provided us almost $3.9 billion for 
deferred maintenance. We have obligated more than $2.1 billion, 
with over 131 projects underway, and more starting this year. 
From the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Park 
Service has received more than $395 million for land 
acquisition activities and over $1 billion for state grant 
programs matched by non-Federal funds, for a total impact of at 
least $2 billion.
    Chairman, this concludes my summary. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today, and for your continued support of 
the National Park Service. I would be happy to answer any 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sams follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Charles F. Sams III, Director, National Park 
                Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
at this oversight hearing on the Fiscal Year 2025 President's Budget 
Request for the National Park Service (NPS).
    I am pleased to share with you the President's Budget Request for 
the NPS, which directly supports the vision and objectives laid out by 
President Biden and Secretary Haaland for the Department of the 
Interior (DOI), as well as my own priorities for the NPS. If enacted, 
this budget will help enable us to support and protect our resources, 
our visitors, and our employees well into the future.

                         FY 2025 Budget Summary

    The FY 2025 discretionary budget request for the NPS is $3.6 
billion, an increase of $251.3 million compared to FY 2024 enacted 
funding levels, supporting an estimated 14,571 full-time equivalents 
(FTE). Recreation fee revenue, funding from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and other mandatory funding sources provide 
additional funding of $1.24 billion. The total FY 2025 request from all 
fund sources for NPS is $4.81 billion and 19,912 FTE.
    The request prioritizes conserving our natural and cultural 
resources, advancing racial equity and support for underserved 
communities. The request balances investments in key priorities with 
necessary funding for day-to-day operation of the 429 park units, 25 
trails, and 66 wild and scenic rivers, ensuring the American public 
continues to have enriching experiences on park lands.
    The request also invests in our most valuable resource--NPS 
employees. My top priority as Director continues to be to connect and 
empower a thriving and diverse workforce, and I believe that funding 
initiatives such as providing quality employee housing and increasing 
parks' capacity to address growing responsibilities directly support 
this goal. To that end, the budget supports an increase of $151.9 
million across all accounts for FY 2025 fixed costs like the 2.0 
percent employee pay increase, and maintaining baseline capacity to 
reflect increased FY 2024 fixed cost requirements. Without full funding 
for these costs, the NPS will continue to absorb these must-pay costs 
by cutting funding for program work or staffing.

    Operation of the National Park System--The FY 2025 budget request 
for the NPS operations account is $3.1 billion, an increase of $201.9 
million above the FY 2024 enacted level, including an increase of $44.0 
million for FY 2025 fixed costs. This includes $431.0 million for 
Resource Stewardship, $299.5 million for Visitor Services, $456.6 
million for Park Protection, $974.0 million for Facility Operations and 
Maintenance, $709.7 million for Park Support, and $219.5 million for 
External Administrative Costs.
    Additionally, in support of our NPS employees and staffing 
capacity, the operations budget provides an additional $28.0 million 
for increasing general staffing capacity, supporting new and critical 
responsibilities at park sites, and increases to wage grade and 
locality pay areas. This funding will increase operating capacity at 
parks and offices with new and critical needs, allow NPS to collaborate 
with the public and Tribal governments, broaden programming and 
maintenance activities, expand our law enforcement presence, and 
improve park safety and security.
    Also, to help prevent the growth of deferred maintenance, the 
account proposes $193.2 million for cyclic maintenance, a $5.0 million 
increase over FY 2024. This funding supports projects that address 
routine maintenance and recapitalization needs, and contributes to the 
NPS' approach toward lifecycle investments that sustain assets in the 
long-term.

    Centennial Challenge--This appropriation, requested at $13.0 
million, leverages partner donations for signature projects and 
programs at national parks. The Centennial Challenge program is 
instrumental in garnering and fostering strong partnerships. All 
Federal funds must be matched on at least a 1 to 1 basis, creating a 
program total of at least $26.0 million. These projects focus on 
repairing and modernizing NPS infrastructure, expanding recreational 
opportunities and access to the public, and developing new and improved 
educational and interpretive programs for visitors.

    National Recreation and Preservation--The FY 2025 budget request 
for the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) appropriation is 
$84.4 million. This appropriation is dedicated to supporting local 
community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources from the 
local level to the international. Natural resource programs funded in 
this account support collaborative and community-driven efforts and 
outcome-focused investments to preserve and enhance rural landscapes, 
urban parks and rivers, important ecosystems, and wildlife habitat. NPS 
cultural programs funded in this account support public participation 
in preserving the Nation's cultural heritage through National Register 
Programs, research and training in historic preservation and 
conservation, and a number of grant programs. The FY 2025 request 
includes an increase of $3.0 million to fund the recently established 
African American Burial Grounds Preservation Grant Program and invests 
additional funding in staffing for grants administration to ensure 
proper management of a growing workload of grants funded through this 
appropriation and the Historic Preservation Fund.
    The request also maintains funding for NR&P programs such as 
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance, National Register 
programs, Chesapeake Gateways and Trails, Native American Graves 
Protection and Repatriation, Japanese American Confinement Sites, 
American Battlefield Protection Program Assistance, American Indian and 
Native Hawaiian Art and Culture, and the 9/11 Memorial Act. NR&P also 
supports the management of the Heritage Partnership Program, which 
distributes Federal funding to 60 National Heritage Areas in 36 States 
and one territory as well as international cooperation on park and 
heritage resource management. While NPS recognized the important role 
of National Heritage Areas as important local conservation leaders, the 
FY 2025 request finds savings of $11.2 million to the Heritage 
Partnership Program along with other budget savings to preserve funding 
for core operations and Administration priorities.

    Historic Preservation Fund--The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) 
supports Historic Preservation Offices in States, territories, and 
Tribal lands to preserve historically and culturally significant sites 
and provides competitive grants to other entities. The FY 2025 budget 
request for this appropriation is $151.4 million. As part of the 
budget's advancement of racial justice and equity for underserved 
communities, the request includes $2.5 million in new, dedicated 
funding for Tribal Heritage Grants to support Federally recognized 
Tribes, Alaska Native Villages and Corporations, and Native Hawaiian 
Organizations to preserve and protect their cultural heritage.
    The President's budget includes $62.2 million for grants to State 
Historic Preservation Offices and $23.0 million to Tribal Historic 
Preservation Offices to help meet preservation responsibilities under 
the National Historic Preservation Act to protect and preserve historic 
resources, based on local needs and priorities. This appropriation also 
includes $11.0 million for grants-in-aid to Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities (HBCUs) to support preservation of historic structures 
on HBCU campuses, $12.5 million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization 
Grants to support subgrant programs for historic preservation projects 
that stimulate economic growth in rural areas, $30.3 million for 
competitive grants to preserve historic sites that tell the stories of 
the struggles for civil rights and equal rights in America, and $10.0 
million for Save America's Treasures grants to support preservation of 
nationally significant sites and collections.

    Construction--The FY 2025 budget request includes $237.2 million to 
fund construction projects, equipment replacement, management, 
planning, operations, and special projects. This includes $124.7 
million for line-item construction, which includes an increase of $46.1 
million for major construction projects, in order to modernize and 
renew some NPS priority assets. This account also includes a $9.0 
million increase to improve and expand NPS housing, a $3.9 million 
increase for Climate Vulnerability Studies, a $3.2 million increase for 
construction project planning, and a $1.0 million increase to help 
establish charging infrastructure that supports the Federal Zero 
Emission Vehicle fleet.

                       FY 2025 Budget Priorities

    Advancing Racial Justice and Equity for Underserved Communities--
The Biden-Harris Administration directs Federal agencies to operate in 
an environment that advances equity for all, including people of color 
and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and 
adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. Consistent 
with that effort, the NPS emphasizes a focus on advancing equity, 
inclusion, and access as we carry out the NPS mission.
    The FY 2025 NPS budget includes an increase of $15.1 million in 
targeted investments to support advancement of racial justice and 
equity for underserved communities. This increase is spread across 
multiple appropriations. The request proposes $3.1 million and 22 FTE 
in the Biden-Harris Administration's Increasing Representation on Our 
Public Lands initiative, which supports operations at new or expanded 
park sites like Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley National Historic 
Site, Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park's Summerton 
South Carolina unit, New Philadelphia National Historic Site, Blackwell 
School National Historic Site, and Amache National Historic Site. This 
effort also includes $3.0 million to implement the recently established 
African American Burial Grounds Preservation Program, $250,000 for the 
newly established Japanese American World War II History Network, and 
$500,000 to address the growing workload of grants management.
    The NPS's commitment to respect and strengthen connections with 
Indigenous communities, enhance our nation-to-nation relationships, and 
fully uphold our trust and treaty responsibilities--another top 
priority for the Service--is reflected in our request for an additional 
$3.0 million to support expanded Tribal co-stewardship of park 
resources, $1.5 million to implement the Native American Tourism 
Improving Visitor Experience Act (NATIVE Act) to support tourism that 
benefits Tribes, $1.0 million to support the management of subsistence 
uses of NPS lands in Alaska, $250,000 for a new Native American Graves 
Protection Act (NAGPRA) national program coordinator, and $2.5 million 
to provide dedicated funding for competitive grants to Tribes, Alaska 
Native Villages and Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations for 
the preservation and protection of their cultural heritage.

    Ensuring Operational Capacity in the National Park System--The NPS 
has lost almost 15 percent of its operations staff capacity since FY 
2010. Over the same period, over 35 new units and additional authorized 
sites have been added to the system, existing units have seen 
responsibilities grow, and visitation has increased by tens of 
millions. To meet this demonstrated and anticipated additional demand, 
the FY 2025 budget proposes $180.0 million and 944 FTE spread across 
multiple appropriations in support of several priorities. These 
increases provide vital support to parks and programs to advance 
priorities and fulfil important responsibilities.
    The budget requests $151.9 million to support basic operational 
capacity needs associated with increases in fixed costs. $46.1 million 
of this request will support the proposed 2025 fixed costs increase 
including the employee pay raise, while $105.8 million will support 
baseline capacity due to absorption of FY 2024 fixed cost requirements. 
An additional $11.2 million and 69 FTE will support new and critical 
responsibilities at park units and central offices, such as addressing 
significant physical security issues at Mount Rushmore National 
Memorial and providing increased resource and visitor protection at 
Stonewall National Monument. The FY 2025 budget proposes $6.8 million 
in Wage Grade and Locality Adjustments to support required increases in 
personnel expenses and $10.0 million for staff capacity restoration.

    Employee Housing--To address this very critical need, the FY 2025 
budget proposal invests more than $100 million in housing for NPS 
employees across multiple fund sources, including a $9.0 million 
proposed increase in the Construction account that would directly 
support new construction or rehabilitation of existing housing 
facilities. Housing for employees in and near national parks is 
increasingly scarce and expensive, reflecting a trend impacting 
communities across the country; this has led to long commutes and has 
made it difficult for NPS to recruit and retain employees. This funding 
increase will support compliance, design, and construction of housing 
units that will replace obsolete and deteriorated housing or add 
housing capacity at multiple parks, including at Rocky Mountain 
National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and Mammoth 
Cave National Park.

    Additional Priorities--The 2025 President's Budget contains 
additional increases that support key NPS priorities. To mitigate the 
impacts of climate change, this includes an increase of $2.5 million to 
invest in conservation and climate-based projects that will include 
management and control of non-native invasive species, restoration of 
damaged ecosystems, or mitigation of threats to at-risk resources. And, 
to further strengthen the Department's ability to meet its conservation 
mission in the face of a changing climate, the NPS budget includes 
$250,000 as part of a total $1.0 million increase Department-wide to 
establish experts in NPS and other DOI bureaus to implement a nature-
based solutions policy. To assess the impacts of a changing climate on 
parks, the budget requests an additional $3.9 million to conduct 
climate vulnerability studies. The budget also includes $4.0 million 
for Zero Emission Vehicle equipment and infrastructure deployment, 
which is used to increase electrical supply and access for electric 
vehicle supply equipment, and coordinates installation to ensure the 
Department can maximize the use of these charging stations.
    The NPS request also includes a $15.4 million investment in Central 
Information Technology (IT) needs. This funding will invest in IT 
modernization, the IT workforce, and critical IT infrastructure needs 
in order to meet growing cybersecurity requirements. Additional funding 
will preclude these costs from being billed to park and program 
budgets, which would further erode their operational capacity.
    Additionally, the request includes $1.0 million in new funding to 
implement recommendations of the DOI Law Enforcement Task Force to 
proactively support the mental health, wellness, and resiliency of all 
DOI law enforcement officers from recruitment to retirement. This 
funding would also provide additional psychological testing, required 
for all newly hired law enforcement officers. The request also contains 
a one-time investment of $4.2 million for activities associated with 
the 2025 Presidential Inauguration.

                               Conclusion

    The President's FY 2025 budget proposal supports President Biden's 
commitment to respecting and strengthening our connections with 
underserved communities, mitigating the impacts of climate change, and 
restoring parks' abilities to protect our shared cultural and natural 
heritage.
    Chairman Tiffany, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today and for the Subcommittee's continued support of the NPS. I 
would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Chuck Sams, 
                    Director, National Park Service

The Honorable Chuck Sams did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. It is our understanding that the National Park Service 
(NPS), to date, has spent less than 3 percent of the funds it received 
from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was 
specifically earmarked for hiring new employees. I've been told that 
NPS has spent less than $13 million so far. Yet, I continue to hear 
time and again from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and 
from NPS itself, that NPS needs more money for hiring.

    1a) How do you reconcile these conflicting facts?

    1b) Please provide a full accounting of the money spent from the 
IRA on hiring new employees.

    1c) Of the funds that were spent, what positions were filled across 
the agency?

    Question 2. Does the NPS have the authority to change the 
regulations for concessioners to update thresholds on audits and fees 
to reflect inflation? Right now, concessioners must pay for audits if 
their income is above $500,000. This hasn't been adjusted in decades, 
meaning more and more small concessioners are subject to this 
regulation due to inflation, not actual growth. Have you considered how 
inflation is impacting the concessioners' fees and auditing 
requirements? Please explain.

    Question 3. Your submitted testimony states: ``An additional $11.2 
million and 69 [full-time equivalents (FTE)] will support new and 
critical responsibilities at park units and central offices, such as 
addressing significant physical security issues at Mount Rushmore 
National Memorial . . .''

    3a) Will you describe what ``significant physical security issues'' 
there are at Mount Rushmore?

    3b) Please describe why the current level of security, law 
enforcement agents, and infrastructure (including fences, cameras, 
etc.) are not adequate to address the ``significant physical security 
issues.''

    3c) How much of the $11.2 million and 69 FTE are requested 
specifically for Mount Rushmore National Memorial?

    Question 4. The lease for the migrant encampment at Floyd Bennett 
Field ends on September 14, 2024.

    4a) Will you commit to promptly informing the Committee once a 
decision is made on the renewal of the lease?

    4b) Will you commit to ensuring that no other units of the National 
Park System are used as locations for migrant encampments?

    Question 5. What were the staffing levels at Gateway National 
Recreation Area in New York City on September 1, 2023?

    Question 6. What were the staffing levels at Gateway National 
Recreation Area in New York City on May 15, 2024?

    Question 7. Included in the priority project request under Great 
American Outdoor Act for the NPS was $40 million in repairs for the 
Gateway National Recreation Area, which includes Floyd Bennett Field.

    7a) Will housing 2,000 migrants at Floyd Bennett Field impact the 
timeline of completing this work?

