Hearings to examine the nominations of Katharine MacGregor, of Florida, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, and James Danly, of Tennessee, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy.

1[Senate Hearing 119-47]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                         S. Hrg. 119-4756                    MACGREGOR AND DANLY NOMINATIONS78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                              COMMITTEE ON15                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES16                          UNITED STATES SENATE1718                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1920                             FIRST SESSION2122                                   to2324CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF KATHARINE MACGREGOR TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY25    OF THE INTERIOR AND JAMES DANLY TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF ENERGY2627                               __________2829                             APRIL 2, 20253031                               __________3233[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435                       Printed for the use of the36               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3738        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3940                                __________4142                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4360-023                      WASHINGTON : 20264445-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4647               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4849                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman50JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico51JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon52STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington53TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii54DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine55JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada56BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado57CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California58LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona59JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota6061                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director62            Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel63                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director64                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel6566                            C O N T E N T S6768                              ----------6970                           OPENING STATEMENTS7172                                                                   Page73Lee, Hon. Mike, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah............     174Heinrich, Hon. Martin, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from75  New Mexico.....................................................     27677                               WITNESSES7879MacGregor, Hon. Katharine, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of80  the Interior...................................................     381Danly, Hon. James, nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy....     88283          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED8485Consumer Energy Alliance:86    Letter for the Record........................................    8987Danly, Hon. James:88    Opening Statement............................................     889    Written Testimony............................................    1090    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    6991Heinrich, Hon. Martin:92    Opening Statement............................................     293Lee, Hon. Mike:94    Opening Statement............................................     195Louisiana Alligator Farmers and Ranchers Association and96  Louisiana Landowners Association:97    Letter for the Record........................................    9198MacGregor, Hon. Katharine:99    Opening Statement............................................     3100    Written Testimony............................................     6101    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    49102Patkotak, Josiah:103    Letter for the Record........................................    92104Public Lands Council:105    Letter for the Record........................................    94106Wigglesworth, Alex:107    Article entitled ``Park Rangers Battle Australians Seeking108      Rare Earth Minerals in Old Mojave Gold Mine'' published in109      the Los Angeles Times, February 28, 2025...................    96110111                    MACGREGOR AND DANLY NOMINATIONS112113                              ----------114115                        WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025116117                                       U.S. Senate,118                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,119                                                    Washington, DC.120    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in121Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,122Chairman of the Committee, presiding.123124              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,125                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH126127    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.128    Welcome to the Committee's third nomination hearing for129this Congress, and this is an important one. This is a hearing130involving two people who will help run the two departments that131this Committee oversees. We will receive testimony from these132two distinguished nominees for the offices of these two Deputy133Secretary appointments, the Department of the Interior and the134Department of Energy.135    Each of these nominees has previously been confirmed by the136Senate after having been reported favorably out of this137Committee. Each served honorably in their respective offices.138The two individuals are, therefore, no strangers to this139Committee--Katharine MacGregor, nominated to be the Deputy140Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and James Danly,141nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Both nominees142deserve to be confirmed, and each has my strong support. I143thank President Trump for sending these nominees to the Senate144for confirmation. In both the Department of the Interior and145the Department of Energy, the Deputy Secretary functions as146sort of the chief operating officer, responsible for a lot of147the day-to-day management and function of each of these148departments, departments that involve a complex, sprawling149series of agencies that directly affect the lives of 330150million Americans.151    At Interior, the Deputy Secretary helps oversee nearly15270,000 employees, a $14 billion budget, and it manages 500153million acres--a staggering one-fifth of our nation's land, and154it is roughly two-thirds of the sprawling 28 percent of the155total landmass owned by the U.S. Government throughout our156country. So this role requires supervising the development of157all sorts of things and managing this entity. It involves being158the largest supplier and manager of water in 17 states, of159upholding trust responsibilities to 574 federally recognized160American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. Ms. MacGregor has161done this work before, and she has done well in this position.162In her previous tenure as Deputy Secretary, she oversaw efforts163to ensure responsible domestic energy and mineral development164on public lands and waters, reduced permitting time frames, and165implemented the Department's COVID-19 operational response. She166brings a wealth of private sector and public sector experience,167including her most recent role at NextEra Energy, giving her a168broad perspective on energy development, environmental169protection, and regulatory reform.170    At the Department of Energy, the Deputy Secretary plays a171similarly critical role. That Department is tasked with172maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent,173reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, overseeing the174United States energy supply, carrying out the environmental175cleanup from the Cold War nuclear mission, and managing 17176national laboratories. The Department literally keeps the177lights on. We have seen Mr. Danly's work at the Federal Energy178Regulatory Commission, both as General Counsel and later as179Chairman and as a Commissioner, of course. We have read his180dissents, his statements, and his warnings, particularly about181the dangers of distorting markets and overreliance on182intermittent sources of electric power. His legal and183regulatory record demonstrates a consistent commitment to184statutory interpretation grounded in the text of the law and a185deep understanding of the grid's physical and economic186realities. Beyond his professional credentials, Mr. Danly187brings a record of service and sacrifice. As a former Army188officer, he served two tours in Iraq and was awarded the Bronze189Star and the Purple Heart.190    I look forward to hearing from both nominees today. Their191roles are vital, their responsibilities immense, and the192decisions that they make in these jobs will reverberate193throughout the American West, and of course, the nation at194large.195    With that, I now recognize Senator Heinrich for his opening196statement.197198          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,199                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO200201    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome Ms.202MacGregor and Mr. Danly.203    Before we get to Committee business, I do want to address204the troubling reports that DOE is considering canceling or205renegotiating existing funding contracts with companies, some206of which are already under construction. As I wrote to207Secretary Wright in a letter a week ago, I will remind Mr.208Danly and Ms. MacGregor today, the decision to rescind these209awards rests with Congress, not with the President and210certainly not with the Elon Musk. However, even before these211so-called kill lists were leaked, we already started seeing the212economic impact of the Administration's reckless actions. It is213estimated that more than 50,000 energy jobs have already been214lost under Trump's watch. The Administration's actions are also215constricting the fastest growing and most affordable power216sources, just as demand from manufacturing and data center217growth is surging. This means that energy costs will soar.218Electricity prices are already on track to be the highest they219have been since the 1990s, and terminating projects in the name220of energy dominance is not only ludicrous, it will lead to221higher energy costs directly for households. All of this is222only the newest phase in the Administration's