    7b) Will any of the $40 million be used to repair damages to the 
recreation area caused by housing migrants?

    7c) Will any of these funds be used to construct or improve housing 
for illegal migrants?

    Question 8. Have you been to Floyd Bennet Field and seen the 
migrant camps established under the lease from the NPS and the city of 
New York?

    Question 9. In response to questioning about reported criminal 
activity at Floyd Bennett Field, including arrests for assault and 
domestic violence, you stated that the information you have received 
from U.S. Park Police ``is mostly around unregistered cars that we're 
seeing and some minor, petty stuff.'' Is the NPS unaware of the 
numerous violent crimes that have been reported at Floyd Bennett Field 
since it was turned into a migrant housing facility?

    Question 10. Please provide reports of all instances in which U.S. 
Park Police responded to reported crimes at Floyd Bennett Field since 
November 2023.

    Question 11. The NPS stated in its FY 2025 budget justification 
that units along the U.S.-Mexico border ``consistently experience 
serious resource damage due to illegal cross-border activities 
traversing the parks.''

    11a) Have you spoken with Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas on 
ways to secure federal border lands?

    11b) If not, will you commit to doing so, and by when?

    11c) Have you met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
agents about how to improve operational control of federal borderlands 
and protect the life and safety of officers?

    Question 12. Chairman Tiffany asked you ``how much is the National 
Park Service proposing for the Southwest Border Resource Protection 
Program?'' In response, you asked for the assistance of an aide and 
then responded, ``approximately $1 million.'' In fact, the total 
request is $693,000, so your answer inflated the true value by more 
than 44 percent. Does NPS believe that it should be spending at least 
$370,000 more on this program?

    Question 13. CBS News reported that the remains of two suspected 
border crossers who likely died from heat exposure were found in the 
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in July 2023. How many migrants and 
suspected migrants have died on NPS lands along the U.S.-Mexico border 
since 2021? Please provide annual totals.

    Question 14. Please provide all data that the NPS collected for FY 
2021, 2022, and 2023 on trash that is illegally discarded on NPS-
administered lands along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Question 15. Does the NPS conduct any trash-collection activities 
on NPS-administered lands along the U.S.-Mexico border? Please describe 
such activities in detail, including the number conducted each year 
from FY 2021 to FY 2023.

    Question 16. How much funding has the NPS spent to initiate, 
administer, and grow the 30x30 initiative?

    Question 17. By the end of FY 2023, the NPS had a $23.3 billion 
deferred maintenance backlog on its existing lands. Yet 
conservation.gov asserts that the U.S. will need to bring about ``rapid 
accelerations'' in conservation efforts to meet the goals of the Biden 
administration's 30x30 initiative.

    17a) Is it wise for the NPS to engage in expanded preservation 
efforts, when it currently has a large deferred maintenance backlog?

    17b) Should the NPS refrain from acquiring more conservation 
acreage until the backlog is eliminated or substantially reduced? If 
not, please explain why not.

    Question 18. In numerous places throughout the budget, NPS 
justifies cutting various programs to ``preserve funding for 
Administration priorities.'' In each place this appears, please provide 
a justification for why this program is being cut and what 
``Administration priority it is funding instead:

    18a) National Capital Performing Arts Program

    18b) Quagga and Zebra Mussels Management Projects

    18c) Repair and Rehabilitation Projects

    18d) GPS Modernization

    18e) Centennial Challenge

    18f) Heritage Partnership Programs Commissions and Grants

    18g) Semiquincentennial Preservation Grants

    18h) Save America's Treasures Grants

    18i) Abandoned Mineral Lands

    Question 19. Do repair and rehabilitation projects prevent 
infrastructure from eventually being added to the deferred maintenance 
backlog?

    Question 20. How will reducing $25 million in funding for repair 
and rehabilitation projects eventually affect the deferred maintenance 
backlog?

    Question 21. The budget states that a $2 million cut to the 
Centennial Challenge Fund will result in eight fewer projects. Please 
list which projects would not receive funding.

    Question 22. The budget states that there will be an $11 million 
reduction in the Heritage Partnership Programs Commission and Grants 
account and yet each organization that previously received funding will 
continue to do so. Please provide a breakdown of the funding reduction 
anticipated for each individual Heritage Area.

    Question 23. How much money is NPS planning to allocate in FY 2025 
to Giant Sequoia restoration and resiliency projects?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

    Question 1. On November 6, 2023, leadership from the Voyageurs 
National Park (``Voyageurs'') sent a note to all Commercial Use 
Authorization (CUA) holders outlining policy changes the National Park 
Service (NPS) were making relating to the CUA application process 
beginning for the 2024 season, with additional changes planned for the 
2025 season. These CUA application changes included increasing fees, 
removing the ability of vendors to bundle applications and associated 
fees for multiple activities, as well as moving from a rolling 
application process to a defined three-month application window. As a 
result of these changes and increased fees, many CUA applicants will be 
required to pay anywhere from several hundred to several thousands of 
dollars in additional application fees. Additionally, should a CUA 
applicant fail to submit their application during the defined 
application window or have their application denied, they will be 
unable to provide recreational activities to the public until the 
following season.

    1a) How are these changes consistent with the NPS's stated mission 
to preserve the national and cultural resources and values of the 
National Park System, to ``cooperate with partners to extend the 
benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor 
recreation throughout this country and the world?'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

    1b) Has the NPS evaluated the impact that these policy changes will 
have on the public's visitation and accessibility by the public to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyageurs and other properties within the National Park System?

    1c) If the number of approved CUA holders, or the number of 
activities offered by approved CUA holders, decreases as a result of 
these policy changes, what actions will the NPS take to ensure the 
public continues to have the same level of access and recreational 
opportunities at Voyageurs and other properties within the National 
Park System?

    Question 2. As part of the November 6, 2023 communication from the 
Voyageurs leadership, CUA applicants were notified that they would be 
required to complete the ``2023 Annual Report'' form along with their 
completed 2024 CUA application. The ``2023 Annual Report'' requires the 
disclosure of several pieces of sensitive financial information, 
including relating to receipts and income from CUA holders business 
operations.

    2a) What is the NPS justification for the collection of this 
sensitive financial information?

    2b) How is this information utilized by the NPS, including but not 
limited to the evaluation of a CUA holder's application?

    2c) Is this information shared beyond the NPS? Is this information 
kept confidential?

    2d) What safeguards are in place to ensure this information is kept 
secure by the NPS?

           Questions Submitted by Representative Malliotakis

    Question 1. What is the National Park Service's plan for addressing 
the significant erosion problem at Great Kills Park, Staten Island, 
which is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area and overseen by 
the National Park Service?

    Question 2. What specific plans are currently in development to 
mitigate this erosion?

    Question 3. What is the timeline for completing these plans?

    Question 4. How does the National Park Service plan to engage the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in this project?

    Question 5. Could you provide a detailed history of the erosion 
issue at Great Kills Park?

    Question 6. How long has this erosion been a known problem?

    Question 7. What is the timeline for addressing the erosion issue 
at the beach?

    Question 8. Why has there been a lack of communication between the 
National Park Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding 
this issue?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. At the start of this year, the Department's final rule 
for the Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act went into effect. Within this budget request, there is 
$250,000 for NAGPRA in the Cultural Resource Stewardship Program, could 
you share how this funding will be utilized to ensure compliance and 
implementation of the new rule?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Director Sams. We will 
now move on to questioning at this point, and I am going to 
begin the questioning here of our witnesses.
    Director Sams, your agency manages 195 miles of land along 
the southern border. Have you visited the southern border in 
your capacity as Director?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir. Most recently, last year, I went and 
visited Saguaro National Park, and was able to talk about 
border issues both with the Tohono O'odham Tribe and with my 
staff.
    Mr. Tiffany. And have you seen the impact of the garbage 
that is being dropped at the southern border by illegal 
immigrants?
    Mr. Sams. I am very concerned about that same thing, sir, 
and I thank you for the question.
    Yes, we are very aware of the amount of impact we are 
seeing on the southern border with the amount of trash. We work 
continuously to ensure the safe environment for our visitors 
down there and for staff alike in working to resolve those 
issues.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director Stone-Manning, your agency manages 
173 miles of land on the southern border. Have you visited the 
southern border as a director?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I have.
    Mr. Tiffany. You have visited? And have you seen the 
environmental devastation that is going on on the southern 
border like I have?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I didn't see a lot of 
trash. I did see some clean-up work necessary from the previous 
administration's construction projects.
    Mr. Tiffany. Oh, I see, it was the previous 
administration's fault that there are 193 tons of garbage that 
had been dropped on the Federal lands. Is that what you are 
saying?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. No, Congressman, I am saying I didn't 
witness that trash.
    Mr. Tiffany. You didn't witness that trash?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I didn't.
    Mr. Tiffany. I have seen it a couple times when I have been 
down to Arizona, including recently, about a month and a half 
ago.
    In your opening statement, you say that one of the things 
that you seek to do is to conserve and protect the environment 
of the Bureau of Land Management lands that you manage. Is that 
preserving and protecting them, by allowing this dumping of 
waste on the BLM lands and then not picking it up?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, Congressman, there is no doubt that 
illegal trash dumping is a problem all across our public lands. 
I just met yesterday with some folks from New Mexico, the 
Tetsuki Pueblo, who are very concerned about the amount of 
trash on the Caha. Idaho has a Don't Dump on Idaho PSA campaign 
running. It is, unfortunately, a real problem all across our 
public lands, with people disrespecting them, and we are doing 
as much as we can to ensure that we stop that behavior.
    Mr. Tiffany. You are doing as much as you can? How many 
dollars did you allocate for this in the Bureau of Land 
Management budget?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't have that number 
before me.
    Mr. Tiffany. I do. Zero. You put zero down. So, it is a 
priority, but you don't put any money towards it. Is that what 
you are saying?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we pick up hundreds and 
thousands of pounds of garbage every year on our public lands.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you met with Secretary Mayorkas about 
this problem?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I have not met the Secretary.
    Mr. Tiffany. When you appeared for confirmation before the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you made the following 
statement: ``If I am confirmed as BLM Director, I will work 
with the Department of Homeland Security and other relevant 
departments and agencies as appropriate to address border-
related issues on the public lands.''
    It has now been 951 days since you were confirmed. Were you 
lying to Senator Barrasso and the Senate when you said that you 
were going to work with Homeland Security to deal with this 
problem?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I know the many BLM staff 
who dedicate their work day in and day out along our southern 
border work daily with the Department of Homeland Security.
    Mr. Tiffany. But you haven't.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I have not had direct interaction with 
the Secretary, who is a very busy man.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management, 173 miles of southern border lands, and this is not 
a priority, with nearly 200 tons of trash being dropped as a 
result of illegal immigration. And you are supposed to be 
preserving and protecting our best lands in the United States 
of America?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is a really important 
issue all across our public lands, and our staff works on it 
each and every day.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director Sams, how much is an electric 
vehicle? How much does it cost to buy an electric vehicle?
    Mr. Sams. It depends on the type. If we are talking light 
utility vehicle or just a car, it can cost anywhere between 
$25,000 to as much as $80,000.
    Mr. Tiffany. Kelley Blue Book says, on average, it is about 
$54,000. Does that sound about right?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. How much is the National Park Service 
proposing for the Southwest Border Resource Protection Program?
    Mr. Sams. Approximately $1 million.
    Mr. Tiffany. $1 million?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. How much of that is an increase?
    Mr. Sams. About $8,000, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, about $8,000 more, but the budget includes 
$4.2 million for electric vehicles?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, so the electric vehicles are more 
important than our southern border?
    Mr. Sams. Oh, we are not saying that at all, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. I will yield back. I have exceeded my time. 
Next, I will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Levin, for 5 
minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to shift 
gears entirely.
    I am first going to say it is nice to see Director Stone-
Manning and Director Sams. Thank you for all your good work. I 
really appreciate everything you are doing for so many critical 
initiatives to help protect our public lands, promote domestic 
clean energy production, and provide outdoor recreation 
opportunities. I want to take a moment to commend you and the 
Administration for advancing historic action on climate change 
and conservation, commensurate with what this moment demands.
    Director Stone-Manning, I would like to begin with you and 
speak about legislation I have introduced with Representative 
Casten, Ranking Member Grijalva, and many of my colleagues on 
the Democratic side of the aisle, the Clean Electricity and 
Transmission Acceleration Act. This legislation includes an 
entire title to improve renewable energy development on Federal 
public lands, which mirrors my standalone bill, the Public Land 
Renewable Energy Development Act.
    And since we are talking about appropriations for the 
agency today, at least I think that is why we are supposed to 
be here, I want to dive into a specific piece of the 
legislation, which is revenue sharing. Director Stone-Manning, 
is it true that a portion of the receipts from oil and gas 
rents and fees for drilling permits are automatically 
reinvested in a special permit processing program?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. It is.
    Mr. Levin. And per the BLM's budget justification, this 
program is just for oil and gas permitting improvement, not 
renewable energy permitting improvement. Is that right?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is correct.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. It is my understanding that this 
program, known as the Permit Processing Improvement Fund, has 
in some cases helped BLM to better staff certain field offices 
where applications to drill for oil and gas are most 
concentrated, so the agency can process permits in a timely 
manner.
    But when it comes to renewable energy, there is no such 
permit processing improvement fund, is there?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is correct.
    Mr. Levin. And legislation would be necessary to create 
one, correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Correct.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. Right now, 100 percent of the 
revenues from acreage rents, megawatt capacity fees, bonus 
bids, and other fees from renewable energy development on 
public lands just go straight back to Treasury. But I think 
that this current structure misses out on a very important 
opportunity. My bills, both CETA and PLREDA, include a 
provision to split these revenues four ways between states, 
counties, permit processing, and conservation efforts, paired 
with recreational access.
    Director Stone-Manning, according to your testimony, as of 
April 2024 there are 65 utility-scale renewable energy projects 
under review by BLM, representing more than 32 gigawatts of 
potential capacity to power millions of homes and create 
thousands of jobs. Can you speak to how mandatory funding for 
wind and solar permit processing could help your agency tackle 
all of these applications?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question. 
Not only would it help the BLM staffers who are hard at work 
every day with big stacks of projects on their desks, but I 
think it would also be very important to the local communities 
in which these projects are placed. It would mirror the oil and 
gas program so that local counties and states could receive 
revenue from the great power that we are generating from hot 
water, the sun, and wind.
    Mr. Levin. So, am I correct in understanding that Federal 
revenue from oil and gas leasing is partially dispersed to the 
states where production is located?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is correct.
    Mr. Levin. And the same is not true for renewable energy 
production on public lands.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is correct.
    Mr. Levin. So, I think, at the very least, we ought to 
ensure that the Federal Government treats wind and solar on par 
with oil and gas. Oil and gas revenue is shared with 
communities, reinvested in permit processing, all while the 
fossil fuel companies are making record profits and they are 
enjoying structural benefits. They continue to enjoy structural 
benefits in our system that have been built in over the last 
century.

    I would like to enter into the record a white paper from 
Harvard discussing these issues more in depth.

    And just in closing, Director Stone-Manning, I really 
appreciate all you and your team are doing to try to level the 
playing field with the two roles that your agency has 
finalized, but there is clearly more to be done legislatively. 
I am committed to ensuring that happens so that responsible 
wind and solar development can happen at scale, and I hope to 
work with my colleagues to bring parity to our energy resources 
and balance the use of our public lands so that generations to 
come can continue to enjoy them.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent 
to enter that into the record?
    Mr. Levin. I would love unanimous consent to enter this 
into the record, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Tiffany. It is so ordered.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               *****


The full document is available for viewing at:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/
dtingley/files/federal_land_and_revenue_return.pdf

                                ------                                

    Mr. Tiffany. We now turn to Representative Lamborn for his 
5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Sams, I totally appreciate our national parks. I 
have been to 300 units of the National Park System.
    Recently, Secretary Haaland testified in front of this 
Committee. And in Colorado alone, where I have my congressional 
district, there is a deferred maintenance backlog in repairs 
that total $558 million. I asked her specifically if NPS is 
considering looking to the concessionaire industry to support 
any of these important capital investment needs. Has she spoken 
to you about this?
    And can you answer where NPS is in leveraging the 
concessionaire industry? Concessionaires are willing to make 
long-term investments if NPS has the vision to utilize this 
resource.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. The Secretary and I have 
spoken about this before, and we see our concessionaires 
exactly as that, helping with capitalization. They have done a 
wonderful job across the Service in helping us really protect 
some of our more iconic buildings, everything from the hotels 
at Yosemite and Yellowstone and everywhere in between.
    I have had some really great discussions with several of 
our concessionaires about that and what that looks like, and we 
look forward to continuing to partner with them in that, 
opportunities to do that capitalization.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, and I was pleased to see that the 
rulemaking process earlier this year finalized a rule that 
updates the contracting process for concessionaires. I am 
concerned about transparency. And will you commit to making 
sure there is even more transparency in this process going 
forward?
    Mr. Sams. I welcome the opportunity to work with you on 
that transparency issue. I am trying to make sure, as we are 
modernizing our business practices, which is one of seven of my 
initiatives that I have laid out before the staff, that is one 
of them, ensuring that it is very transparent. But if you see 
any issues in that, I am happy to work with you and your staff 
on that.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you so much, I appreciate that.
    Director Stone-Manning, I would like to ask you some 
questions about the so-called Landscape and Conservation Health 
Rule which refers to mitigation and restoration leases. These 
have no acreage limits. And I am concerned. How will BLM 
determine an adequate price per acre for these mitigation and 
restoration leases?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    What these mitigation and restoration leases are going to 
enable us to do is ensure that investment can come onto public 
lands to restore them so that they are healthy for future 
generations. We are currently working on guidance on what kind 
of rents we would charge for those, and what they would cost.
    Mr. Lamborn. Will they be paying royalties like oil and gas 
leases currently do?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, no, they will be charged 
rent and there will be bonding.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. Now, what mechanism is in place to ensure 
that environmentalists, including some of the extreme groups 
out there, will use their 501(c)(3)'s to generate massive, 
donation-based funding to lock up tens or hundreds of thousands 
of acres of land?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, again, I need to be clear. 
These leases are not going to lock up land. Other uses will be 
available and allowed on the leases that are compatible, and we 
will use the same adjudication process for all of our right-of-
ways that we will use for leases. And that stems from 43 CFR 
2920.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. The BLM's fluid, mineral, and leasing rule 
establishes a preference criterion for leases. Where do 
mitigation and restoration leases rank in this criterion, in 
this order of priority?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, valid existing rights on 
leases will go forward. So, if there is a valid existing right 
out there, we have 10 million acres that are currently leased 
but not being used, that right would hold over the restoration 
or the mitigation. We would look elsewhere to put a restoration 
and mitigation lease.
    Mr. Lamborn. BLM has stated that these leases are only 
going to be necessary until the land has been restored to a 
usable condition. What will be the measurement criteria that 
defines when the land has been returned to a usable condition?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you for that question. We do 
assessment and inventorying and monitoring as part of our daily 
work to have a real understanding of the ecosystems in which we 
work. It will be science and data that drive the answer to that 
question.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. Lastly, on a slightly different subject, 
under the Biden administration we have not had lease sales 
except for one in Colorado in the last 3 years. Will you commit 
to holding a lease sale on the Western Slope this year in 
Colorado?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, it is my understanding that 
due to litigation, we have not been leasing on the Western 
Slope because so much of it is tied up in litigation.
    Mr. Lamborn. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I will now recognize 
Ms. Porter for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. People love our national parks. Republicans, 
kids, adults. Some of our greatest national treasures are 
parks, not only for the natural beauty they provide, but also 
for the history that they preserve.
    Director Sams, do you know of anyone who hates the national 
parks? Have you encountered people like that in your service?
    Mr. Sams. I have not, Madam Congresswoman, not at all.
    Ms. Porter. I have not, either. But sadly for all of us, 
our national parks have been increasingly harmed by wildfire. 
California has seen devastating wildfires in the last decade in 
our national parks. Forests have been destroyed. Wildlife has 
been vanquished, relocated, and historic structures have 
burned.
    [Slide.]
    Ms. Porter. And I want to show people what this looks like. 
These are tragic images. We should all be able to agree that 
these are tragic images.
    And we all know now, I want to be clear about this, we all 
understand that fires are, to a certain extent, an essential 
part of forest management. They are a natural part of forest 
management. But we want our parks to be resilient. Mr. Sams, 
can you tell me, just yes or no, does the National Park Service 
have a fire resilience plan to address situations like this?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, we do.
    Ms. Porter. You do? Of course you do. Of course you do, 
because everyone loves the national parks, and nobody wants to 
see these kinds of harms.
    Mr. Sams, what is the one big thing that Congress can do to 
help aid wildfire resilience? When we see these images, when 
our constituents see these images, what do they need their 
Representatives to do?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
Additional resources, the national----
    Ms. Porter. Money. Let me just stop you right there, 
because I am going to ask you what you are going to do with the 
money in just a minute.
    But I want to be really clear: money. They don't need us 
suiting up and showing up, trying to fight the fire. Social 
media posts don't put out wildfires or replant forests. They 
need money. Congress can provide the resources.
    Now, fortunately, last Congress, thanks to Democrats and 
President Biden, we passed two laws: the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, and there were Republicans who supported 
that, and the Inflation Reduction Act. Each law invests $5 
billion into Federal wildland fire management. This is because, 
just like I said, people love parks, and we want them to be 
open.
    Mr. Sams, how is the money that you said you need and that 
Congress has allocated, how are you using that to restore 
national parks that have been harmed by wildfires?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have been allocated 
$105 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for fuels 
reduction and post-fire restoration and rehabilitation 
activities that will mitigate the damaging effects of the 
wildfires and set landscapes on a path towards natural recovery 
and climate resilience. This includes planting of native and 
non-native species to restore or establish healthy, stable 
ecosystems, and re-establishing burned habitat, and re-
establishing native trees lost in the fire.
    Ms. Porter. So, you are putting these dollars to great use. 
You have led a major effort to restore, for example, historic 
sequoia trees in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park in 
California that burned in 2020 and 2021. I have been there 
myself unable repeatedly to visit Kings Canyon, because it is 
still being affected by fire and storms.
    How exactly does investing in these efforts promote 
wildfire resilience? You have talked about kind of repairing 
and restoring, but how about making things more resilient?
    Mr. Sams. The funding helps us really look at how we are 
moving forward in the face of climate change. What are the 
species of plants that were out there?
    In my own experience in working with tribes, and 
understanding Indigenous knowledge, and how we have used that, 
we, as American Indians, have seen climate change over the last 
30,000 years happen at least three, if not four times, and we 
have enough knowledge and understanding of what we can do to 
help build a more resilient future.
    Ms. Porter. Can you continue to do this work without the 
$105.3 million?
    Can you do this just by waving a wand? Is there a way to do 
this without spending money?
    Mr. Sams. Absolutely not. We need the funding in order to 
be able to combat this issue.
    Ms. Porter. And Mr. Sams, can you tell me which political 
party proposed a budget that would cut funding for wildfire 
resilience?
    Mr. Sams. Ma'am, it was the Republican side.
    Ms. Porter. It was not the Biden administration. Their 
budget has these funds in it. So, when we look at these 
pictures, like most Americans, what I feel is I feel love for 
our national parks and recreation lands, and I feel a desire to 
protect them. But apparently not House Republicans. They look 
at these pictures and they don't seemingly feel anything at 
all. They just see an opportunity to attack our national parks.
    When we cut funding, we are hurting parents who have saved 
all year to take their kids or grandkids camping. We are 
devastating our recreation economies and we are putting lives 
at risk. Fully funding the National Park Service and BLM, 
protecting those investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, it is critical to the survival of our parks.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize the 
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his 
questions.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and I want to 
echo my colleague from California's concern on wildfire and for 
the sequoias, and remind you we have a bipartisan bill called 
the Save Our Sequoias Act. We would love to have you on that.
    And also, if we would do a little bit more management, we 
wouldn't have to spend so much money on wildfires and the 
damage that they do. It is really a great example of how an 
ounce of prevention is worth many, many pounds of cure when it 
comes to our forests.
    But Director Sams, it is good to see you again. I enjoyed 
our meeting last week with some of my folks from Arkansas with 
the Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism, with Secretary 
Lewis, Heritage Division Director Ryall, and First Gentleman 
Bryan Sanders to discuss outdoor recreation opportunities in 
Arkansas, and to talk about the ways the state can partner with 
the National Park Service on promoting tourism, and how the 
states and the Federal land agencies could work together and 
benefit both.
    As we discussed and I mentioned in my opening remarks, I 
know we had a chance to talk about the Buckstaff bathhouse, and 
that may sound like a pet project because it is one in the 
national park in my hometown, but it is also concerning to know 
that there were plans to shut down a facility that would cause 
37 people to lose their jobs. And this bathhouse has been open 
since 1912, the Buckstaff has. I know you were going to look 
into that. I just wanted to get an update to see if you can 
tell me if those folks are going to be able to keep their job 
and maybe do a little different planning on how to install the 
HVAC, which is obviously needed and appreciated.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening the meeting last week. It was a pleasure to meet 
several of your folks from your home state and have discussions 
with them. And I have met several of them before. And even 
through social media we continue to visit with each other to 
talk about what a wonderful asset we have there for folks to 
enjoy.
    We are continuing to work on that issue, to figure out how 
best to ensure that we are not going to lose that staff, 
including discussion even now on how much longer we can extend 
that particular concessionaire's contract.
    We have not gone out for a total bid yet to talk about who 
we are going to end up working with, especially on the HVAC 
system, to determine how we can do a work-around so that folks 
can continue to do their work.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes. As an engineer in my former life, I can 
tell you there are multiple ways to do that, and I am pretty 
sure people put HVAC systems in before without having to lose 
their whole workforce.
    Now, turning to a different direction, we have talked a lot 
about Floyd Bennett Field. I made a trip up there, met with 
your colleagues on that Park Service facility. And maybe I am 
not too good at reading people, but I think I could see in the 
faces of those folks up there that they weren't real happy 
about making their national park a migrant shelter. And I 
really believe that was way above the level of the Park 
Service. I believe that decision was made way above the level 
of the Interior Department. The more we research this, the more 
that it appears it was Department of Homeland Security working 
directly with the White House that forced this migrant shelter 
to be built on Park Service land. And amazingly, we saw our so-
called bedrock environmental laws waived within a week or two 
so that this construction could happen.
    I know that that lease ends on September 14 of this year. 
Can you commit to not renewing that lease, or is that above 
your level of commitment?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Within the lease it does allow for a 1-year extension of 
that lease, but I can assure you I am currently in no 
discussions or negotiations with the city of New York about 
that extension at this time.
    Mr. Westerman. So, can you commit that no other national 
parks are turned into migrant encampments?
    Mr. Sams. Mr. Chairman, I know that you have asked for a 
lot of information on this, and we have provided that. I don't 
have the most current information in front of me, but I am 
happy to get back to you on that particular question.
    Mr. Westerman. As the weather is getting nicer, and local 
New Yorkers are looking to get outside and use recreational 
sites and facilities including the beach at Floyd Bennett 
Field, can you commit to at least increasing the police 
presence there at this site to ensure the safety of local 
residents?
    Mr. Sams. Under the lease agreement we have been able to 
add additional patrols from the U.S. Park Police, who are 
helping on those issues and providing security and safe 
enjoyment of the park. It is, specifically under the lease, the 
New York City Police Department's responsibility for the 
migrant camp itself. But we will continue to ensure that all of 
our visitors are safe within our parks.
    Mr. Westerman. There have been multiple arrests at the 
Floyd Bennett Field facility, for instance, ranging from 
assault to domestic violence. Since those reports have come 
out, what has the Park Service done to protect the safety of 
Park Service employees and local residents?
    Mr. Sams. For the latest data, I can't speak, Mr. Chairman, 
I can't speak to it directly. And I am happy to talk to you in 
more detail and provide you written information about where we 
are at in that.
    But I recognize that, just from the information I have 
received from the park police is that it is mostly around 
unregistered cars that we are seeing, and some minor, petty 
stuff. But I am happy to get you a more detailed report.
    Mr. Westerman. All right, I would like to see that.
    Also included in the priority project request under the 
Great American Outdoors Act for the National Park Service there 
was $40 million in repairs for the Gateway National Recreation 
Area, which includes Floyd Bennett Field. Will putting 2,000 
migrants at Floyd Bennett Field impact the timeline of 
completing this work?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you. I don't believe it will at this time. 
Those projects are part of our deferred maintenance package 
that have been on for a long time and made the business case, 
and we will continue to work forward to ensure that those 
investments are placed in the park for everyone's enjoyment.
    Mr. Westerman. And Mr. Chairman, I thought the clock was 
going the other way. I yield back the microphone because I am 
way out of time. Thank you for your indulgence.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Chairman yields, and now I recognize Mr. 
McClintock for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I need to offer a word in response to the opening 
statement by the Ranking Member. He obsesses over a 1 degree 
increase in global temperatures over the next century, but he 
couldn't care less that the Democrats' policies are making it 
harder and harder for families to afford to heat their homes, 
purchase groceries, or drive their cars to work, or even have 
work to drive to. These policies are madness, and they are now 
having a terrible effect on the prices that Americans have to 
pay for everything from gasoline and electricity to automobiles 
and light bulbs. Europeans are already waking up to this 
lunacy, and I think Americans will soon follow.
    I also need to respond to Ms. Porter. I would remind her 
that half the forests in California are privately owned. The 
private forests are healthy, resilient, and fire resistant 
because their owners manage their forests and match the timber 
density to the ability of the land to support it. And they make 
money doing that. We need to do the same thing. We used to.
    A fourth of the funds from Federal timber auctions used to 
go to local communities that were affected by the forests, and 
the other 75 percent went to the Forest Service to manage our 
forests. The environmental laws of the 1970s now require an 
average of 4\1/2\ years of studies before we can undertake a 
forest thinning project. They cost millions of dollars more 
than the value of the timber to be harvested.
    So, private landowners keep their lands in excellent 
condition and they make money. Federal land managers have kept 
our forests in decrepit condition under these laws and they 
lose money. That is not the fault of taxpayers for not paying 
enough taxes. That is the fault of the very policies that my 
friend from California has spent her career advocating.
    In fact, according to a recent UCLA study, the 2020 
wildfires in California released twice as much carbon dioxide 
into the atmosphere as all of the CO2 reductions 
that they imposed in that state between 2003 and 2019 combined, 
and at a staggering cost to taxpayers, consumers, and 
employees.
    Mr. Sams, I have Yosemite National Park in my district, and 
I want to address management issues there that are a continuing 
nightmare for park visitors. And they have become an economic 
disaster for the gateway communities that depend on park 
visitation.
    Crowding exists in the Valley, but the Valley isn't the 
sole destination for visitors, yet the reservation system 
doesn't make this distinction, nor does it distinguish between 
peak visitation periods and slack periods. And, far worse, it 
makes it impossible for spontaneous trips to the park by those 
in the general region.
    In a memo to your management there at Yosemite, the gateway 
businesses noted the experience with the reservations problem. 
And here are some of the things they noted: uncertainty 
regarding access for those who want to visit Yosemite from out 
of state or internationally; and the existence of a ticketing 
system inhibiting visitation generally; ticket hoarding by 
locals; complexity, confusion, and frustration for visitors; 
unfairly advantaging lodge properties inside the park; greater 
congestion at entry gates; and rigidity and inability to 
respond to real-time events based on actual demand pressure. 
These are what the locals have actually observed there.
    I have written to you to ask that the Park Service not 
finalize the reservation system until other alternatives are 
explored. And as I wrote to you a month ago, rather than seeing 
what pressure points remain the pilot system is overly onerous 
and restrictive to the public in several areas, which will mask 
opportunities to create a more appropriate, minimal, public-
friendly, long-term solution. So, what are you doing to take 
this into account?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congressman and, yes, 
this is a huge issue across the Service as we see more and more 
folks wanting to come to their parks, and we are trying to work 
very hard and recognizing that, of course, what works at one 
park may not work at another.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, what you are doing at Yosemite is not 
working, and yet you don't seem to be taking that into account 
in plowing ahead.
    I have to tell you, candidly, that the gateway communities 
feel the current park management is entirely insulated and 
disinterested in their input and feedback. In fact, when I met 
with them a few months ago, the park management was invited to 
attend, but instead they blew us off.
    A few years ago, I took note of a sign in the conference 
room at Yosemite. It posed a question, ``Is it good for the 
park?'' Well, I suggested then and I repeat today that that is 
precisely the wrong question. The right question is, ``Is it 
good for the park's visitors?'' And I will tell you, my 
assessment is that this is an attitude problem that runs deep, 
deep in the Park Service. And if you can't correct it, we are 
going to need to find somebody who can.
    The best visitor experience that has been reported to me at 
Yosemite over the years that I have represented it came during 
the shutdown during the Trump administration. During the Obama 
shutdown, the Park Service canceled all events, it ordered all 
businesses to be shuttered, it chained all the entrances, it 
even blocked turnouts overlooking the Valley so people couldn't 
even stop to get a glimpse of the park from afar. However, 
during the Trump shutdown, the park gates were kept open, 
concessionaires continued to operate. And except for a brief 
period when the concessionaire had to arrange for alternative 
trash collections, visitors reported that they had a much 
better, hassle-free experience without the Park Service being 
on duty.
    Now, what does that say about the park management when 
their absence leads to a better visitor experience than their 
presence?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question. Well, first and 
foremost is that we ended up having to do a lot of remediation 
during that time period, and we are continuing to do that 
remediation.
    Last summer, I had the good chance of enjoying some of 
Yosemite, and seeing how many folks come in and truly enjoy it.
    The balance under the Organic Act, of course, is how do we 
protect these cultural and natural resources while ensuring 
that it is open for the enjoyment of the American public? It is 
a very tough balancing act that we are looking at, and we want 
to work very closely with the gateway communities, with your 
counties, and with you.
    Mr. McClintock. Yes, but you are not. That is simple, empty 
rhetoric. I am telling you that your management is not. And 
that is the experience of these gateway communities, and it is 
a growing frustration.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now turn to the 
Representative from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the witnesses 
for their presence today.
    Director Stone-Manning, I have a bunch of questions, no 
surprise given the size of my district, some 46 million acres, 
73,000 square miles, a huge portion of which is Bureau of Land 
Management-managed.
    I want to start with the Fiscal Responsibility Act. And in 
it there are a number of refinements, amendments to NEPA. And I 
am just anxious to know if the BLM has initiated rulemaking to 
incorporate those new time frames for your NEPA work. Have you 
initiated rulemaking in that regard?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Congressman, for the 
question. We have issued guidance on ensuring that we meet 
those new timelines of a year for an EA and 2 years for an EIS, 
and also the page limits within.
    Mr. Bentz. If you would be so kind as to provide me with 
that guidance, I would appreciate it.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. Now the second question. The Cascade-Siskiyou 
National Monument, I think you now have management duties, 
authority over it. And, of course, it is in my district. And I 
have been speaking with some of the ranchers who have grazing 
permits on that space, and they have been notified that their 
leases that they have many times had for decades will not be 
renewed. Is that your understanding?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we are right in the middle 
of a resource management plan for Cascade-Siskiyou and, of 
course, that is a transparent, open, and public process. I am 
assuming and hoping that your constituents engage in that 
process.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, that does not answer the question. Of 
course, they have engaged, and they have said, ``We don't want 
our permits not renewed.'' So, my question to you is, will 
their permits be renewed under any circumstances?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, the proclamation that 
established that national monument allows for grazing.
    Mr. Bentz. Say that again, please.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The proclamation that established that 
monument allows for grazing.
    Mr. Bentz. OK. I read the proclamation pretty carefully. I 
didn't see that in it. So, you are telling me, and I am very 
happy to hear it, that if it allows for grazing, that is really 
good news. It is not in the proclamation.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Then I stand corrected.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, well, I am happy for what you are doing. 
Don't get me wrong. I want those permits renewed.
    The conservation rule, it came up a little earlier and I 
think you used the word ``compatible.'' It is odd, because that 
conservation rule suggests that it is on par, conservation, 
with the other multiple uses. But I would suggest what that 
does is give the agency authority to, I hate to call it 
``without regard to rules,'' but to do whatever it would like. 
Do you read it that way?
    Because if you look at it, if you think about it for a 
moment, conservation being a preservation sort of a thing, it 
seems to be the exact opposite of, shall we say, any extractive 
activity, whether it is grazing, logging, or mining. Tell me 
how you reconcile the obvious difference between conservation 
on the one hand, and an extractive activity on the other.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question, 
and you have gotten right to the heart of why our work is 
difficult and engaging, the multiple use mission.
    And the Federal Land Policy and Management Act has been 
clear, it is explicitly clear, that multiple use includes 
managing for recreation, watersheds, fish and wildlife habitat, 
and natural, scenic, and cultural values. It establishes 
conservation as a use. And what this rulemaking does is put 
some consistency in how we lift up that portion of FLPMA to 
ensure that future generations 30, 40, 50 years from now get to 
enjoy our public lands the way that we do today.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. I haven't heard the answer to my 
question. If these are opposite uses, then how in the world 
will you ever find compatibility?
    Because you are saying that, indeed, you could have mining 
and at the same time conservation.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. The other thing that FLPMA tells us is 
that we don't have to have all the uses on every single acre. 
So, a hard rock mine is a great example. We are not going to 
have recreation and mountain biking in an open pit.
    Mr. Bentz. Excuse me for interrupting. That is not the way 
I read your rule. I read your rule as imposing upon all 
activities, multiple use or not, this conservation overlay. But 
if I am wrong, please provide me with the data so indicating.
    I want to go to the O&C lands over which you have 
management and control. For years, the O&C lands have not been 
producing the amount or allowed to produce the amount of timber 
that the law requires. Can you explain why?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we are upholding the O&C 
Act, and we are upholding the resource management plan that 
implements that. ASQ for Fiscal Year 2024 is 132 million board 
feet.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, I will just say that the facts that I have 
here indicate otherwise, but I am out of time.
    But if you will provide me with the information that 
indicates you have been abiding by the requirements of that 
law, I would appreciate it.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I find it really 
unbelievable that those are the rules and regs under this 
Administration. And what I would hope, and at this point, that 
the loggers that log those, they didn't hit any tree spikes or 
nails intentionally placed in there. So, those rules and regs 
are unbelievable for this Administration.
    At Voyageurs National Park in northern Minnesota, the Park 
Service is changing policies relating to Conditional Use 
Authorizations, or CUAs, which are required for local 
businesses that provide services that increase access to the 
park. Under the new policies, local operators can no longer 
stack CUA applications for similar activities. They must now 
pay additional fees and submit individual applications for each 
activity or service they would like to provide for the local 
community and visitors to the park. These are costing local 
businesses thousands of dollars in additional fees just to 
process an application. Some of these operators have shared 
they will likely have to close up shop because this additional 
red tape is making it no longer cost effective to operate their 
business.
    To their credit, the leadership at Voyageurs National Park 
has worked closely with the operators to find a solution, but 
it is national policies set by the Park Service headquarters 
here in Washington that are forcing them to make these changes. 
Director Sams, without partnership operators, would the Park 
Service be able to provide the same recreational opportunities 
that they do today?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Voyageurs National Park 
has held discussions, as you have said, and workshops with the 
public for the past year regarding the plan to manage frozen 
lake access, of course. This summer the park will embark on 
the----
    Mr. Stauber. Director Sams, excuse me. I only have a couple 
of minutes left. Without these partnerships, would the Park 
Service be able to provide the same recreational opportunities 
that they do today?
    Mr. Sams. We will continue to work to do our best to ensure 
that we offer those same activities.
    Mr. Stauber. Without the operators?
    Mr. Sams. No, sir, in partnership with the operators.
    Mr. Stauber. What actions is the Service taking to ensure 
these small and local businesses are able to reasonably operate 
and provide access for the American people?
    That is the mission statement, right, for the American 
people to be able to enjoy the parks?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. What actions are you taking?
    Mr. Sams. As we are modernizing these concessionaire 
practices and talking about transparency, and we will work 
towards transparency in every way so that we can demonstrate 
that we are getting a fair deal for the American people, we 
want to ensure that the multiple uses of recreation that happen 
in Voyageurs, which is a fantastic park, will continue in the 
future. And I am very proud of the team that is working to 
ensure that we are providing additional support on what that 
will look like and how to----
    Mr. Stauber. And that is why I said in my statement, the 
Park Service Director is doing a good job trying to work but he 
is following your policies on the CUAs.
    So, I would ask you to look into that because I think, if 
we lose those operators, we are going to lose access to the 
park for the people if operators go out of business. Will you 
commit to reviewing the national policies that are running 
counter to the Service's mission to provide opportunities for 
public use and enjoyment of our parks?
    Mr. Sams. I will take this concern directly back to my 
staff and look at our CUAs, and see what we are doing.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. I hope these policies are seriously 
addressed by you. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Director Stone-Manning, in the BLM's recent 
Waste Prevention Rule, the Bureau admits that venting and 
flaring usually occurs due to pipeline capacity constraints. 
What steps is the Bureau taking to expedite rights-of-way 
approval for oil and gas infrastructure that prevent flaring, 
such as gathering lines?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    Our folks on the ground work hard every day processing 
the----
    Mr. Stauber. What steps are you taking to expedite right-
of-way approval for oil and gas infrastructure that prevent 
flaring, such as gathering lines?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. When gathering lines come before us, we 
jump right to it and go through the process.
    Mr. Stauber. How many gathering line applications are in 
your office right now, do you think?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't have that in front 
of me. I can get that to you.
    Mr. Stauber. Do you know what a gathering line is?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. Explain it.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Are you playing stump the director, 
Congressman?
    An oil and gas gathering line, as the name implies, enables 
the facility to get their product to the larger pipelines that 
are going to get it on to the Gulf or wherever it is going.
    Mr. Stauber. The gathering lines are part of a categorical 
exclusion, right? CATEX?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. We do have CATEX for gathering lines. 
And if I recall correctly, this is old, this is from probably 6 
or 8 months ago, I think we have only used it one time because 
we have only had one ask.
    Mr. Stauber. One ask? Are you just saying you have one 
request for a gathering line in your office today?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. No, Congressman, as I mentioned, that is 
from about 6 or 8 months ago. But I recall that being the 
number.
    Mr. Stauber. Would you please get back to our office on the 
number of gathering lines that are waiting?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I would.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record the BLM budget proposal for public domain forest 
management. The budget makes no mention of the wildfire risk 5-
year monitoring, maintenance, and treatment plan for the second 
year in a row, and actually proposed a decrease in the planned 
acres to treat from Fiscal Year 2023.
    The BLM budget also has a proposed decrease of over a half 
million dollars, resulting in 50,000 less seedlings being 
planted for restoration efforts.
    Without objection, so entered into the record, the BLM 
budget proposal.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 __
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Representative Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real quick, I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record this article from 
the Wall Street Journal entitled, ``Why the World Has Gone 
Cuckoo for Copper,'' dated May 14 of 2024.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
Why the World Has Gone Cuckoo for Copper