campaign of chaos223in federal agencies and actions that are raising energy costs.224    Both the Interior and Energy Departments have been subject225to whiplash in just the last two months. From illegally firing226thousands of employees, only to be required by courts to rehire227them, to announcements that agency buildings would be closed or228sold, or maybe not, to freezing grant funds and canceling229contracts in contravention of federal law only to see some230unfrozen while others still remain inexplicably frozen. This231has got to be about the least efficient way to run a232government. For the Department of the Interior, all of this233mismanagement has real on-the-ground impacts for people and234communities. We have seen closed visitor centers and235overflowing trash cans at parks, field offices that have236shorter hours, and it is harder for people to reach front-line237staff when they have questions. Small businesses are worried if238their permits will get processed. Scientists are struggling to239cover expenses because the Federal Government has backed out of240contracts with them. Our public lands are the birthright of241every single American; however, if something doesn't change,242and soon, at the agencies that care for these public lands, we243could lose that birthright.244    I have a number of questions today for both of these245nominees for the Energy and the Interior Departments. Both246Departments were created by statute. They were not created by247the whim of the President. They do not exist at the President's248pleasure. The laws they execute, the programs they administer,249the funds they spend, were enacted, created, and appropriated250by law by Congress. I will be looking for assurances from both251nominees that they are committed to following the law. And I252hope to hear how they will get these Departments returned back253to a path of public service, back on track securing American254leadership and competitiveness, and the responsible stewardship255of our natural resources.256    Thank you, Mr. Chair.257    The Chairman. Okay, let's now turn to our witnesses for258their testimonies. Before your opening testimony, I would like259to swear you both in. If you would both stand.260    Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give261to the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and262nothing but the truth?263    [Witnesses sworn in]264    The Chairman. Thank you.265    All right, we will now have opening statements. We will266hear first from Ms. MacGregor and then from Mr. Danly. And267while you are speaking feel free to introduce any family that268you have here with you.269    You may proceed, Ms. MacGregor.270271 STATEMENT OF HON. KATHARINE MACGREGOR, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY272                   SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR273274    Ms. MacGregor. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member275Heinrich, and members of the Committee. I thought I had escaped276DC, but as you all know, sometimes life presents you with277different paths, and I am both honored and humbled that278President Trump has once again nominated me for the position of279Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.280    As a true hockey family, we have packed the proverbial281stands this morning, and I am blessed to be joined by my family282and friends, including representatives of the 2004 University283of Pennsylvania varsity women's crew team, members of the best284women's hunting group this side of the Mississippi, my best285Alaskan fishing and baking buddy, my favorite astronaut, and286several individuals who have been amazing mentors to me in my287professional career. Finally, and most importantly, I am joined288by my parents, Jean and Peter MacGregor, my aunt and uncle,289Sheila and Dick Sanford, and my brother Robert and his wife290Michele. The three of us are the MacGregor hockey line on the291Congressional hockey team.292    When I testified here over five years ago, I explained my293focus to achieve balance in managing America's public lands,294cultural treasures, and natural resources in order to advance295the priorities of our President. I understand the deep personal296connections that so many people have to the lands and resources297managed by Interior. But in my work in Congress and at298Interior, I also learned firsthand how the decisions we make in299Washington impact American families and businesses far away300from DC, sometimes for generations. I remember Senator King301telling me a story about traveling with his grandchildren in an302RV to visit some of our nation's parks, and it makes me smile303because I absolutely remember picnics with my grandparents and304cousins at Valley Forge National Park in Pennsylvania. These305are the happy memories that make us smile even long after our306loved ones have passed.307    But I also remember the tough stories of resource308management plan delays impeding economic development in rural309America or a woman denied justice simply because law310enforcement could not reach her due to weather, and of course311there was no road. For the last four years, I have been one of312those people watching DC from afar, all while falling in love313with Florida. From the dangerous beauty of the Everglades and314the invasive species issues we face, the importance of being315prepared for natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires,316the incredible abundance of our offshore waters, the thrilling317call of an Osceola turkey as you watch the world wake up from318inside a hunting blind, or even just the stunning red-orange319glow of Jupiter Lighthouse at sunset, which is managed by the320BLM. But more importantly, in my time in the private sector, I321have learned a lot. I have worked on environmental permitting322and compliance for almost every type of energy infrastructure323project around our great nation and have grown to appreciate324the far-reaching consequences of decisions made in Washington,325the durability of those decisions, and the timeliness of agency326action.327    As we all know, if there is a federal nexus, there is a328federal official somewhere saying yes or no, or in the worst329case, just not responding. What I have concluded from outside330of DC is that the American people, your constituents, deserve331better. I cannot imagine any instance where it's just and right332that someone wait over 30 years for the authority to build a333road to connect their community to better services, over 20334years for a habitat conservation plan, 15 years for a final335resource management plan, or over a decade for a pastor in336rural Arkansas to be able to continue to bury his deceased337parishioners in their 100-year-old churchyard only because the338land appraisal for a Congressionally authorized land exchange339sat on someone's desk. It is simply unacceptable, and frankly,340it breaks my heart. This is why so many rural Americans feel341like their government has forgotten them.342    Don't get me wrong, I have heard really great stories too.343I was so proud to learn that several of the cold case offices344that we established under President Trump's initiative to345address Missing and Murdered Native American and Alaska Native346women and children had solved several cases after many years.347Many of you on the dais helped us with this initiative. Sadly,348these little victories seem too infrequent. We need to turn349that around. Roads not built, cases left unsolved, appraisal350backlogs, and obstacles to public hunting and fishing, these351are the reasons I would like to return to Interior. I would352like to come back to drive change and efficiency. And in doing353so, I hope we can once again make a difference for the people354who rely upon us to show up and do our jobs. I am honored to355have met with many of you and learn about the many missions at356Interior that are important to you, personally, and to your357constituents. If confirmed, I will always keep the needs of the358American people at the forefront of my mind. After all, it is359they who are ultimately watching us here in DC and they are360hoping for us to work together, consider their needs, and361frankly, get things done in Washington.362    Thank you again for having me here today. I would be more363than happy to take any questions.364    [The prepared statement of Ms. MacGregor follows:]365    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]366367    Senator Cotton [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. MacGregor.368    Mr. Danly.369370STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DANLY, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY371                           OF ENERGY372373    Mr. Danly. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member374Heinrich, and members of the Committee. It is an honor to375appear before you again today. I sit before you, humbly, as376President Trump's nominee for Deputy Secretary of the377Department of Energy.378    Before I get to my comments, I just want to recognize my379family and friends. Behind me sits my wife, Frankie. The last380time I appeared before the Committee, just like this time, my381son, James, who is an active, talkative, rambunctious 10-year-382old, is not in attendance, but he is watching the hearing, I am383told, as it is happening. For both Frankie and James, I want to384recognize the sacrifices that families of the people who serve385in public service make. Those sacrifices are profound. So thank386you both, Frankie and James, for your support and indulgence387over the years that I have been in government and when I was in388the Army, especially when I was in Iraq. I also have friends389here, including colleagues from throughout my career, among390them the lawyers who first taught me energy law, and my391advisors from my time at the Commission.392    As the Committee is aware, the Department of Energy393performs a number of critical functions. The national labs394ensure that the United States is and remains at the cutting395edge of science and technology. The Department is responsible396for auditing and overseeing the weapons stockpile, it manages397environmental cleanup at legacy waste sites, and it promotes398the development and deployment of energy sources and399infrastructure. I believe that my prior roles as general400counsel, commissioner, and chairman at the Federal Energy401Regulatory Commission give me a unique and important vantage402point on how to achieve the President and the Secretary's403shared vision of ensuring affordable, reliable, and secure404energy for the American people.405    The utility and natural gas sectors, the subjects I406regulated while at FERC, are a critical component to achieving407those goals. Right now, we face profound challenges. Demand for408energy is growing and we cannot face the difficulty in409producing and delivering it to Americans to ensure the410country's safety and prosperity without tackling a number of411very difficult problems. There are also great opportunities.412America is