The U.S. and China are competing to acquire the metal essential for EVs 
and data centers. It is also at the center of a $43 billion takeover 
battle.

Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2024 by Julie Steinberg

https://www.wsj.com/business/why-the-world-has-gone-cuckoo-for-copper-
ef8c385a

                                 *****

After one of the world's top copper producers recently hit a financial 
crunch, the Biden administration started huddling with potential 
investors about taking a stake in the company's Zambian mines worth as 
much as $3 billion.

The search isn't restricted to American companies, with entities from 
the United Arab Emirates, Japan and Saudi Arabia--all viewed as 
friendly to U.S. interests--expressing interest in the stake in First 
Quantum Minerals' FM 7.53% assets, according to people familiar with 
the matter.

The goal is simple: to keep it out of Chinese control and prevent the 
Asian superpower from tightening its grip over the global supply of 
crucial metals and minerals.

The bidding, expected to be concluded later this year, is part of a 
global rush to acquire more copper, a key component in everything from 
electric cars to transmission lines and the data centers powering the 
AI revolution.

BHP Group's record nearly $43 billion takeover bid for Anglo American, 
which was rejected Monday, puts a fresh spotlight on the intense demand 
for copper. While London-listed Anglo produces a range of commodities, 
from diamonds to nickel, Australia's BHP has made clear that it most 
prizes the company's copper assets. Anglo rebuffed BHP's first offer 
last month, and other companies are believed to be weighing rival bids.

On Tuesday, Anglo announced its own turnaround plan, saying it would 
get out of its platinum, diamond and steelmaking coal businesses--
effectively pitching investors on a strategy that makes copper even 
more central to the company's future.

Chief Executive Duncan Wanblad said on a media call that the company 
would look at growing its copper business both organically and from 
potential mergers and acquisitions, such as taking greater stakes in 
assets it already owns.

``Copper of course is the story of the day,'' he said.

While the U.S. government doesn't have any oversight over a proposed 
deal, officials have communicated to Anglo executives that they are 
concerned consolidation could limit the overall supply of copper, said 
people familiar with the matter. The U.S. is also concerned that China 
could put pressure on BHP to sell some assets or agree to sell more of 
its copper to the country to address potential anticompetitive 
concerns.

For the U.S., the current frenzy highlights the importance of its 
yearslong effort to build up supplies of the metals and minerals 
critical to the green-energy transition.

Demand for copper is expected to rise as certain mines close or scale 
back production. Copper futures are up 20% this year.

The U.S. doesn't have a ministry for mining, a sovereign wealth-fund or 
much of a domestic mining industry. That has put it at a disadvantage 
with China, which can direct its state-owned enterprises to invest 
heavily no matter how commodity prices are performing.

The U.S. government is limited in how much money it can directly pump 
into projects of national security. That means it must work with 
private companies at home and abroad, as well as friendly countries 
with sovereign-wealth funds, to entice them to invest in assets helpful 
to national interests.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year, for example, that the U.S. 
and Saudi Arabia have held talks for potential agreements in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, under which Saudi Arabia would take 
stakes in mines and U.S. companies would be guaranteed some of the 
rights to production.

One of President Biden's senior advisers, Amos Hochstein, is a linchpin 
of this effort. Hochstein and a small team at the State Department have 
been flying around the world, meeting with government officials in sub-
Saharan Africa one day and with U.S. investors the next.

Regarding copper, ``We don't have a lot of new supply coming online 
around the world,'' Hochstein said in an interview. ``What concerns me 
is even when a discovery is made, it could take between seven and 15 
years before the first copper comes out.''

The U.S. has committed more than $1 billion to the Lobito Corridor to 
develop local infrastructure, including clean power and a railroad 
connecting Angola, Congo and Zambia to export critical minerals. Also 
in Zambia, the U.S. last year urged the U.A.E. to consider investing in 
Mopani Copper Mines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The effort was successful: Zambia in December chose the U.A.E.'s 
International Resources Holding as a new equity partner.

Hochstein declined to comment on specific deals.

Hochstein said he and his team have made clear to African governments 
that the U.S. is trying to put forward an alternative model that won't 
result in debt, corruption and environmental degradation.

``We are putting our money where our mouth is,'' he said.

A central part of the U.S. effort is the International Development 
Finance Corp., a federal agency that helps finance projects overseas. 
The agency agreed to invest $740 million last year in the mining 
sector, up from $245 million it had committed to legacy mining 
projects.

It is currently in talks to finance a multibillion-dollar copper mine 
in Pakistan that, when it comes online in 2028, will be among the 
world's largest copper projects, according to people familiar with the 
matter.

An Irish company called TechMet is one of its signature investments. 
Under the Trump and Biden administrations, the agency has given TechMet 
some $105 million in funding and become its second-largest shareholder. 
An investment firm backed by a scion of the Walton family also invested 
in the most recent fundraising round, which valued the company at more 
than $1 billion.

``We are in a second Cold War,'' said TechMet CEO Brian Menell, a South 
African. ``One has to increasingly pick sides. For me it's never been a 
moment's doubt. It is a competition between Western values and 
dictatorship.''

TechMet owns stakes in lithium, cobalt, nickel, vanadium and rare-earth 
miners.

Meanwhile, Chinese miners, with government backing, are rapidly 
snapping up assets. In Belt and Road countries, which don't include 
Brazil or Australia, China spent more than $19 billion last year on 
metals and mining investments, up 158% from 2022, according to the 
Green Finance & Development Center at Fudan University in Shanghai. 
That is the highest level since 2013.

In the latest example, a Chinese firm is in advanced talks to buy 
Chemaf, a metals producer that is developing a cobalt and copper mine 
in Congo, according to people familiar with the matter.

At least two Western suitors were interested in buying the company, 
according to people familiar with the matter, including Chilean Cobalt 
Corp., or C3, a U.S. company with copper-cobalt operations in northern 
Chile.

Duncan Blount, chief executive of C3, said he spoke with the 
International Development Finance Corp and State Department about 
making a bid, but concluded it would have been too expensive. Still, he 
said, ``They were incredibly helpful on this venture and other 
projects. They're keen to see American businesses and entrepreneurs go 
back into Congo.''

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize Ms. Hoyle from the great state 
of Oregon.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you very much.
    Director Stone-Manning, hello. I know we have spoken many 
times before. Today, I specifically would like to discuss with 
you the Western Oregon Operating Plan, which is an agreement 
between the Bureau of Land Management, the Oregon Department of 
Forestry, Douglas Forest Protective Association, Coos Forest 
Protective Association, and tribes.
    And we have in Oregon a very unique, checkerboard map where 
private, tribal, Federal, and state lands are all on a 
checkerboard, so it makes it difficult to fight fires unless we 
are all cooperating together.
    The entire Oregon Delegation, Democrats and Republicans, 
have made it very clear and signed letters to say that we want 
the WOOP to remain in place. So, I would like to ask for your 
commitment to make sure that that happens.
    And secondarily, it is my understanding that it is on the 
table from the BLM to remove Coos Bay and Roseburg from the 
WOOP because they are wet forests. Let me tell you, we had the 
Agnes Fire that was down in Curry County coming up into Coos 
County that burned from July through the fall. We have also had 
fires in Roseburg, where there is a large population.
    The bottom line is that, with climate change, with drier 
conditions we are seeing fires that are different and that are 
coming into the wildland-urban interface and putting our 
populations in danger. We know that it costs more to fight 
fires in Oregon than it does in other places, and also that 
almost 99 percent of the forest land that the BLM manages is in 
the O&C lands, is in Oregon.
    So, I would like your commitment on keeping the WOOP in 
place, and also a commitment to do more research before you 
even think of moving forward in taking Coos Bay and Roseburg 
out from the WOOP. Thank you.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Of course, protecting our communities and our landscapes is a 
huge priority for the BLM.
    I was pleased to meet with you about WOOP. I have been 
working with Director Barry Bushue on this topic. He is in 
negotiations, practically as we speak, with ODF and the Fire 
Protective Association. I am confident that we will reach 
agreement by the time that the WOOP is up in June.
    And I couldn't agree more, fires are becoming harder, 
longer, and more intense on the landscape, which is in part why 
it is so important that we get a handle on the climate crisis, 
which is why you see the budget before you that you do.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. Just to follow up, I know that 
negotiations are happening. I know that there are financial 
considerations. I can tell you that what I have seen in the 
time that I have been in Oregon is that we short change the 
money up front in preventing wildfires from happening and 
debris removal, and then we will write an unlimited check when 
we are losing millions of acres to these extreme wildfires.
    And what, again, I want to impress upon you is just because 
you are looking at the south coast as a wet forest, the fact of 
the matter is people's lives, people's homes, and our beautiful 
forests are in danger. And again, it is a very complex area. 
And what we have seen since the fires in 2020 is great 
cooperation between the Feds and the state and our private 
wildland firefighters, our professional firefighters, our 
tribal fire management and firefighters. We would like to see 
that continue.
    But again, I do not think, and I seriously, seriously hope 
that the thought of pulling Coos Bay and Roseburg from the WOOP 
is not something we are considering, and that is off the table. 
And I really would like your commitment on that.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    My commitment is we will actively fight fire and do our job 
to fight fire all throughout your district. And the agreement 
of who pays for it, and how and when and where is what is on 
the table. What is not on the table is doing our part to ensure 
that we keep people and places safe.
    Ms. Hoyle. So, again, to follow up, and I am sorry I am out 
of time, but I want to be abundantly clear. Representative 
Bentz and I share Roseburg as a district, the district splits 
at Roseburg, and the south coast and Coos Bay. It is vitally 
important that that stay in the WOOP. And if that isn't going 
to happen, I want to make sure that you alert our office before 
any decisions are made.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, you have my commitment 
that you will know before any decisions are made.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Does the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Hoyle. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I would now like to 
recognize Representative Moylan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the 
hearing, of course, and giving us the opportunity to speak with 
Director Stone-Manning and Director Sams.
    Thank you to the panel for being here and regarding the 
upcoming budget of the National Park Service and how they plan 
to effectively utilize it.
    My district of Guam is home to 50 parks, including the War 
in the Pacific National Historic Park and Asan, which 
commemorates the bravery and sacrifice of those serving in the 
Pacific theater of World War II. It is important that Guam and 
the National Park Service work together to protect these sites 
so that future generations can appreciate them as we do now.
    Additionally, nearly one-third of my island is owned by the 
Federal Government. However, our local park officers are 
stretched thin. They face serious personnel shortages, which 
impacts their ability to take care of these lands. So, it is 
critical that the Department of the Interior do everything that 
they can to conserve and protect our island's natural beauty.
    Director Stone-Manning, regarding the 30x30 program, does 
the Administration consult with local and Indigenous groups on 
if and how a land should be preserved?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Sort of at the heart of the President's America the Beautiful 
initiative is locally-led, collaborative conservation.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Director Stone-Manning. 
Unfortunately, the Administration has shown that it does not 
care about the local and Indigenous groups' experience on what 
is best for their lands. Rather, the Administration oversteps 
and acts without regard to local stakeholders.
    I would like to bring to the Committee's attention the 
Pacific remote island Marianas National Monument, specifically 
the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. This status was 
granted despite strong local opposition from my constituents 
and the democratically-elected government of Guam. It is very 
unfortunate our voice wasn't heard.
    Director Sams, in 2019, the National Park Service began 
consideration for designating Manenggon Concentration Camp as a 
National Historic Landmark. As the public comment period 
remains ongoing, could you speak on the ongoing National 
Landmarks Committee meeting, and provide an update on the 
general comment period?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question. I don't have that 
right before me, but I am happy to get that back to you in 
writing about our most recent meeting on that issue, and 
provide you all the information.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate that, especially now that we have 
a special Liberation Day coming up, our 80th anniversary, the 
liberation day of Guam, and that will be important information 
I would like to have. Thank you.
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir. I am hoping to get out there. My 
grandfather fought in World War II aboard a destroyer, USS 
Converse, and had talked about the invasion of Guam.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate it. Director Sams, in January 
2023, the President signed into law the Guam National Heritage 
Area Feasibility Study. My office has yet to receive any 
updates on the status of this study. When does the NPS 
anticipate the completion of the study, and how can we expedite 
this?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question. I don't know the 
exact date, but I will get you the exact date in writing, and 
give you an update. I am happy to work with you and your staff 
on that.
    Mr. Moylan. OK, we will work closely, and I appreciate 
that. Thank you.
    And finally, Director Sams, the National Park Service has 
designated the War in the Pacific National Historic Park fifth 
in line with the supplemental funding request, fifth. This is a 
serious, underfunded, and understaffed Federal park suffering 
from flood damage, monuments are falling apart, and 
infrastructure which is on its last legs.
    Director Sams, could you speak to what must happen for the 
National Historic Park to be considered higher priority by your 
agency?
    Mr. Sams. As I understand it, we have like $2.6 million to 
preserve the World War II structures at the War in the Pacific 
National Historic Park proposed in Fiscal Year's 2025 budget. 
And we understand that we also have more than $240,000 in 
maintenance action team projects that will go towards that. It 
is proposed in our 2025 budget.
    Mr. Moylan. But we are still fifth in line with the 
supplemental funding request. Are you saying that it is no 
longer there, that you have funded it, or are we fifth in line 
still for supplemental funding?
    Mr. Sams. I am going to defer to my comptroller on where we 
are at with that, Ms. Jessica Bowron.
    Ms. Bowron. The Administration submitted a disaster 
supplemental request in the fall for disasters that occurred in 
2023. No disaster supplemental appropriation was received with 
the Fiscal Year 2024 appropriation, so we are currently 
evaluating how to best recover from disasters across the 
country within available funding.
    Mr. Moylan. All right. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 
the witnesses for coming here today.
    Director Stone-Manning, we have heard a lot about oil and 
gas companies over the last few weeks, and not all of it has 
been good. Just last week, a report came out finding that 
Donald Trump asked Big Oil for $1 billion for his campaign. And 
in return, he would roll back environmental regulations.
    Earlier this month, we found out from the FTC that Pioneer 
Resources, which is currently merging with Exxon, colluded with 
OPEC to pad their pockets and keep prices high for American 
families. Market manipulation.
    At the same time, Republicans here in Congress are somehow 
calling it Biden's war on American energy, while at the same 
time Big Oil continues to break records for both production and 
profit. It is not adding up to me, but of course it is not, and 
these conversations we continue to have around that are really 
exhausting.
    Once again, Republicans on this Committee are trying to 
blame things like environmental regulations and the new BLM oil 
and gas rule which finally provides a better return for the 
American taxpayer. I say they are continuing to gaslight the 
American people. These complaints line up directly with the 
talking points of Big Oil lobbyists who decried the rule while 
making record profits and showering their shareholders in 
billions through dividends and stock buybacks.
    In fact, one oil executive actually came here and said he 
didn't even like to read. He didn't want to read rules. It was 
just too much, which I find very hard to understand.
    One of their biggest gripes is about the new bonding 
provisions, calling them expensive and onerous. But these 
regulations will actually provide taxpayers and communities 
from having to clean up after the oil and gas industry.
    But before this final rule, these rates hadn't been updated 
in over a half century. Between 1951 and now, companies could 
pay as little as $25,000 to cover all of their oil wells in a 
state. Between 1960 and now, companies could pay as little as 
$10,000 to cover all their wells on a lease. These rates 
haven't been updated to account for inflation, nor have they 
tracked technological advancements, including well depth, which 
substantially increases mitigation costs.
    So, to do a little comparison, Director Stone-Manning, wind 
and solar projects on public lands must also be bonded to 
ensure that the public lands they are sited on are reclaimed 
after a project. Is this correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. It is my understanding that BLM set 
minimum bond rates for wind and solar in 2016, and that the 
regulations dictate that those minimums be adjusted for 
inflation periodically. Is that correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. So, just for the record, these 
regulations require wind and solar developers to pay as much as 
$20,000 per wind turbine, or $20,000 per acre of solar panels, 
or $10,000 per acre for solar in priority areas. Considering 
some proposed wind projects consist of several hundred turbines 
and some solar projects are thousands of acres in size, it is 
not a stretch to say that these bonds can often be quite more 
expensive than bonds covering oil and gas wells.
    Last question for you. Do you know of any utility-scale 
wind or solar projects on Federal public land, or even on just 
BLM land that are orphaned or abandoned?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I do not, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right. Neither do I. Yet, we have oil 
and gas wells that have been orphaned and abandoned.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, OK. So, I just think it is worth 
noting that I have never heard of a pollution disaster caused 
by end-of-life solar or wind projects, unlike the environmental 
and public health crises my constituents deal with every day 
due to oil and gas wells.
    We have heard so many complaints from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle and from industry about the new 
$150,000 minimum bond for oil and gas leases, or the new 
$500,000 minimum for a bond covering of all wells statewide. 
But if wind and solar companies can afford to insure their 
sites are mitigated and reclaimed, then the multi-billion-
dollar oil and gas company certainly can do that as well. Do 
you agree?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I do agree, Congresswoman. And, of 
course, what it is going to do is it protect the American 
taxpayer so that they are not left holding the bag in the 
future.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The lady yields. I now recognize the gentleman 
from Montana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sorry that I 
can't see you behind that large stack of regulations that you 
presented there. I appreciate you holding this crucial budget 
hearing today.
    The BLM plays a vital role in management and facilitation 
of our land out West, especially in Montana, where BLM land 
comprises nearly one-third of our state. However, under the 
current radical administration, we witnessed a harmful trend 
where BLM's land management decisions are working against the 
very communities and residents the agency is meant to serve.
    Whether it is the lack of leasing opportunities, the war 
being waged against the coal industry, or the ongoing efforts 
to restrict access to Montana's productive lands, it is clear 
to me that, despite being from our great state, Director Stone-
Manning and her agency's priorities are at complete odds with 
what is in the best interest of Montana. I am eager to hear 
from both her and Director Sams about why they believe they 
deserve a $120 million increase in total funding.
    Ranking Member Neguse, I am sorry that you were not here to 
hear the filibuster from Ms. Porter and Mr. Levin about revenue 
and the income that these lands are supposed to produce, 
because what they failed to reference is the fact that capacity 
and rental fees have been reduced for renewables, renewable 
energy, capacity and rental fees by 80 percent. By 80 percent. 
And that is after they have already been heavily, heavily 
subsidized by the taxpayers across this nation.
    Director Sams, speaking of reducing fees, why did the 
National Park Service relinquish control of RFK complex, 
instead of leveraging it for our park system's benefit when it 
was rented to DC for just $1?
    You want to have conversations about fees? It was rented 
for $1 to capitalize on the revenue potential, instead of the 
money going to help make a dent in the $22 billion deferred 
maintenance backlog. That could have easily been a valuable 
revenue source to support the projects that you are requesting.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congressman. When we 
looked at this and spoke with the District of Columbia and 
keeping it within the Federal family, we recognize that the 
District has an opportunity to be able to really take over 
jurisdiction, and shifting administrative responsibility to the 
District so that they can actually see some better use of it.
    Mr. Rosendale. And are they going to be collecting revenue 
for the development of this 160-acre site?
    Mr. Sams. That would be a question best asked to the 
District than to me, sir.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, sir, you are leasing them the ground for 
$1. They are going to generate a development of 160 acres of 
some of the most prime real estate in the country. And you 
don't think that they are going to generate revenue, or didn't 
think to ask are they going to generate revenue, and possibly 
that some of that revenue should be going back to the taxpayers 
so that we could utilize it for our park system?
    Mr. Sams. Sir, it is Congress who will be leasing that to 
them, at the direction----
    Mr. Rosendale. Based upon the recommendation of the 
National Park Service. So, we don't know about the revenue that 
the District of Columbia is going to generate from 160 acres, 
but we are very concerned about someone who is developing the 
resources to help heat our homes and power our vehicles to push 
freight across this country. And yet, on the other hand, we are 
going to reduce the leases and the revenue that is generated by 
renewables for the capacity and rental fees by 80 percent. But 
the District of Columbia is going to make sure that they 
collect and retain all of the revenue.
    Director Stone-Manning, I hear you talk about the 
transition to a clean energy economy. And while that may be 
this Administration's goal, it is not the law, especially when 
it comes to land use. And we continue to hear about the 
manipulation of policy by rule change, not by law change, and 
that is very problematic for most of the people that are 
sitting in here. And quite frankly, it should be disturbing for 
anybody, Republican or Democrat. We can't have rule changes 
overriding what the law and the intent of the law was.
    In your budget testimony, you emphasize the importance of 
this funding for your clean energy projects. I am curious to 
hear how covering a currently productive swath of land with 
acres of glass for such an unreliable, intermittent use of 
energy that meets your definition of conservation, especially 
when compared to the generation of work and management by 
ranchers and farmers on that land.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, first of all, it is nice to 
see somebody from Montana. I know we don't always agree, but 
Montana pride rises above that, I hope.
    I think I heard your question to ask----
    Mr. Rosendale. How would you explain that covering over 
hundreds of acres of land with solar panels meets your 
definition of conservation.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, thank you for the question. It is 
why we are working on the Western Solar Plan as we speak, so 
that we make sure that we, because it is still development, it 
is carbon pollution free, but it is still development, that we 
drive that development to the most appropriate places on the 
landscape as possible, just like we drive all of our 
development to the most appropriate landscape.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK, so Montana coal producers allocate a 
significant portion of their revenue annually to reclamation 
projects. And I have been out on those projects, and they are 
actually quantifiably and measurably more productive after they 
have extracted their resources and then do the reclamation 
efforts. Visiting any of these sites would reveal no trace of 
past mining activity.
    Why is this practice, which involves productive use 
followed by restoration to its original state, more productive, 
again, not considered land conservation?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, the concern, of course, 
with that work is the coal that is burned, right? It is not 
about the landscape that is reclaimed after the coal is dug up. 
The concern is about driving our economy towards a clean energy 
economy.
    Mr. Rosendale. And, again, we continue to hear about going 
to a clean energy economy. But, again, we are superseding the 
law, and the intent of the law, and the Taylor Grazing Act, and 
the use of those lands by abusing the rulemaking process.
    Mr. Chair, thank you so much for my time. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I will recognize the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for his questions.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Director Stone-Manning and Director 
Sams, for your testimony and for indulging the Committee here. 
And I know that it has been a robust hearing thus far, and I 
suspect that will continue.
    Director Sams, I really wanted to ask you a series of 
questions. Before I do so, I will just take one moment to again 
thank Director Stone-Manning, your agency, for the steps that 
you took to protect the Thompson Divide. And, of course, as you 
know, we are very much engaged in an effort here in the 
Congress to make those protections permanent through the CORE 
Act, which myself and Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper have 
introduced. And it has variations. Iterative versions of it 
have passed the House multiple times in the last several years. 
Our hope springs eternal that we will be able to get that 
across the finish line.
    But in the interim, the protections afforded to the 
Thompson Divide by virtue of your agency's decision are 
incredibly important to the folks in Colorado, and I just want 
to express my gratitude to the agency for taking that step. To 
the extent you would like to expound on that, I am happy to 
give you an opportunity.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Thank you, Congressman. I just wanted to 
say that the thanks there goes to the leadership of Secretary 
Haaland.
    Mr. Neguse. Director Sams, I want to also say thank you for 
the work that you do and the National Park Service does every 
day. Of course, as you know, Rocky Mountain National Park in my 
district is considered a crown jewel of the NPS system, and I 
am grateful for the partnership that we have with folks there.
    I want to talk a bit about wildland firefighting. As you 
know, we have raised this issue at prior hearings with respect 
to the challenges that our wildland firefighters are facing in 
terms of government housing rates. And we sent a letter, myself 
and a number of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis to both 
you and Chief Moore earlier this year. I received your 
response, or a response that was sent on behalf of your agency, 
last month.
    What I am hoping you can kind of help me understand is, I 
recognize that the NPS has certain constraints that you all are 
operating under, particularly as it relates to OMB's circular 
guidance. But clearly, that guidance, as it is being 
implemented and interpreted today, is having disastrous impacts 
for Federal wildland firefighters who are facing exorbitant 
rent increases. And I am wondering what conversations you have 
had with your colleagues at OMB about necessary changes that 
should be made to the circular that would still comport with 
Federal law, but would enable your agency to address what is 
clearly an emerging crisis.
    Mr. Sams. Congressman, thank you for the question.
    I started out my career as a wildlands firefighter. My son 
is currently a wildlands firefighter for the Oregon Department 
of Forestry. And housing, of course, is a critical issue for 
any of our firefighters. And recognizing that we knew that 
there were going to be rent increases this year, I have asked 
for those to be extended out over a couple of years, and have 
received permission to do so, and we are implementing that.
    But that being said, we are working very closely in trying 
to figure out exactly where the increases are happening in the 
different markets, how can we balance those out, what other 
authorities both the Secretary and I have to be able to try to 
mitigate for those increases and develop more public-private 
partnerships to expand our housing, and so that we can make it 
more affordable for our firefighters and our frontline NPS 
staff.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I would say I appreciate that, Director 
Sams, and I would hope, with respect to the decision that you 
just described with respect to extending the rent increases 
over a period of years, that you could provide our office with 
further clarity on that, because I was unaware of that, and 
that would be something very important for us to be able to 
communicate back, us, meaning collectively the Members who sent 
that letter, to the constituents that we have heard from and 
the Federal wildland firefighters that we have heard from.
    I would also just say, while I am supportive of NPS and 
DOI's efforts to increase their housing stock, as reflected in 
the budget submission that you all have sent over this year, 
just in full candor, I am going to personally apply a much more 
discerning eye towards supporting any investments in increasing 
the housing stock absent some direct communication from OMB, 
from NPS, from DOI, from the relevant authorities that you all 
would like to see some deviation, some new statutory authority 
or change in the underlying organic statutes that would give 
you the ability to address this problem.
    Because you can imagine, I mean, if we just simply allocate 
more dollars for you all to secure more housing and you all 
then, by virtue of the 4-year periodic comparable rent analysis 
that you do with this new housing, come back to us and to the 
Federal wildland firefighters and say that the rent increase is 
going to be sustained in out years because that is the way the 
market is functioning, we haven't really addressed that 
fundamental problem.
    So, I would implore you to let us know what we can do on 
the statutory side. I happen to think, having reviewed the OMB 
circular, that the Administration can take a variety of 
different steps that would give you some flexibility, which it 
sounds like they may have already done, because in the letter 
that we got from the NPS, and I appreciate very much the 
Chairman's indulgence, it said here, I will just quote from 
you, from this letter, ``The NPS does not set its own rents, 
nor does it have the authority to disregard rental 
implementation requirements to pause or to reverse rental 
changes.'' This is from, I forget the name of the gentleman 
within your agency, one of the assistants, well, I don't know 
the right title here, but in any event, that is very different 
from what you just described. So, my point here is, I do think 
there is room in the OMB circular. And if it requires us 
advocating for the same, we are happy to do that.
    Again, I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I will now recognize the 
gentleman from Utah.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. I 
would like to start with my comments directed to Director Sams, 
but they also apply to the BLM, as well.
    And I know this will shock you, I want to give you a 
compliment, both of you, and just say that over and over again 
I hear positive feedback about members that work for both BLM 
and National Park Service on the ground in Utah. And we 
certainly have our differences with both your agencies, 
particularly as it relates to the Washington, DC side, but I am 
constantly told how helpful the people are on the ground.
    And I want to bring up a specific case, Director Sams. I 
have in my hand a letter, and I would like to ask that it be 
submitted for the record, from Katherine Hammond, Regional 
Director of Glen Canyon National Parks, talking about working 
with a group of people, our houseboat owners on Lake Powell. 
And I know that they have had a number of internal meetings and 
external meetings with these houseboat owners to build a good 
relationship, and I just want to tell you they are doing a good 
job, and how helpful that is to me when they work to build 
these good relationships, and how much that is appreciated back 
in the district.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                United States Department of the Interior