blessed with the most abundant energy in the world,413we have the best technical minds to harness that potential, and414we have a private sector that stands ready to invest capital,415build infrastructure, and produce the energy that we416desperately need. We stand on the brink of an energy417renaissance in which we can replace growing energy scarcity--at418home and abroad--with energy abundance for the United States419and its allies, improving the lives of our citizens while420ensuring our geostrategic position.421    There are a couple of subjects that I would just like to422touch on before I finish.423    First, our energy problems and scarcity are driven, in424large measure, by failure to develop needed infrastructure.425America struggles to build things these days. We have an acute426need to build all manner of infrastructure across the country,427but the federal permitting regime has become an impediment to428that development. Interminable delays, legal challenges that429threaten the permits that are already issued, and a430continuously changing regulatory landscape have come to chill431investment. And the result of that is that projects take longer432to build and are increasingly expensive, or worse than that,433they never get built in the first place. It will be difficult434to achieve our goals of ensuring affordable, reliable, and435secure energy to the American people without tackling the436problem of federal permitting.437    Second, and relatedly, we have an acute need for electric438generation. The United States is experiencing unprecedented439demand for electricity. And that demand is increasing at an440accelerating rate. Data centers, AI, and reindustrialization441have brought load onto the system at a speed that we have never442been seen before. Maintaining our strategic position in the443world absolutely requires that Americans have access to444affordable, reliable, and secure energy in abundance. I have445spent the better part of a decade directly regulating the446energy markets and the reliability of the bulk electric system.447I can report that we have systematically failed to compensate448baseload generation in order to ensure the retention of449existing assets and to incentivize the arrival of the new450generators that we need to meet the growing demand. This451challenge has to be solved.452    Third and finally, we need to recommit ourselves to453America's preeminence as the world's leader in science and454technology. The national labs, which are the crown jewel of the455Department, have been the source of countless advances over the456years, both in pure and applied science. These advances and457discoveries have driven commercial development, spawned new458industries, and ensured American prosperity. Recently, the459national labs have made advances in quantum computing, nuclear460reactors, and fundamental scientific research that promise a461new era of science and engineering. We have to recommit to that462mission to ensure that America continues to maintain its463scientific and technological edge that the citizens of the464United States have relied upon for so many decades.465    Again, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members466of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before467you, and I look forward to your questions.468    [The prepared statement of Mr. Danly follows:]469    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0023.003470471    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0023.004472473    Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Danly.474    I agree with all of what you said in your opening statement475on the topics that most Americans will think about when they476think about the Department of Energy--things like477infrastructure and permitting reform and electricity power478generation. I want to focus, though, on the last thing you479mentioned there, the national labs, which overlaps with my work480as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I think a lot of481Americans probably don't appreciate that the Department of482Energy is in charge of all these national labs that do483exquisite research and do nuclear energy or quantum computing,484artificial intelligence, and other things. I think they'd be485shocked to know that last year 40,000 foreigners visited these486national labs, and fully one-fifth of those--8,000--were from487Russia and China. It doesn't seem to me like the smartest step488to be letting Russian and Chinese scientists into our national489labs.490    What do you think, Mr. Danly?491    Mr. Danly. Of course, Senator, I completely agree with492that. And when you say that we are visited, we don't just mean493passing through, we mean actually conducting science in close494proximity to the scientists that are already working at the495labs. The national labs are fundamental, not just to the496research and science I mentioned a second ago, but they also497have national security missions. And when I first learned about498the number of adversarial nations' scientists that are at the499national labs, I was so surprised by it that I thought at first500I didn't hear correctly. It was shocking, the number. And it's501not just a matter of losing the scientific and technical edge I502talked about, it's also a matter of grave national security503interests that has to be looked at and, if necessary, dealt504with.505    Senator Cotton. I think most Americans would be shocked to506know that one of every five foreign scientists visiting our507national labs were from China and Russia. And also, though not508in as large numbers, they come from places like Iran and Cuba509and North Korea as well. Do you know how many American510scientists get to go to Russia and China's equivalent of511national labs?512    Mr. Danly. None.513    Senator Cotton. The answer would be zero. That does not514seem to me to be reciprocal, to use a term that the President515likes. That's why, on the Intelligence Committee, for years, it516has been a matter of bipartisan concern that our national labs517seem to allow these scientists, and they almost seem to compete518to bring them in, because the decisions are made at the lab519level, not at the level of what you might call the headquarters520element of the Department of Energy, drawing on your own521intelligence unit and the intelligence community more broadly.522I have legislation to address this problem. I bet a lot of the523problem, though, can be addressed by you and the Secretary.524    So can I get your commitment, Mr. Danly, that you will take525a look at the legislation, you will see what needs to be done526to address this threat, and do as much as you can with your527existing authorities, once confirmed?528    Mr. Danly. Absolutely. If I should be lucky enough to be529confirmed, I will work with you to deal with this problem.530    Senator Cotton. Thank you.531    The second topic I want to address, again, something that a532lot of Americans probably don't think about when they think533about the Department of Energy, is the National Nuclear534Security Administration (NNSA), but it's about half of the535Department's budget. They do a lot of very important work for536our nuclear weapons arsenal, a lot of research, a lot of537production. One thing in particular that they do is the538production of plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. We have had a539challenge with this for years. We were supposed to get to the540point where we produce 80 new plutonium pits by 2030. Under the541Biden Administration, that slipped to 2035. Can I get your542commitment that you will advocate for NNSA to get all the543budgetary resources it needs to perform its vital mission?544    Mr. Danly. The NNSA is one of the fundamental elements of545American national security. The weapons stockpile is the546ultimate instrumentality of sovereignty for the United States.547And I commit to doing everything I can to ensure, should I be548confirmed, that NNSA's mission is discharged fully.549    Senator Cotton. And specifically, trying to get back to 80550pits--what they need to do in New Mexico and South Carolina551facilities?552    Mr. Danly. So I am not certain, because I am not at the553Department of Energy, what the necessity is regarding the rate554or level of pit production, but it is fundamental to our555weapons stockpile, and I absolutely commit to doing everything556I can to ensure that the duties are discharged.557    Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you.558    Senator Heinrich.559    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.560    Ms. MacGregor, I want to start with you. During your time,561both on the transition team or since you've been nominated to562be Deputy Secretary, have you engaged in any discussions about563proposed sales of public land with either Department of564Interior or transition team personnel?565    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, while I did gladly serve on the566transition team as a volunteer, in my personal capacity, I did567sign an NDA related to that work. However, I can tell you,568currently, and in my current position, no, I did not engage in569conversations regarding sales of public lands.570    Senator Heinrich. If confirmed, can you commit that any571public land disposals will fully comply with existing federal572laws, like the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the573Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act?574    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, absolutely. I fully intend, if575confirmed, to obey the law.576    Senator Heinrich. That brings me to a related question,577which is, the Department is currently failing to disburse grant578funding that a federal judge has ruled must be disbursed. If579you are confirmed, will you work to ensure that the Department580follows federal court orders?581    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am not familiar with that particular582case. However, I know in our discussions in your office, we got583into several of those subjects, and I know they are very584important to you. And absolutely, I will commit to working with585you on that.586    Senator Heinrich. The Great American Outdoors Act is a very587positive example of how this Committee, and Congress as a588whole, worked in a very bipartisan fashion, with President589Trump and with previous Secretaries of Interior, to provide590permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and591that has had an impressive impact on states across the West,592particularly in protecting and expanding hunting and fishing593access--something I know that you are very passionate about--594and wildlife habitat.595    Can we count on you to continue to carry out this law and596support this conservation legacy that this Committee and597President Trump established in 2020?598    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am overjoyed for you to highlight one599of the issues that you worked with President Trump on, and600absolutely, we would love to work with you on further601implementation