                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                       INTERIOR REGIONS 6,7, & 8

                            Denver, Colorado

Hon. John Curtis
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

                                                 April 30, 2024    

    Dear Representative Curtis:

    Thank you for your letter on October 18, 2023, regarding Glen 
Canyon National Recreation Area. The director has asked me to respond.

    I wish to convey my thanks to your office for facilitating a 
meeting on December 19, 2023, between Glen Canyon NRA staff and the 
Lake Powell Houseboat Association, represented by Bennett Group DC, to 
better understand the request for the establishment of a Lake Powell 
Recreation Advisory Committee as requested in your letter. Your staff 
member Jake Bornstein was instrumental in facilitating this meeting.

    During the meeting, Glen Canyon NRA Superintendent Michelle Kerns 
provided updates on the progress to restore access at Lake Powell and 
the 2023 Disaster Supplemental funding that will be invested at Glen 
Canyon to preserve recreational opportunities. The Houseboat 
Association president and Superintendent Kerns have agreed to meet 
quarterly to share information and progress. The Houseboat Association 
has agreed that this local approach will lead to a successful, 
collaborative working relationship with Glen Canyon NRA.

    Thank you for your support of our parks and working to ensure the 
best outcomes for our stakeholders. If you have any questions, please 
contact Superintendent Kerns.

            Sincerely,

                                              Kate Hammond,
                                                  Regional Director