of that Act.602    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Danly, I want to start with an easy603one for you. How do you feel about visiting Sandia and Los604Alamos National Labs?605    Mr. Danly. As we talked about in your office, sir, I cannot606wait for the opportunity. I love the national labs.607    Senator Heinrich. That's the right answer.608    [Laughter.]609    Senator Heinrich. You mentioned permitting reform, and I610was really glad to hear you bring that up, because I think it611was one of the high-water marks on this Committee in the612previous Congress, but it's not something that we have gotten613all the way to the President's desk. It is not something that614we have been able to get through both houses of Congress in the615same Congress. What are your thoughts on the product that this616Committee produced in the previous Congress and the617importance--I would say even necessity--of coming together618around a permitting reform package to accomplish some of the619goals that you articulated.620    Mr. Danly. So Senator, I truly appreciate the effort that621the Committee went through before in trying to streamline and622speed up permitting. Just the briefest glance at my separate623statements at the Commission shows how important this is624throughout the time that I was at FERC. I don't actually know625the specific bills, because there were a bunch of different626ones that were moving around, and we who are not in Congress627have difficulty tracking everything that is happening. But628there were elements of several of the iterations that I thought629were very promising. And just as I have always said before to630the Committee, any help anybody wants with thoughts from me on631permitting reform, I am happy to assist.632    Senator Heinrich. I have to pick and choose here because I633am running short on time.634    Ms. MacGregor, while you were at the Department of the635Interior, the number of forest acres treated for wildfire636resilience by the BLM saw some modest increases. However, from6372021 to 2023, the BLM treated nearly 50 percent more acres for638wildfire, and that wasn't by accident. It was because this639Committee funded them. In particular, in both the Bipartisan640Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, it created641funding streams to be able to deal with forest resilience and642prepare to make sure that wildfires are not catastrophic when643they do occur.644    Can you commit to continuing to implement the645Infrastructure bill and the IRA programs that are focused646strictly on wildfire risk reduction?647    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I was alluding to that conversation648earlier, but I absolutely can commit to working with you on649everything related to forest management. I know it's extremely650important to so many on this Committee. It is really important651to a lot of humans living in the wildland fire interface, and652it was absolutely a priority of President Trump the last time.653    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.654    Senator Cotton. Senator Justice.655    Senator Justice. Thank you.656    Well, let me lead off by just saying this, you know,657whether it be any of you, any on the other side of the aisle,658anybody on our side--anybody--there is nobody here that loves659hunting and fishing, our public lands all across this660unbelievable country, you know, there is no one here that661worships wildlife habitat more than I. Nobody. And with all662that being said, I have got to just put out a plea more than663anything. I want all of us to realize the magnitude of the664problem that is right on our doorstep. That's all there is to665it, right on our doorstep. You know, as far as forestry666management, I am all in--100 percent. On and on and on and on667and on, but the problem that is facing us today, and we better668listen to this white-haired guy from West Virginia, and it's669just this: we have an energy problem that is astronomical and670it's going to be so, so important, and so big, that we best671better get at trying to do something with all that is in us to672address this situation because it's coming not like a freight673train, it's coming, like Mr. Danly said to me on the phone,674it's coming like bigger than absolutely the demand of World War675II, bigger than any time in our history.676    And absolutely, Ms. MacGregor and Mr. Danly, we appreciate677so much, and you are going to do great. You are absolutely678going to be confirmed. Absolutely, I am all in. But with that,679I would say to everyone, okay, it's time to step up. What are680we going to do? What are we going to do? A year and a half from681today, our grid and the demand--we cannot handle it. We can't682handle it. I don't care what you say, you are going to have an683electricity meltdown in this country, and it's coming, and you684are going to have to make a decision. America, you are going to685have to make this decision and this is all there is to it.686    We are either going to stick and say, well, we are going to687protect our homes or we are going to protect energy and our job688opportunities. What are you going to do? Because you can't do689them both. There is no way. There is no way. Whether it be that690side of the aisle, this side of the aisle, any of you all,691these nominees absolutely, if we don't do something now, right692now. You talk about up--Creek, now you're there. You're there,693America. And absolutely, if you don't watch out, what will694happen is just this--we will have to defer to people of the695world that are not our allies, but they are our adversaries. We696are going to have to say, okay, you have the leg up. You have697the leg up, not America. That's what is going to happen, and698it's going to happen soon. So all of us, you know, our national699labs, we are protecting with all in us. We do everything we700possibly can, but we have got to get at the absolute issue at701hand, and that is just this, we absolutely, there is no way702that if we don't get moving, and get moving really quickly,703that we are not going to have a colossal problem.704    And the last thing I would add is just this: you know, I am705from little old West Virginia, but little old West Virginia,706along the way, has gotten it right on energy over and over and707over. And little old West Virginia, along the way, stepped up708when we had to have them really step up--really, really step709up. You know, whether it be these terrible world wars that we710had or whatever it may be. We have always stepped up, and we do711know a lot about what we are talking about, about energy.712    So I congratulate both of you. I really don't have a713question for either one of you. Absolutely, I know your714testimony is rock solid. I have talked with both of you. I715absolutely believe in both of you and I just congratulate you716on being here. And I would say, for God's sakes-a-livin', let's717go. Let's go. We have got to do something. Let's go.718    Thank you all for being here.719    Senator Cotton. Thank you, Senator Justice, I also agree720you should always listen to white-haired men from West721Virginia, especially this white-haired man from West Virginia,722because I could have given your same remarks, just not as723eloquently as you did.724    Senator Wyden.725    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.726    I have questions for both of you. I am going to begin with727you, Mr. Danly. I believe you know that I am the author of the728technology-neutral clean energy tax credits, and they have729worked out so well in the private sector, that 21 House730Republicans are making it very clear they want them to stick731around. They have said it very explicitly. Now, your role in732this--people don't much know this--is pretty important here733because you guys have the science and Treasury has got the734taxes. So we have got to get you guys in sync, and that is why735I need to start with asking you, for the record, do you believe736that the IRA tax credits have brought more private-sector737investment into the energy space?738    Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.739    And of course, you and I spoke about this when I visited740you in your office. Do I believe that it brought more741investment? I can't be certain about that----742    Senator Wyden. The reason I am asking is, 21 House743Republicans think that it sure as hell has.744    Mr. Danly. I understand that, but it is impossible to run745the counterfactual to know what investment would have occurred746had those tax credits not been there. Certainly, the tax747credits had an effect on the capital markets. They always do.748Every tax regime has a tendency to bias us or favor one use of749capital over another, as we discussed.750    Senator Wyden. Now, as a kind of economic proposition, more751choices, like the Clean Energy Tax Credits, mean more752competition and the opportunity to hold down costs and prices.753Do you share that view?754    Mr. Danly. The details of any particular incentive regime755matter to that answer, and I am not certain----756    Senator Wyden. But the economic theory.757    Mr. Danly. No, no, but if we were to take that to its758logical extension, that would mean a 100 percent taxation rate759and a 100 percent incentive rate would yield the best possible760outcome, and of course, that's not true. So actually getting761the levels of incentive right to achieve the objective that762Congress has, which, of course, is Congress's authority, that763is an Article I function. I don't quibble with any of that. I764just don't know what the counterfactual would be for765investment.766    Senator Wyden. What I am going to do is, I am going to hold767the record open to give you some examples where it's clear that768can help lower prices. More choices, more competition. We'll go769back and forth on examples because I think I've got more of770them than you do.771    Thank you.772    Mr. Danly. Thank you.773    Senator Wyden. Let me go to you, Ms. MacGregor. I774appreciated our visit. I didn't get a chance to talk about one775forestry issue that I feel very strongly about, and that is776doing more prescribed burns, because we have to get out there777and get serious about this granular material and all the stuff778that we hear from the experts. Senator Manchin and a group of779us, on a bipartisan basis, worked on this. We made a start, but780I am of the view that we have to dramatically increase the781focus of the Federal Government.782    And you'd be in a position to do something about it. We783need to increase this because, in our part of the world, if we784don't get out there in the cold weather months, which is one of785the reasons these cutbacks have been so harmful--we do our best786prescribed burn work when it's cold. And you can get in there,787and you can get both sides--labor and business and788environmentalists--and you can really make big strides. But789now, we have reduced the number of people we got, and that hurt790us when we have had some cold weather, when we could have