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. And that is Superintendent Kearns. 
Superintendent Pace has been recently selected to lead the 
Canyonlands and Arches National Park area. And as you know, in 
my district, there are few districts like mine in the entire 
country, with two national parks and the beautiful areas that 
we have. It is part of Bears Ears and other areas.
    When she was first appointed, she came to my office and met 
me. We established a great relationship, and I just wanted to 
give her a shout out, as well, and I appreciate that 
relationship. She has a very hard task because our national 
parks in Utah are being what we call loved to death. And there 
is a tremendous pressure to put a reservation system in, and 
they have experimented with several reservation systems. And we 
would just like to ask you to be personally involved in that, 
because if we get it right there is a lot of good. And if we 
get it wrong, it can really be a detriment to the economy of 
the area. And just making sure that we work with our local 
stakeholders to make sure we get it right is very important. 
So, I appreciate that and wanted to bring that up.
    Also, Director Stone-Manning, part of my district is Bears 
Ears, and we constantly, of course, as you know, have a very 
difficult issue going back and forth between administrations on 
the actual use of this land. But the theme that does not change 
as we go back and forth between administrations is lack of 
resources. At the very least, it is probably 1.3 million acres, 
and we just don't have the people on the ground to manage 1.3 
million acres, and the people that are coming to see the 
antiquities and things like that.
    So, we would like to continue to emphasize the fact that we 
need more resources in the area to manage this land, regardless 
of where we end up on the designation. It just needs more 
resources, and we would love to have your help with that.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thank you. And given this 
is a budget hearing, we would welcome the help. Don't let me 
stop you.
    Mr. Curtis. Well, it is priorities, right? It is 
priorities. And it feels like, to those of us in that area, 
that this has not been a priority. This is 1.3 million acres. 
And I think the number, if I am not mistaken, is two, maybe 
four law enforcement BLM agents to manage 1.3 million acres. 
You can see the impossibility of that problem for them.
    And Director, you won't be surprised that the BLM 
conservation rule is hugely problematic in my district. I 
hardly have an opportunity to speak here where I don't bring up 
the fact that 90 percent of these counties are Federal land, 90 
percent. And the fact that there can be arbitrary decisions 
thousands of miles away that impact grazing and recreation and 
other uses on the land without appropriate input. There was not 
a single hearing in Utah on this rule, not a single one. The 
people of Utah had no opportunity to express in person their 
concerns, and I just want to speak for them today to say they 
are very frustrated. They are very concerned with this ruling.
    And as you know, I am sponsoring the WEST Act to repeal 
that, and would love to have conversations with your 
organization about the end goal. We actually share the same end 
goal. We all want to preserve and protect and make sure this 
land is there for our grandchildren. But how we get there and 
who gets to make those decisions is incredibly frustrating to 
my district.
    And I have used all my time, so you don't get a chance to 
respond, but I think I have made my point.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I will recognize Ms. 
Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much. And thank you, 
Director Stone-Manning, Director Sams, and Comptroller Brown 
for being here today. Thank you very much, actually, for the 
hard work that you have put in that I think this paper 
recognizes.
    I want to see this as the thousands of public comments that 
you have received, the careful study of how do we protect our 
public lands and our public resources, because we must remember 
those are American resources. They belong to us. And in order 
to figure out how to best go along, protecting them, ensuring 
that we receive the royalties that are due us, that we protect 
it for those future generations, that we honor the creation 
that they reflect for those who hold those places sacred, 
whether from a Christian perspective, a Catholic perspective, 
or an Indigenous perspective, it takes time, and I know you 
have done that. So, I want to start by thanking you for that 
work.
    In particular, with regards to the onshore oil and gas 
leasing rule, royalties make up a really important part of my 
state's budget. As you know, we have a lot of public lands, we 
have a lot of Federal lands. And we benefit from those oil and 
gas royalties. Can you describe how drafting the final onshore 
oil and gas leasing rule, how did you make sure you coordinated 
with the public? That is, the people who actually own these 
natural resources, as well as the oil and gas companies who are 
making record profits right at this time.
    Can you share a little bit about the coordination and the 
input you received from both sides?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, thank you so much for the 
question.
    And, of course, so much in the oil and gas rule that you 
see before you is implementing what Congress asked us to do 
through the Inflation Reduction Act with the increases of 
royalty rates.
    But we held many public meetings, both in person and 
virtually. We got over 200,000 comments on the rule that we 
pored over. And the final product is a result of what we heard 
both from Congress and what we heard from the public.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much. And as you can 
see, 200,000 comments takes up a lot of space.
    I want to really make sure that we get to an issue that was 
sort of big picture. I want to get to a little hyper-local 
issue that I think affects other places, as well: the Valles 
Caldera National Park and the Santa Fe National Forest. As you 
know, Director Sams, there has been a significant number of 
cattle that are routinely found in the park. I get a lot of 
texts and comments about that. In fact, you are going to be 
hiring wranglers for the next 6 months, every day, to gather 
the cattle up.
    As you know, in the state of New Mexico, we are a fence-out 
state, meaning landowners are responsible for fencing out 
livestock if they don't want them on their property. While I 
know you are not subject to those Federal laws, it is a 
tradition, and it is important to make sure that we do the 
maintenance ahead so you do not have to have 6 months of 
wranglers in the park, and that we can preserve the resources 
of the park.
    Can you actually commit to maintaining the portions of the 
Valles Caldera fence within the Park Service's jurisdiction, 
and let me know what steps you are going to be taking to 
address challenges or barriers to ensure the proper upkeep of 
this very important asset?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I 
come from a ranching family. I understand the importance of 
being accountable for your own cattle and/or horses. We ran 
over 300 head of cattle and 100 head of horses.
    That being said, and recognizing the issues that we face at 
Valles Caldera, we are working very closely with the U.S. 
Forest Service on a management plan for that. We are looking at 
how exactly we can continue to build the fence out, and then 
the responsibilities each of us will have on maintaining that 
fence. I am happy to get that information and more specifics on 
that back to you directly in writing.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I think this need to 
coordinate with all kinds of different agencies and 
jurisdictions, including the ranchers, including the Forest 
Service, making sure that what we are looking at is bringing 
back both on Forest Service land the health of the grazing 
lands, and then keeping those fences up. Good fences make good 
neighbors.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields, and I would just 
mention that those are not comments.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But they reflect the comments.
    Mr. Tiffany. Those are the new rules that have been 
proposed by the Bureau of Land Management during the Biden 
administration.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. I was just pointing out 
that I am sure that they reflect the comments that they have 
received, the 200,000 on just one rule. So, thank you very much 
for the clarification, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would now like to recognize the gentleman 
from Georgia for 5 minutes, Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Stone-Manning, during a May 1 hearing before the 
Full Committee, Secretary Haaland testified that since 
President Biden has been in office, since January 2021, we have 
approved mining or mining modification permits since the 
President has been in office. That includes five critical 
mines. Of these five mines that have been permitted under this 
Administration, how many are critical minerals?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, thanks for the question.
    Again, it is roughly 40 mines, 5 of which are critical 
minerals, a couple of lithium, barium, zinc.
    Mr. Collins. How many of them were permitted from start to 
finish under this Administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I would have to get back to 
you on that question. I know the vanadium mine was start to 
finish, but I would have to get back to you on that question.
    Mr. Collins. How many received EISs under the previous 
administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Again, I would have to get back to you. 
I know that the lithium mine, Thacker Pass, the EIS was under 
the previous administration. We did the notice to proceed.
    Mr. Collins. How many mine or mine modification permits has 
Interior denied under this Administration?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't know the answer to 
that question. I don't know of one that we have denied.
    Mr. Collins. Do you know how many are awaiting an EIS?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, I just asked for that number, and I 
think it is 90. But I will get back to you.
    Mr. Collins. How many are awaiting a record of decision?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Well, the record of decision comes after 
the EIS.
    Mr. Collins. So, that is still 90?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. OK, do me a favor. You said you are going to 
get back in touch with us. Can you make sure that you do by the 
end of this month, May?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am happy to get you that information.
    Mr. Collins. All right, thank you.
    Also, Amos Hochstein, the Special Presidential Coordinator 
for Global Infrastructure and Energy Security, said that we 
don't have a lot of new supply of copper coming on-line around 
the world. And what concerns me is, even when a discovery is 
made, it could take between 7 and 15 years before the first 
copper comes out. Now, that was his quote. Do you share those 
concerns regarding copper supply?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't know about the 
global market supply of copper. I do know that when a proposal 
comes before us, we dig in. We spend, on average, 5 years on a 
hard rock mine EIS.
    Mr. Collins. What, if anything, are you all doing to 
expedite your reviews to ensure that we don't run out of the 
supply, since the deposits that are active right now, they are 
being depleted.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. As I think you know, we worked with the 
Interagency Working Group on Critical Minerals to identify how 
we can get more efficient in our work. Congress, of course, I 
think can play a role in that, but we are diving into the 
report and working hard to turn those around.
    And, again, an EIS, on average, for a hard rock mine is 
somewhere between 4 and 5 years.
    Mr. Collins. All right, thank you. I tell you what, I am 
going to yield back to the fellow hiding behind the large stack 
of rules. I think it is our Chairman back there.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. If I might add one thing, we, of course, 
are going to follow the Fiscal Reform Act that now tells us to 
get those EISs done in 2.
    Mr. Collins. All right.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Director Stone-Manning, I am assuming when you do the so-
called renewable projects, you do a NEPA analysis, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Tiffany. As part of that NEPA analysis, do the people 
that conduct it, do they evaluate how many endangered species 
are going to be killed as a result of those so-called renewable 
projects?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we work closely with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service when section 7 is implicated.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Isn't it accurate that we see a lot of 
deaths of eagles and other endangered species as a result of 
especially the wind turbines, and actually the solar panels 
also?
    Because was it the Ivanpah project out in California, I 
might not have said it right, it is over a decade old, that 
they referred to the birds as flamers when they went through 
the solar array because they were torched. Will there be a full 
analysis of the number of endangered species that are going to 
be killed as a result of building these projects?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we work every day with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service as we do our permitting work to 
ensure that we are complying with the Endangered Species Act.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, does that concern you that we see the 
number of deaths of endangered species with these so-called 
renewable projects?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, the biodiversity crisis 
facing our planet concerns me every day.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would like to now recognize the gentlelady 
from Wyoming.
    Oh, I am sorry, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. 
Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know it is 
difficult, you can't see us from up there, but thanks for the 
opportunity to join on the Committee today for this important 
hearing.
    I also want to welcome our panelists this morning. Thank 
you both for being here.
    Director Sams, it is good to see you again, and I have to 
say it is good to have a fellow Pacific Northwesterner in a 
position of national responsibility. So, good to see you.
    I want to focus the Committee's attention on something that 
is of huge concern that is happening in my district. The 
National Park Service, in conjunction with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, recently decided, and I might add against the 
will of the majority of my constituents, that they will be 
introducing grizzly bears into my district. You heard me 
correctly. Grizzly bears. The Federal Government has finalized 
a plan to airdrop these bears into the North Cascades 
ecosystem.
    So, Director Sams, quickly, could you tell us how does 
airdropping apex predators into the NCE fit with the National 
Park Service's mission of preserving the natural and cultural 
resources of the National Park System?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. It is nice to see you 
again, and I appreciate our work in the past and I look forward 
to continuing our work in the future.
    The National Park Service is directly responsible for 
implementing the Organic Act, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, of course, is responsible for implementing the 
Endangered Species Act. These laws require the agencies to 
recover, protect, and preserve threatened and endangered 
species as a public trust to ensure future generations benefit 
from the same wildlife resources that we enjoy today.
    Restoring a population of the North Cascades would help 
advance the recovery of the species currently listed as 
threatened in the Lower 48.
    Mr. Newhouse. I might point out that grizzly bears, as you 
know, have not existed in this ecosystem for decades. So, the 
NPS truly is not preserving a grizzly park, nor does it support 
the NPS's goal.
    And I found this on your website in the About Us section, 
your goal of creating close-to-home opportunities for kids and 
families to get outside, be active, and have fun. I just have 
to say that it is a little too close to home for my 
constituents, and certainly is not going to be fun.
    In reviewing the President's proposed NPS budget for Fiscal 
Year 2025, I noticed that it proposes $194,000 for one FTE to 
function as a cultural liaison for Indigenous communities at 
the North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan, and Ross Lake 
National Recreation Area. Now, I assume that this includes 
danger pay, as you also stated in your testimony the most 
valuable resource the NPS has are its employees.
    However, I did not see a justification to support the 
translocation of grizzly bears from their existing ecosystem 
into the district, nor did I see any educational campaign or 
public outreach to inform my constituents, the people that live 
up there, and visitors who come to the area that they must be 
aware of grizzly bears.
    Could you tell us how much your agency is allocating to 
activities surrounding the establishment of the bears in the 
NCE, including the protection of your employees and the 
inhabitants?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As you 
know, we had this discussion. My people have lived with grizzly 
bears for 10,000 years, and their demise has only been in less 
than the last 70 years, really, in that effort.
    And looking at it, we know that we have been able to manage 
them as a species in the National Park Service, whether that be 
at Yellowstone or Grand Tetons. As a matter of fact, my own 
family experienced them one night when a ranger came by to tell 
us a mama bear grizzly and her cubs were coming through, and we 
woke up and made sure that we were protected. And then, as soon 
as they made their way through, we went back and went to sleep 
with no problem out in the woods.
    To your specific question, I am going to defer to my 
colleague here to talk a little bit more about the funding 
process, but I can tell you we are committed to providing 
education in the community, and we are working very closely 
with Washington's Fish and Wildlife staff, too.
    Ms. Bowron. I think, in addition to the specific funding 
that is proposed as a programmatic increase for North Cascades, 
there is also more than $100 million proposed to restore the 
capacity that is lost in Fiscal Year 2024 across every park and 
every program, so that the parks aren't absorbing that lost 
purchasing power and they have additional funding to serve 
visitors and protect resources.
    Mr. Newhouse. OK. When your agency coordinated with the 
Fish and Wildlife Service to follow through with this, what I 
saw as a pre-determined plan to bring the bears into the area, 
was the safety of your Park Service agents and the people who 
surround this ecosystem of consideration?
    Was their safety ignored, just like my constituents believe 
that their concerns were, because the Federal Government knows 
best?
    I also want to ask, did the NPS consult with other Federal 
agencies besides Fish and Wildlife Service?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. I will have to go back 
about all the other agencies we may have spoken with along with 
Fish and Wildlife.
    But yes, we have a very robust training program about 
safety and working in and around apex predators, whether that 
be grizzly bears, wolves, or mountain lions, and such. And we 
will ensure that we provide that also to the general public 
when they actually intermingle or may have a chance in back 
country of coming across such apex predators.
    Mr. Newhouse. Let me let you know that I asked the Acting 
Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection if he was aware 
of this new threat, because they have agents up in that area, 
CBP agents, operating the northern border. And surprisingly, he 
was not aware.
    I just have to say that the example of this in my district, 
it is certainly not the first or probably won't be the last 
time the Federal Government, in my view, overstepped its 
bounds, particularly when it comes to endangered and threatened 
species.
    The people's concerns up there are valid. I think they need 
to be listened to. And I think, with all the discussion that we 
have had this morning about other issues that are facing the 
Park Service, I believe that this money could be going to real 
issues that the Service is facing, such as the wildfires, which 
you brought up, the housing issues, the shortages, the road 
repairs. But instead, it is going to be going to this purpose 
that I think is going to appease a lot of outside environmental 
organizations.
    It is my job to ensure that the voice of the people of 
central Washington are heard, and I want to let you know that 
the majority of the people in this area staunchly oppose apex 
predators being airdropped, literally airdropped, into their 
backyards using their own tax dollars.
    So, I appreciate you being here, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with you on this issue that is not going 
away and we have to solve.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going over time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, ma'am, for being here, for your testimony. I 
really appreciate you. I thank you all. I also want to thank 
you for your support, actually, on the approval of the 
Copperhead and Loving Pipeline project. This pipeline is an 
essential project to our country's domestic supply of oil and 
gas. It will further our energy independence and security, and 
bring good-paying jobs to an economically deprived area.
    And I want to take this opportunity to thank you for 
supporting my bill, H.R. 7377, the Royalty Resiliency Act. This 
common-sense fix will allow operators to pay the correct amount 
of royalties up front, saving taxpaying dollars in the long 
run, and alleviating the present honor accounting nightmare. 
So, thank you for working with my office for that.
    Moving on to the President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget 
request, ma'am, President Biden's budget request includes 
funding for an additional 104 full-time employees to your 
agency. How many of these new full-time employees will work in 
the Carlsbad, New Mexico BLM field office? Do you know, ma'am?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't. I do know that we 
are trying to tackle the vacancy issue in the Carlsbad office. 
We have 115 FTEs working there now, and a table of organization 
that allows for 170, and we are working hard on that.
    But also, I am so proud of them for reaching record highs 
on the number of permits to drill that they are getting out the 
door despite those staffing shortages.
    Mr. Hunt. OK. The Carlsbad office is the most active BLM 
office in the entire country, as you just articulated. And in 
2023 alone, the office received 2,500 APDs. And, unfortunately, 
the office is only two-thirds staffed. So, while you commend 
the workers that are putting out record output, we still have 
quite a long ways to go, and I think we can accomplish that.
    Earlier this year, I wrote to Ms. Melanie Barnes, then-
Staff Director of BLM in the New Mexico Staff office, to 
inquire about this shortfall. And according to the response 
that I received, the Carlsbad office still has a shortfall of 
55 employees, several who are critical to the APD process and 