been791out there, and we have got you here who can tell us that yes, I792want everybody to know on a bipartisan basis, I am serious793about prescribed burns making a bigger difference in terms of794fighting these infernos that we have today. And in our part of795the world, they are not fires. They are not your grandfather's796fires. They are infernos. And we need this prescribed burn.797    Your thoughts?798    Ms. MacGregor. First, Senator, I just wanted to thank you799for spending time with me. I loved our conversation and I also800enjoyed your thoughts on grazing as well and how that can be801used as a management tool. And I know that that is something802that has been important on this Committee. How about you and I803go out with a drip torch and get to work?804    Senator Wyden. I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.805    [Laughter.]806    Senator Wyden. I thank my colleagues, and there is807tremendous interest on a bipartisan basis in this prescribed808burn issue. The question is the urgency of it. Everybody's got809their laundry list. In our part of the world, we are 3,000810miles from Washington, DC. We want people to be actually811hearing us, and it sounds like you are open to further812discussions. I appreciate it.813    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.814    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much. And I815appreciate your patience with me. I have multiple committee816assignments that are pulling me in three different directions.817I may have to leave later for another committee hearing, but818bear with us on that.819    Ms. MacGregor, I would like to start with you.820    The nationwide housing shortage is something that some821states are experiencing more than others. We experience it to a822particularly acute degree in the West, and in my home State of823Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-thirds of the land.824And that severely restricts the housing supply. Now, there is a825law in the books, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that826authorizes the Department of the Interior to lease or convey827federal land for public purposes. Under the law, a public828purpose is defined as ``for the purpose of providing facilities829or services for the benefit of the public in connection with,830but not limited to, public health, safety, or welfare.''831    In your view, could housing be considered a public purpose832for purposes of Recreation and Public Purposes Act?833    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I think it could.834    The Chairman. And in the event that it couldn't,835recognizing that some might see it differently, or to address836any ambiguity, I have introduced legislation called the HOUSES837Act, which follows the template of the Recreation and Public838Purposes Act to independently allow for that.839    Now, I was pleased to see recently that there was this840announced partnership between the Department of Housing and841Urban Development and the Department of the Interior to address842housing affordability in the West. Any idea what actions the843Department of the Interior could take to help tackle the844housing crisis?845    Ms. MacGregor. Well, sir, I first want to say that we would846love to work with you on that endeavor, and I know that for847technical assistance, we offer it to every member of the848Committee when it comes to drafting legislative ideas that are849creative. And I know housing has been a big issue, not just in850the West, but throughout our country. And I recall, you know,851working on this in the first Trump Administration with852particular attention to Park Service employees because housing853for Park Service employees tends to be one of the greatest854obstacles to get that workforce out into these very rural, or855sometimes difficult, or maybe more expensive areas so that we856can have the workforce we need to keep our parks open.857    But when it comes to some of the opportunities there, I858think, you know, the R&PP Act has some issues with it. For859instance, the reversionary clauses can be difficult and tie up860potential home ownership with the full transference of land. I861think when people think about owning a home, they believe it862belongs to them and that the land is theirs, not that it could863pulled back by the Federal Government or by a township based864upon not fulfilling the needs of the Act and its original865statutory form.866    The Chairman. Right.867    Ms. MacGregor. So I think working on that, working on868environmental reviews and efficiency will actually help make869better use of that Act.870    The Chairman. Yes, no, I think that is right and it's one871of the reasons why in the HOUSES Act we deal with that by872leaving a short reversionary interest for a period of 15 years873just to make sure that it remains in use as single family874housing during that duration. Once that 15-year period has875elapsed, the reversionary interest goes away.876    Mr. Danly, let's turn to you for a moment. President Trump877seeks to attack and limit the waste, fraud, and abuse occurring878within the U.S. Government, in the government spending, you879know, $7.2, $7.3 trillion a year, the crumbs that fall from880that table are going to be pretty large, and it leaves room for881people to make mistakes along the way. But some of those882mistakes end up being very big and very costly. Recently, a883number of projects, grants, and contracts that were mandated by884law, such as the laws like the Infrastructure Investment in885Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, have been exposed as886problematic in one way or another--unnecessary, duplicative, or887otherwise an issue. For example, the Department of Energy888recently canceled a $247 million contract for appliance889standards.890    If confirmed, how will you commit to working with Congress891to make sure that DOE is not frivolously spending taxpayer892dollars or spending taxpayer dollars on unnecessary,893duplicative, or wasteful projects?894    Mr. Danly. Thank you, Senator Lee.895    Every government agency head and all of their subordinate896officers are required to stop waste, fraud, and abuse wherever897it is found. Every contract that the government signs and every898set of funds that the government commits has to be done in899accordance with the law and in accordance to the preconditions900established by the agency's regulations, and the terms of the901contract have to be honored. This is everything from the basic902predicate requirements for the contract to the milestones and903conditions. President Trump has outlined a very bold vision for904reducing waste in Federal Government spending, and I am905absolutely dedicated to the same purpose. It is the only way to906properly steward the taxpayers' money, and government should907constantly be on the lookout for ways to find greater908efficiencies.909    The Chairman. And strictly speaking, outside the context of910its own branch, neither the legislative branch nor the judicial911branch is typically a contracting agency. In other words,912contracts may be entered into within the legislative branch for913the legislative branch, or within the judicial branch, likewise914for the judiciary. But typically, for the government,915generally, contract decisions overseeing the performance of a916contract, entering into the contract, signing the contract,917even in some circumstances, anticipatorily repudiating a918contract for reasons deemed necessary and appropriate by the919executive--those are executive decisions, not legislative or920judicial ones, typically. Is that right?921    Mr. Danly. Of course it is. And not only does every branch922have their own obligations, the executive branch spending--I923don't know what the percentage is--but 99.99 percent of the924money in contracts from the government has, obviously, a much925weightier duty to ensure that those dollars are spent properly926and, you know, there are efficiencies, not just in the way that927government conducts its business through contracting, but in928the ways that the contracts are awarded and in the types of929solicitations that the government undertakes. It is a930fundamental problem, and there is a huge amount of money that931is spent that doesn't need to be.932    The Chairman. Thank you.933    Senator King, you are up next.934    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.935    Ms. MacGregor, one of my principal concerns as the Ranking936Member--we call ourselves Co-Chairs--with Steve Daines on the937National Parks Subcommittee, is staffing at the national parks.938Ten or fifteen years ago--well, let me just put it in939perspective: In the last 15 years, staffing at the national940parks has fallen by 15 percent, not counting the cuts that have941been made in the last couple of months. Visitation at the942national parks has gone up 15 percent. So we already had a943staffing problem. So my request to you is stop cutting people944at the national parks and start hiring them because the parks945are a gem of America. People visit them. They expect them to be946maintained. They expect them to be open. They expect to be able947to not have to wait in long lines in order to get into a park.948    So can you commit to me that we are going to stop cutting949in the national parks and we are going to start to rebuild that950very valuable staff?951    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, so many members of this Committee952raised that issue because I think they and we understand how953important it is to keep those parks open, especially for954tourism and economic dollars that are flowing into your955communities. So I absolutely will commit to you on making sure956that we work to have the appropriate staffing levels to keep957those parks open and get as many people as possible into them.958    Senator King. Well, I would hope that the appropriate959staffing levels would be somewhat higher than they are today960given the fact that we already have a 30 percent gap in what's961happened, forgetting about the recent cuts. So this is962essential and I think it would be a great disservice to the963American people to compromise the availability of our national964parks.965    The second thing on national parks is maintenance. As you966and I discussed, the Great American Outdoors Act, I think, was967one of the signal achievements of the first Trump968Administration, which had a big piece of money for deferred969maintenance. The problem is, we are still deferring970maintenance, and I fought all the way up to the Office of971Management and Budget in the prior Administration to try to get972the maintenance budget increased. It's a false economy to not973make repairs. They are only going to have to be done in the974future and they are going to cost more.975    Will you work with us and work with the Congress to976increase the maintenance budget at the national parks? It's not977very exciting, but it's something we have to do.978    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, coming from the private sector, I979understand the importance of O&M dollars on an annualized980basis, but I will say this--it is interesting, and there is a981lot to dig in on, on the implementation of the Great American982Outdoors Act. I find that--we talked about how, you know, we983worked to advance this amazing legislation, and now the984maintenance backlog has somehow gone up. We have a lot of work985to do together on this, and I absolutely commit to working with986you on it.987    Senator King. Well, one way to keep it from going up is to988quit digging the hole, and that's what we are doing right now.989    Mr. Danly, I agree with you about permitting reform. I was990one of the supporters of the bill here. I am hoping we are991going to be able to bring that bill back to life and perhaps992improve it. I assume you agree that part of the permitting993reform has to be transmission, because we are all talking about994increasing electricity. The electricity has to get somewhere,995and transmission is one of real serious bottlenecks right now996in sort of reinventing our electric system. Do you agree?997    Mr. Danly. So to date, the real problems with federal998permitting haven't been seen in transmission because other than999the backstop siting authority----1000    Senator King. Are you serious about that, because we have1001some transmission projects in the West that have been pending1002for 20 years?1003    Mr. Danly. So for the most part, other than when you have1004federal land crossings, which do, of course, occur in the West1005far more than they do in the East, but the places where we have1006the greatest sets of constraints--the highest congestion1007costs--are in the East more than the West. This is typically--1008obviously, there are examples where that's not true. Most1009siting and permitting happens at the state level for1010transmission. There is only--for transmission lines, generally,1011there is the backstop siting authority that was re-enacted1012again.1013    Senator King. Right.1014    Mr. Danly. But, of course, transmission has to be part of1015the solution--or part of the discussion--because as the demand1016grows and we have to have a more robust transmission system,1017both to meet NERC reliability standards and simply to get real1018power to its destination, we are going to have to increase1019transmission lines all over the country.1020    Senator King. And that has to be part of the solution.1021    Quickly--research. You talked about research. One of the1022things that disturbs me that's going on now in the1023Administration is cutting research money all over the place--1024the Department of Health and Human Services, even research on1025Alzheimer's, which I absolutely don't understand. The1026Department of Energy is one of the leading research parts of1027our government, and I think you mentioned basic research being1028important that's not immediately commercially valuable so it's1029not going to be done in the private sector. Fracking was1030invented under Department of Energy research grants back in the103180s. And do you agree that we have to maintain the research1032budgets, not only at the national labs, but in places like NREL1033and the other work that the Department of Energy is doing in1034research on energy development, generally?1035    Mr. Danly. Yes. The Congress has charged the Department of1036Energy with conducting this research. As I mentioned in my1037opening statement, the number of advances we have had has1038changed America's commercial outlook and has created new1039industries. And the money spent on basic research whether--I1040mean, the national labs found quarks. These are things that are1041not commercially viable on their own, but if improved, the1042sense of the world----1043    Senator King. I, myself, wouldn't know a quark if I fell1044over one, but I understand.1045    Mr. Danly. Nevertheless, they are important.1046    Senator King. Yes, sir.1047    Mr. Danly. Yes, I absolutely agree with you that this1048research is important and is central to the function of the1049Department of Energy.1050    Senator King. Thank you.1051    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can have a second round1052because I have a few more questions.1053    The Chairman. Senator Hyde-Smith.1054    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I1055certainly welcome you both here, excited that you are back,1056very excited about your nominations, and I want to associate1057myself with the remarks of Senator Justice. I think you are1058going to do a fantastic job, and thank you for your willingness1059to do this.1060    And I want to start with Ms. MacGregor. I sure enjoyed our1061visit, and we talked about the Vicksburg National Military Park1062in Mississippi and the Natchez Historical Park sites that are1063in Natchez, Mississippi, and I certainly would love your1064commitment on helping reach our goals there. We are looking at1065several things--a visitor center--but Mississippi's number one1066tourist destination is the Military Park, and we are very, very1067proud of that.1068    One of the other things is the offshore oil and gas1069exploration and production in the Gulf of America. It is1070crucial to both the President's energy agenda and to the1071economies of the Gulf states. Revenue from lease sales supports1072our states and funds mandatory programs such as the Land and1073Water and Conservation Fund, and mandatory lease sales in the1074Gulf would further boost this revenue. And I support Senator1075Cassidy's bill to mandate two offshore oil and gas lease sales1076per year for the next 10 years and look forward to working with1077him and this Committee to advance that legislation. And where I1078am from, so many of our residents there have employment there.1079We know what fossil fuels do and they have really, really been1080in dire need in the last few years.1081    But do you consider continued offshore oil and gas1082development vital to our nation's security and economy? And1083will you support our efforts to mandate lease sales, especially1084if the Department works on the new five-year leasing plan?1085    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for the question, and I1086truly enjoyed--I love our visits together. Absolutely, I can1087commit to you with working on that legislation. I know that the1088Gulf of America has been one of the largest energy producing1089provinces in our country for decades and the innovations that1090come out of that offshore province have been exported1091throughout the world, but ultimately that was created and1092innovated here in the United States. And I would like to see1093that province produce long into the future. As the statute1094requires, we need to make those resources available for1095national need, and I think the American people would like to1096see their prices come down in energy. So I absolutely will work1097with you and the Senators on various solutions for that.1098    Senator Hyde-Smith. And the invitation certainly stands1099open for the Military Park. I would love to host you there.1100    Ms. MacGregor. I would love to come. Thank you. Love to.1101    Senator Hyde-Smith. Mr. Danly, thank you for being here. I1102cannot tell you how excited we are that you are willing to do1103this, and look so forward to working with you. As we know,1104reliable, affordable energy and a resilient grid are critical1105for continued economic growth, especially in companies that1106make investment and expansion decisions based on access to1107inexpensive, reliable energy. As demand grows, so does the need1108for more baseload power, and I believe nuclear energy continues1109to be at the forefront of the conversation providing more safe,1110clean, reliable power to meet those growing demands. And we are1111very excited about this and we are looking forward to some1112growth.1113    What steps do you see the Department of Energy taking to1114advance nuclear, including new technologies such as small1115modular nuclear reactors?1116    Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.1117    In fact, in most of my discussions with the members of the1118Committee, the subject of advancing nuclear energy has been1119very common in all the talks that I have had. Probably the most1120important thing that the Department of Energy can do--and in1121fact, has done, right, the first civilian nuclear power1122demonstrations were done in a national lab where the Department1123of Energy started the entire process of creating civilian1124nuclear power--is to continue the work that is being done in1125Idaho National Lab to prove and have demonstration cases for1126SMRs and next-generation nuclear power. There are any number of1127regulatory and commercial hurdles to commercialization of1128nuclear, all of which I would love to see either overcome or1129changed. I don't see a way that we can meet the demand that we1130are facing without having nuclear power as part of the1131solution. Right now, it makes about 20 percent of the total1132generation in the United States, but if we increase our--load1133at the rate that I think we are going to, we are going to have1134to build more nuclear to provide that baseload generation. And1135so, the Department of Energy is going to be key to that.1136    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, and I am out of time.1137    The Chairman. Senator Gallego.1138    Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I feel like I am1139going to sound like a broken record because when you are this1140low on the dais, everyone takes all of the great questions, but1141number one, to echo Senator King's comments on staffing at our1142national parks, and I spoke earlier with you about this--in1143Arizona, we are entirely dependent, especially in the northern1144Arizona region, the economy is entirely dependent on our1145national parks and tourism. So we want to make sure that there1146is some good thought and forethought before we have more1147layoffs, and if possible, to bring back these workers because1148there actually are not that many in Arizona to begin with, but1149the fact is, they produce billions and billions of jobs because1150they get such a great experience visiting our, I think you1151said--did you say gems or gyms as I was walking in?1152    Senator King. Gems.1153    Senator Gallego. Jams?1154    Senator King. G, E, M.1155    Senator Gallego. G, E, M. Okay, sorry. English is my second1156language so sometimes things will--and then just moving on,1157further conversations on SMRs and nuclear power. When I was1158meeting with Secretary Wright during his nomination, we talked1159about the need for more nuclear energy deployment, especially1160in Arizona. We have a three-prong problem, which is a good1161problem. People want to move to Arizona because it's a great1162state. They have great weather, and great representation in my1163opinion, but we also have a great economy, which is a highly1164skilled, high-energy economy, whether it's chips or the1165ancillary businesses that feed into chips, and we have