approval of these agreements. So, we need to make sure that we 
do continue to move forward and just get better and work 
harder, because they are drastically behind.
    And can you please commit to me today in good faith that 
you will continue to communicate with my office on your efforts 
to be proactive as possible, to make sure we get these numbers 
back up and get a fully-staffed office in Carlsbad?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I would commit that we will 
keep you apprised.
    Carlsbad is tough. Like so many places in the West, housing 
costs are going through the roof, and it is hard to recruit. 
But we are working on it every day.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, thank you. I believe that given the 
importance of BLM in New Mexico, the field office, that the 
COVID-19 pandemic, it is over, it has been over. There are a 
lot of people that are working from home still. So, when we 
have shortages like this, and people working from home, and 
COVID has been over for a very long time, I will also ask if 
your office would commit to getting these people back to 
working full-time to alleviate some of these numbers, as well, 
if you don't mind.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we are following department 
policy on both telework and remote, and so many of those jobs 
at the field level. The office is a car in the field, right? 
And catching up on e-mails, either at home or at the office, is 
a small part of the work. The work is really out on the ground.
    Mr. Hunt. All right. Thank you very much, ma'am.
    And lastly, just on Monday, I was in Midland, Texas. And 
the reason why I was in Midland is because, I don't know if you 
know, I am from Houston, Texas. Their entire energy corridor is 
in my district. The two hubs for energy are in my district and 
Congressman August Pfluger's district in Midland. So, there are 
some synergies there that we are hypersensitive to and focused 
on.
    And I visited a company, and I have three applications here 
with me. This is the first one. It is roughly seven pages. This 
is Texas. This is also why Texas is growing so fast, because we 
like to get things done in Texas.
    The second one is the New Mexico one. This is 41 pages. 
Better, but still not the Texas standard.
    This is BLM's APD. This is 220 pages. And I am not trying 
to be insulting, but this is why companies have a very hard 
time when operating outside of Texas, and why America is 
hurting, because we have to do better than this. This 
disincentivizes companies to want to work hard to increase 
their oil production that the world drastically needs.
    Ma'am, I am asking you, can we please work together to get 
this looking more like Texas in the not-so-distant future?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am very much interested 
in results, and we are producing record highs off of our public 
lands of oil.
    And I heard you last week when you said to the Secretary, 
``But I want more.'' I hear you.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, good.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. But we are producing record highs while 
we are also upholding the law.
    And as you know, a lot of our work is held up in court, and 
I want to make sure that when we go to court, we win.
    Mr. Hunt. But you do understand that whenever a company 
sees this much bureaucracy, it does disincentivize them to try 
to do more. Does that make sense?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I hear what you are saying, but please 
also know that public lands are doing their part to fuel this 
country.
    Mr. Hunt. I understand. Thank you very much for being here. 
Thank you for your cooperation.
    I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Sams, where does public safety, the safety of 
people, rank in terms of importance or priority in national 
parks policy?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is 
paramount to us.
    Mr. Good. OK, great to hear. And how about the threat of 
wildfires for communities near national parks?
    Mr. Sams. Also very paramount to us.
    Mr. Good. Great, glad to hear that. So, the Park Service 
does have concerns if a community in a forested area would have 
only one escape route in the event of a wildfire, you would be 
concerned about that?.
    Mr. Sams. We would be very concerned about that.
    Mr. Good. Very good, glad to hear. As you know, last year 
in Hawaii, a devastating wildfire broke out in Lahaina, and 115 
people died because there were only two ways in and out of the 
town, and people were actually trying to take refuge from the 
flames. Five years ago, in November of 2018, the infamous 
campfire broke out in California and resulted in 85 deaths, 
representing the deadliest fire in California history. At least 
seven of those deaths were attributed to people being trapped 
in traffic jams, trying to escape. And then 7 years ago, in 
2017, the Tubbs Fire ignited also in California, and led to a 
6-lane highway being engulfed in flames, creating serious 
evacuation issues that resulted in 22 fatalities.
    My district is home to the Wintergreen community in Nelson 
County in Virginia, which is located within the Blue Ridge 
National Park, and it only has one method of entry and exit for 
a community that has as many as 10,000 people at a time. For 
over 30 years, the Wintergreen Property Association has tried 
to obtain approval from the National Park Service to build a 
400 foot long, 10-12 feet wide emergency gravel road to connect 
the only road in Wintergreen to the Blue Ridge Parkway to 
create an exit.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Good. Actual photo here, you can see the orange part 
there is the 400 feet that we need to be approved by National 
Park Service to connect to the Blue Ridge Parkway, just the 
little orange, 2 inch line there on my photo, anyway.
    They have completed all the necessary studies confirming 
that little to no negative environmental impact or threat to 
endangered species would take place. But again, there is only 
one means of entry and exit for Wintergreen. The whole 
community is down here, and they can only go down. They can't 
go up at this point, which, again, at any given time might have 
as many as 10,000 people.
    But the National Park Service has repeatedly indicated that 
an emergency exit connecting the Blue Ridge Parkway across 
National Park Service land to prevent the loss of life is 
``likely inconsistent with the use of such lands for parkway 
purposes,'' and then also cited the lack of precedent set forth 
under the National Park Service Organic Act.
    Wintergreen has, in response, proposed that the emergency 
exit road would be under the control of National Park Service, 
with a gate that would remain locked at all times for a gravel 
road that would only ever be used, hopefully never, but only 
ever be used in an emergency. And, again, the hope that that 
would never be the case. But the NPS, National Park Service, 
claims they have no authority to issue the permit under the 
National Park Service Organic Act.
    In December 2023, just now 5 months ago, the Wintergreen 
community filed their latest application. They have been trying 
for 30 years, thank God it hasn't been necessary yet, for an 
emergency exit, which is pending review.
    Again, you can see the diagram here. This would be a non-
invasive, gravel road, allowed to be grown over, again, gated 
off, under the control of NPS, that would only be used in 
emergency. Can you answer to why this has not been approved?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I do not 
know, but I will get back to you in writing about this, and 
thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will look into it 
more deeply.
    Mr. Good. I appreciate that. It would be great if it could 
just be approved, because that would be faster. Thank you for 
your willingness to look at that. Both Senators in Virginia 
have expressed their support for this to me, as they have 
advocated for it, as well.
    I do have a bill, the Blue Ridge Safety Act, which would 
more clearly grant you the authority to issue one permit a year 
in cases where there was an emergency. I would hope not to have 
to wait for the legislative will to do that through both houses 
of Congress and the President. It is a common-sense bill that 
would allow Wintergreen to take these appropriate measures to 
ensure their safety of the community.
    So, thank you for your commitment to look at that, and 
hopefully that you will support that, and hopefully, we will 
never need to use it and it will just be grown over with gravel 
underneath, and be very limited, but just a 400-foot access 
road that would prevent loss of life unnecessarily. So, thank 
you, Director Sams.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentlelady from Wyoming.
    Ms. Hageman. All right, thank you.
    Director Stone-Manning, I have visited the disaster on our 
southern border three times. And there are millions of acres of 
BLM lands in our southern border states such as New Mexico, 
Arizona, California, Nevada, et cetera. How many times have you 
visited the border states to find out firsthand how the 
invasion of illegal aliens into our country has affected those 
lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I have visited the border 
once.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. When was that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That was in fall, late fall of 2021.
    Ms. Hageman. You haven't been back?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. To the border? No. To the southern 
states, yes.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Have you, as the Director of the BLM, 
undertaken any type of NEPA analysis to evaluate the 
environmental impact of uncontrollable illegal aliens crossing 
the border?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I think you might be 
talking about the garbage that we were talking about earlier in 
the hearing. Is that what you are referring to?
    Ms. Hageman. No, I am talking about have you undertaken any 
kind of an environmental analysis to determine the impact of 
the horde of millions of people crossing that border illegally 
and crossing BLM lands. Have you done any kind of an 
environmental analysis to determine the impact that they are 
having on our Federal lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Not to my knowledge.
    Ms. Hageman. Does the BLM intend to start trying to find a 
way to house illegal aliens on our Federal lands?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, that is not in our 
mission.
    Ms. Hageman. Just 2 weeks ago, I had the opportunity to 
question Secretary Haaland about various Wyoming priorities, 
and one of which is the entire Wyoming Delegation has written 
to you about multiple times, and that relates to the Rock 
Springs RMP.
    When I asked Secretary Haaland if she had heard about it, 
or if she was familiar with it, she stated that she had not. 
Director Stone-Manning, have you read the Rock Springs Resource 
Management Plan?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I believe the next day 
the Secretary, in a subsequent hearing----
    Ms. Hageman. No, I am asking you. The question for you is, 
have you read the Rock Springs RMP?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I have read the main chapters of it, but 
not all the appendices.
    Ms. Hageman. But you have not read all of it.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Not all the appendices, no.
    Ms. Hageman. OK.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. That is what my staff does.
    Ms. Hageman. In that Rock Springs RMP, the BLM chose 
alternative B, which would establish over 1.8 million acres as 
areas of critical environmental concern, and it would impact 
grazing, as well as oil and gas development, mining, and will 
lead to the end of existing leases, where we have productive 
uses that generate revenue for the state and for the nation. It 
destroys recreation and vehicle access, and contains all sorts 
of broad, so-called protections that aren't relevant to 
protecting the environment at all.
    In late 2023, a former BLM employee, who was actually a 
participant in the drafting of the Rock Springs RMP, testified 
to Wyoming's Joint Federal Natural Resources Management 
Committee that the BLM preferred alternative received very 
little time and effort in their development. In his own words, 
he said, ``The science and the work was all done on alternative 
D, as in dog. We sat down and in 1 week we did alternative B 
and C together. And after that was done, we sat down with the 
cooperating agencies and we spent the next 5 or 6 years 
developing alternative D.''
    Do you think it is appropriate to completely rewrite and 
upend the management plan for 3.6 million acres of land, based 
on a plan that was put together in 1 week?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, I can't speak to a former 
staffer at the BLM, but I can speak to the team in Rock Springs 
who was working day in and day out on that plan, and I----
    Ms. Hageman. They were working on the plan, but not on 
alternatives B and C.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am, as I was saying, I am proud of 
their work, and I am proud of how they are incorporating what 
they are hearing----
    Ms. Hageman. Do you believe that a 1-week review would 
comply with the requirements of FLPMA?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I am sorry, what was the question?
    Ms. Hageman. Do you believe that a 1-week review of a 
particular alternative for a Resource Management Plan that 
would cover 3.6 million acres would satisfy the requirements of 
FLPMA?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, we are spending more than 
a week on this plan.
    Ms. Hageman. My question is, would a 1-week review for an 
alternative on a plan that covers 3.6 million acres of land 
satisfy the requirements of FLPMA?
    Clearly, the answer is not, that it wouldn't, would it?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I believe it is a hypothetical question, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. In the first 3 years of the Biden 
administration, the BLM held four onshore oil and gas lease 
sales in Wyoming totaling 194,000 acres and generated $44 
million in revenue. Conversely, the Trump administration held 
13 lease sales over its first 3 years, leasing 2.2 million 
acres and generating $431 million in revenue. The BLM has 
brought in a tenth of the revenue, as compared to the Trump 
administration. And as you know, half of that revenue goes to 
the state of Wyoming, and half of it goes to the Federal 
Government.
    How do you intend to replace that kind of revenue into the 
coffers of the Federal Government if you are going to deny our 
ability to generate revenue on 48 percent of the surface estate 
in the state of Wyoming?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, there are 10 million 
acres that are leased in this country that are not currently 
being used. There are over 7,000 permits to drill that are not 
being used.
    Ms. Hageman. So, the answer is you don't have an answer to 
that question.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congresswoman, we have 10 million acres 
that are not being used that are leased. We have 7,000 permits 
that are not being used that industry could use tomorrow. They 
are choosing not to.
    Ms. Hageman. You actually know so little about the industry 
that you don't even know how that system and process works. 
That is what is apparent by your answer to my question.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields.
    So, Director Stone-Manning, the issue of FLPMA has come up 
a couple of times. And you are familiar with the coordination 
requirement in FLPMA, right?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. You know how it is much different than--we 
hear the terms ``collaborate,'' things like that. Coordination 
is much different, isn't it?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Our cooperating agencies help make our 
work better.
    Mr. Tiffany. But ``coordination,'' that term is clearly 
defined, and is much different than, like, just cooperating or 
collaborating. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I don't think I know where 
you are going with this question.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, I would go in this direction. We heard 
from the gentleman from Guam how his constituents were not 
heard, that they were not included in the process. He expressed 
concern, and he was very mild about it and respectful, but it 
was clear he was saying that on the issue he had in the Mariana 
Islands, that they were not being heard.
    We heard from the gentleman from Utah, not a single hearing 
in regards to Bears Ears, is that correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, regarding the gentleman 
from Guam, we don't manage lands on Guam.
    And regarding the gentleman from Utah, we held public 
meetings all over the West in capital cities that were easy to 
get to. We also held meetings online virtually, so that people 
can participate from their homes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you coordinate with the local 
municipalities?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we work very closely with 
the state of Utah.
    Mr. Tiffany. You coordinated, treated them as an equal at 
the table when you were doing the process? Is that what you are 
saying? Because coordination is a very specific item within 
FLPMA that--you must sit down and work with local governments, 
local and state governments, as equals. Did you treat them as 
equals?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. I think he was referring to the Bears 
Ears plan and the Grand Staircase plan, and we do work with 
local entities to take their concerns into consideration.
    On the public lands rule itself, we did that work with, 
easily, 100 staffers at the Bureau whose job it is to implement 
and manage on the ground every day.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you fully coordinate with the governing 
entities in Utah, including local governments?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. On the public lands rule? No, we did 
not. They did have a chance between draft and final, however, 
during a 90-day public period----
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for letting us know that you did not 
coordinate, because it is a different process than simply a 
hearing.
    I want to go to some testimony from Secretary Haaland from 
a couple of weeks ago, and it had to do with the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, their regulation. Didn't the 
tribes up there ask for an extension on the provision that you 
folks put in place? Didn't they ask for an extension, and 
weren't they denied?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we granted two extensions 
in the public comment period for the NPRA rule.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the tribes are lying to us, saying that 
they did not get the extension? Because that is what they told 
us, they did not get an extension in a hearing here before the 
Natural Resources Committee.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I can't speak for the 
tribes. What I can tell you is we extended the public comment 
period twice.
    Mr. Tiffany. A BLM employee said, ``I wish we could give an 
extension. In other contexts, we might have that kind of time, 
but I am happy to regale you with the ins and outs of the 
Congressional Review Act. But, unfortunately, we are on a 
schedule with this one that we don't have any control over. So, 
we just don't have that kind of time for this rule,'' as a 
result of denying the extension. Did you instruct your employee 
to say that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I did not instruct that 
colleague to say that. I can tell you that we met----
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that employee still working for the Bureau 
of Land Management after making a statement like that?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, she doesn't work for the 
Bureau.
    Mr. Tiffany. Did you issue any sort of directive in regards 
to this, whether it was formal or informal, to say that we are 
going to get you around the Congressional Review Act by doing 
this in such a manner? Did you issue any directives?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, we worked very hard on this 
rule and many others. And the timing is what the timing was. We 
have worked for the last 2\1/2\ or 3 years on these rules, and 
here we are.
    And as you know, I don't know what the deadline is for the 
Congressional Review Act, because it moves every year, right?
    Mr. Tiffany. By the way, I was just handed a note. The 
tribe asked for 90 days. They got 30.
    So, we hear all this happy talk from the Administration, 
and we heard it from you today also, in regards to we are so 
serious about working with the tribal interests around the 
country, we believe in Nation-to-Nation collaboration, and 
things like that, but you didn't do that in Alaska. You didn't 
take into account their request.
    Does this Administration only work with the tribes when it 
serves your interests and not necessarily the tribe's 
interests?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, I am so proud to work under 
the historic leadership of Secretary Haaland. We engage with 
tribes at the Department like we never have in our history. By 
my count, we met with folks on the North Slope 17 times. Then 
we had three public meetings on top of that. So, we listened 
very hard to what they say. And the final rule that we 
promulgated recently incorporates in part what we heard from 
them.
    Mr. Tiffany. And you would not give them the extension that 
they wished for. A tribal interest in Alaska asked for a 90-day 
extension, and the Bureau of Land Management did not give that 
to them. Isn't that correct?
    Ms. Stone-Manning. What we were able to do is continue in 
government-to-government tribal consultation, which is not 
dictated by a public comment period. The public comment period 
shut down, but the government-to-government consultation 
continued.
    Mr. Tiffany. You have a long history of anti-natural 
resource utilization in this country, both private and in 
public. It certainly appears that you are continuing that in 
your role as the Director at the Bureau of Land Management, and 
it is terribly unfortunate for the American people that we 
continue to see these types of actions that are leading to what 
is harming the American people at this point, with inflation, 
higher energy prices, the denial of energy projects, and the 
anti-natural resources utilization mentality that exists with 
this Administration. We see it all over the country. Americans 
see it all over the country. And you can deny it if you wish 
to. But that is not the case.
    Ms. Stone-Manning. Congressman, what I am proud of is that 
10,000 people who work for the BLM that I have the honor of 
overseeing created $232 billion in economic output last year. 
It is remarkable work.
    Mr. Tiffany. And those 10,000 people are harming 300 
million in the United States of America.
    I would like to thank both the witnesses for your testimony 
and Members for your questions.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for our witnesses today, and we will ask that the 
witnesses respond to those in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
May 20, 2024. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for those responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Malliotakis

Erosion continues at Gateway National Recreation Area Great Kills 
        Park--silive.com

https://www.silive.com/galleries/757EGGXSZBEFPFROTJXPFA5IFA/

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]