data1166warehouses that are moving in to Arizona because Arizona, for a1167lot of its problems that we do have when it comes to forest1168fires, the likelihood of us having any type of massive, massive1169emergency that is going to destroy these data warehouses that1170are worth billions of dollars is slim to none.1171    So what does that mean? We have an energy problem coming up1172in Arizona. Thirty percent of our energy portfolio is nuclear.1173I would like to see it grow. And so, I want to make sure that1174we can do anything we can to do that, including fixing1175regulatory burdens and hurdles or anything else. So I would1176love to make sure that we have an ability to work with that in1177a bipartisan manner because the country that can deploy quicker1178and faster nuclear energy is going to be the country that is1179going to be able to really own the next 100 years. And AI is1180really important, but AI only matters if you actually can1181energize it and actually create it and move that energy.1182    So since everyone took my questions, I will go into1183something more deeper with Ms. MacGregor here in terms of1184drought in Arizona, especially with Glen Canyon, something that1185I think you worked on when you were on the House Natural1186Resources Committee with me. In the last four years, we have1187learned from Reclamation that Glen Canyon Dam has design flaws1188that limit its ability to pass water at low elevations, which1189is really bad when we have drought. So we need to fix this dam1190as soon as possible and we need the ability to pass water1191around the dam if hydrology gets worse--so, if we just don't1192have enough snowmelt. I raised this issue with Secretary Burgum1193in his hearing, but I would like to just ask you too. Will you1194make fixing this dam that delivers water to approximately 301195million people in the Lower Basin a priority?1196    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I know that we had a great1197conversation about drought in the West and how that impacts1198water users in your state, especially for hydropower too, I1199believe. And I am curious about some of the decisions of the1200last Administration, and I know that was an alternative, I1201think, that was scoped in one of their initial reviews of1202alternatives. So I will absolutely commit to working with you1203on that and other issues related to drought in the West.1204    Senator Gallego. And back to the drought questions, Arizona1205is where whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. The1206Colorado River supports a total $1.4 trillion economy, and then1207it's a primary water source for now 40 million people across1208seven western states. It also, of course, supports 5.5 million1209acres of agriculture, tribes, 11 national parks. Since 2001,1210the Colorado River community has been grappling with risk and1211uncertainty in available water supplies at increasing1212intensity. Would you please just share your thoughts on the key1213priorities that DOI will use to avoid the need for crisis-to-1214crisis management and provide greater predictability in1215available water supplies for our communities?1216    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely. I know that the law of the river1217is incredibly important to so many. I think it's the seven1218Basin States. They are almost all represented on this1219Committee, and I know there are a lot of opinions reaching1220across all those states and their needs, and not just the1221states, but tribes, and as you said, the 40 million people who1222depend on that--getting it right.1223    My hope is ultimately that that is what--and remains and1224has been successful in the past--is a state-brokered solution,1225and Interior will be playing a role in that. And I think that1226is one of the important issues facing the water and science1227hallway in that Department.1228    Senator Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.1229    The Chairman. Senator Cassidy, you are up next.1230    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Thank you both, because I had a1231chance to meet with you both, and some of these questions seem1232like what we have talked about. I just want it for the public1233record, if you will.1234    Ms. MacGregor, last week the Department of the Interior's1235Office of Natural Resources Revenue announced its 20241236disbursements to the four states along the Gulf of America. As1237expected, the revenues from oil and gas development from GOMESA1238far exceeded the $375 million cap. Now, if the cap were higher,1239there would be dollars there to help rebuild coastline to1240protect communities from hurricanes like Katrina or from, which1241hit both of our states--Ida, Harvey, et cetera, because we know1242that when you build out your wetlands, that you absorb the1243impact from the hurricane, which means that your settled areas1244have less damage. We use that money in our state for flood1245protection and for coastal restoration by a state1246constitutional mandate.1247    So that said, I have a bill--the RISEE Act--which would1248lift the cap on state funds under GOMESA, ensuring that states1249hosting energy development directly benefit from those1250activities. Given your experience as Deputy Secretary of the1251Interior, how important is an effective model for revenue1252sharing?1253    Ms. MacGregor. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and I1254think with you hailing from Louisiana, and now me, from1255Florida--hurricanes--I have a renewed appreciation for their1256devastation. And I, when it comes to revenue sharing, I1257absolutely agree with you. It is the law now. It's in GOMESA.1258We are required to faithfully execute on GOMESA when it comes1259to revenue sharing, and as many of the Senators here on this1260dais also know, those dollars are also dedicated to the Land1261and Water Conservation Fund, which has impacts in everyone's1262districts. So I look forward to working with you on that and I1263understand that it is important to all four Gulf states.1264    Senator Cassidy. And so, to that degree, how would you1265envision working with the Secretary to leverage offshore energy1266in the Gulf of Mexico--excuse me, I'm sorry, I can't help it--1267to support energy dominance?1268    Ms. MacGregor. So for leveraging greater offshore oil and1269gas in the Gulf of America, we will--we have a lot to work on,1270and I think it's important that Senators understand we will1271obey the law, we will follow the contours of the Outer1272Continental Shelf Lands Act, as required, but I do think the1273American people would like to see more than just two to three1274lease sales. Historically, in the past, we have had, really,1275quite a few prodigious lease sales, and not just in the Gulf of1276America--Alaska and beyond. And so, I know the resources are1277concentrated a lot on the Gulf of America and up in Alaska, and1278we look forward to working with everyone on measures that will1279further embrace offshore energy.1280    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Danly, Louisiana is currently home to1281more than 60 percent of the current LNG exports, and a large1282number of LNG projects are in the pipeline--excuse the pun--1283awaiting permitting approval. And I appreciate what President1284Trump, Secretary Wright, and the Department of Energy have done1285to help unleash this LNG bonanza, if you will. What can DOE do1286to further eliminate barriers through LNG exporting, including1287through improved permitting?1288    Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator.1289    It should probably come as no surprise that I care a lot1290about LNG exports. I worked on the subject from the Commission1291side for years. The most important thing is to return to the1292statutory standard in Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, which1293has the inverted presumption for the granting of permits to1294non-free-trade-agreement countries, where you have to1295demonstrate affirmatively that the export is not consistent1296with the public interest, which is an analytical rubric that1297requires the examination of a handful of different elements in1298the application but return to that standard which had been the1299standard, invariably, for decades beforehand.1300    Senator Cassidy. Let me ask you as well, in Baton Rouge1301last Friday, LSU and the Idaho National Laboratory signed an1302MOU to accelerate technology and talent development in1303Louisiana to benefit the rest of the nation. This is the first1304formal partnership between a national lab and a Louisiana1305university. So I am just going to ask: How can you ensure that1306DOE labs prioritize research supporting my state's energy and1307manufacturing sectors?1308    Mr. Danly. So I am not at the DOE, and I don't know the1309details of all of these partnerships between universities and1310the labs, but I am happy to talk to you as much as you want,1311should I be confirmed, to ensure we have as much cooperation1312between the institutions as we can get.1313    Senator Cassidy. That would be good because, if you will,1314we have the ecosystem that is developing the technology for not1315only our nation, but for the rest of the world. And obviously,1316I would like my Louisiana talent to be able to benefit from1317that development being supported by the DOE.1318    Mr. Danly. I think it's fundamental to the DOE's objectives1319with the national labs in its research mission to get as much1320talent as we can from wherever it is possible. We want the1321absolute best scientists and engineers working on the hardest1322problems.1323    Senator Cassidy. Sounds great. Thank you. I yield.1324    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Cortez Masto.1325    Oh, sorry, Senator Hirono, I apologize.1326    Senator Hirono. Thank you.1327    Welcome to both of you. As part of my responsibility to1328ensure the fitness of the all nominees who come before any of1329my committees, I ask the following two initial questions, and1330we will start with Ms. MacGregor.1331    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted1332requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical1333harassment or assault of a sexual nature?1334    Ms. MacGregor. I have not.1335    Mr. Danly. No.1336    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered1337into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?1338    Ms. MacGregor. I'm sorry, have I ever?1339    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered1340into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?1341    Ms. MacGregor. I have not.1342    Mr. Danly. No.1343    Senator Hirono. For Ms. MacGregor, on DOGE's list of1344federal lease terminations, on that list is the Ironworks1345Building in Hilo, Hawaii. This building currently houses U.S.1346Geological Survey employees that work for the Hawaiian Volcano1347Observatory, which was destroyed during the 2018 Kilauea1348eruption, and this building provides temporary office and1349storage space while the permanent Hawaiian Volcano Observatory1350is built on the campus of the University of Hawaii at Hilo,1351planned for completion in two years. This move to terminate the1352lease with no clear plan on where these employees will work or1353store their equipment in the interim makes me question this1354Administration's regard for the important role the volcano1355observatories play in keeping our communities safe and1356informed.1357    Do you believe that the USGS Volcano Hazards Program is1358important, and if so, what will you do as Deputy Secretary to1359ensure that USGS employees in Hilo are able to carry out their1360critical lifesaving work?1361    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that important1362question. And I want you to know that in the first Trump1363Administration, I spent quite a bit of time with the USGS1364Hazards Team, especially on some of the seismic systems1365installed up in the Pacific Northwest related to earthquake1366early warning systems. I know how important they are to1367communities, and while I am not in the building, I haven't seen1368a list of cancellations. I will absolutely work with you on1369your needs and for those of the people of Hawaii.1370    Senator Hirono. Okay, that sounds as though you consider1371their work to be very critical and that they obviously need a1372place to work from and store the things that they need. So we1373will work to make sure that that happens? Should you be1374confirmed, of course.1375    Ms. MacGregor. Yes, I will work with you, especially on a1376lot of the hazard systems, yes.1377    Senator Hirono. Thank you.1378    Also for you, in your 2019 testimony before this Committee,1379you noted that your introduction to the Department's mission1380was through visiting Valley Forge National Park and that1381visiting national parks drove your passion for American history1382and your understanding for the importance of preserving these1383special places. Similarly, during Secretary Burgum's nomination1384hearing earlier this year, he asserted that, and I quote, ``We1385have to protect every single inch of our national parks.''1386    There are currently hundreds of mining claims within and1387thousands more near national park boundaries threatening the1388preservation of these special places. A couple of weeks ago,1389President Trump issued an executive order directing Secretary1390Burgum to prioritize mineral production and mining-related1391purposes as the primary--as a primary use of federal land with1392mineral deposits.1393    My question to you is, how would allowing companies to mine1394in or near national parks preserve ``every single inch of our1395national parks?''1396    Ms. MacGregor. Well, Senator, I am unfamiliar of any1397situation where there is mining directly in a national park.1398Can you give me an example that you are referring to that I can1399take a look at?1400    Senator Hirono. Well, there are hundreds of mining claims,1401and if the President says that these are the claims that can be1402acted upon, you are going to be directed to let them do so, I1403suppose. That is the question.1404    Ms. MacGregor. I think, when I hear----1405    Senator Hirono. How does that comport with the Secretary's1406desire to protect every single inch of our national parks?1407    Ms. MacGregor. It sounds like we might have a little bit of1408a misunderstanding of--when I hear public lands, I think1409multiple use and public sustained yield under FLPMA lands,1410multiple use lands managed by the BLM, not by the National Park1411Service. And my understanding of the protections under the1412Organic Act and the establishment of these national parks,1413their maintenance, and their continued management----1414    Senator Hirono. So you would say--excuse me, my time is1415about pretty much up--but you would say that allowing mining in1416our national parks would be probably incompatible to the desire1417to save----1418    Ms. MacGregor. I can't----1419    Senator Hirono. I mean, you would want to save these1420treasures as a priority.1421    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I am not familiar of any national1422park, and I could be completely wrong, but of any national park1423where there is mining within the boundaries of the park.1424    Senator Hirono. No, the President wants you to go there1425then.1426    Okay, we obviously are going to need to see what happens1427because he wants these federal lands to be used for extraction1428purposes.1429    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1430    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hirono.1431    Senator Murkowski.1432    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,1433both of you.1434    Ms. MacGregor, I enjoyed our conversation. I am looking1435forward to you being back to fix a lot of things. Many of the1436issues that we spoke about in my office related to federal1437lands, better consultation with Alaska Natives, extending as1438well to restoring what we do with our multiple-use lands,1439natural fires, natural hazards, like wildfires, producing more1440of our energy, a lot to do.1441    And Mr. Danly, you have been before this Committee multiple1442times as well. I am looking forward to working with you to help1443address some of Alaska's energy challenges, everything from1444microgrids, to geothermal, to advanced nuclear, and I want to1445follow on the comment that was made by the Senator from1446Arizona. I just came from a critical minerals discussion this1447morning, and as I look to our opportunity to be able to access1448these great resources that we need, until we figure out how to1449deal with power in some of these remote areas, it's going to be1450really hard to do. And I look at small modular reactors, the1451advancements that can come from here as a real opportunity.1452    I want to address a couple of questions to both of you.1453Hopefully, they should be very quick and easy. I know that you1454are not in the building yet, I get that. But we have all1455watched as we have seen this effort to reduce the size of1456government, and certainly within the Department of Energy and1457the Department of the Interior. I have been concerned and have1458expressed how many of these employees have been treated in this1459process. I would ask that you both commit, if you are1460confirmed, that you will abide by the statutory requirements to1461notify Congress of any plans to reorganize, restructure, or1462implement reductions in force. I am also the Chairman on the1463Interior Appropriations Committee that has oversight here. We1464have sent letters to the Secretaries themselves with regards to1465the requirement in law about advanced notification, and then,1466just from my perspective, as a Senator who represents a state1467that has a lot of public lands and big federal presence, we1468have a lot of engagement and interaction with you.1469    So I would just ask, again, if I can have your commitment1470that you will be transparent with us about what is coming and1471to abide by the statutory requirements to notify.1472    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, we will--I can commit to obey all1473federal laws when it comes to any of the efficiency efforts1474that we are working on.1475    Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you.1476    Mr. Danly. I also commit to following the law for all of1477the efficiency efforts.1478    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.1479    I have had an opportunity to talk, not only to you, Ms.1480MacGregor, but certainly, my colleagues here on the Committee1481know that we are facing a situation in Alaska with declining1482production in Cook Inlet with regards to our natural gas, and1483in facing what I think is really an unforgivable direction, and1484that would be the prospect of LNG imports and potentially from1485Canada. So I would ask both of you to partner with me, with the1486delegation, to advance the Alaska projects and to support1487development of our resources so we can avoid the reliance on1488energy imports. For a state that has as much as the State of1489Alaska has, there is no good reason that we should be relying1490on Canada to keep our lights on.1491    So do I have that commitment from the both of you?1492    Ms. MacGregor. You sure do. And I was just as shocked when1493you informed me of that. And I look forward to working with you1494on those issues.1495    Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you.1496    Mr. Danly.1497    Mr. Danly. It's crazy to think that Alaska would be1498importing energy.1499    Senator Murkowski. It is crazy.1500    Mr. Danly. I absolutely commit to working on that with you.1501    Senator Murkowski. Yes, you know--you both know--we have an1502awful lot to offer there.1503    Ms. MacGregor, I want to take you back to some of our1504greatest hits from when you were in the first Trump1505Administration. Some of the alphabet issues that you worked1506on--ITRs, PLOs. We have got to be making progress with that.1507Certainly, the President's executive order is going to help us1508there, but I also raised with you the issue of BIA probate and1509the extraordinary backlog that we are dealing with. It should1510not take five or ten or more years to resolve these probate1511cases. And I would just ask that you put a priority on these1512issues so that we can deal with something that has not only1513impacted us greatly in Alaska, but I think in so many other1514parts of the country as well.1515    Ms. MacGregor. I am so grateful that you raised that issue.1516I had never even heard of it before, but the first thing I1517thought is, if it's impacting you and the people of Alaska, it1518must be impacting so many more on this Committee and other1519parts of the States. So I look forward to working with you on1520that.1521    Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you.1522    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time is expired.1523    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.1524    Senator Hickenlooper.1525    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to both1526of you for your past public service and your willingness to go1527back into the maelstrom.1528    I will start with you, Ms. MacGregor, and thank you for the1529time to come and visit. You know, the staffing cuts that were--1530there were the major cuts, and then people were put back, but1531even though they've been reinstated, there is another plan out1532that a quarter of all DOI employees are on the chopping block.1533And I think the volatility certainly has staff that I know in1534Colorado--and people that have reached out unnerved, and there1535is a level of anxiety there. And obviously the decisions that1536get made that I think you will have a voice in--I hope you will1537have a voice in--on staffing that will have consequences, have1538reverberations, in terms of how we use those lands in terms of1539conservation and recreation, not to mention energy production1540or critical minerals.1541    What are your plans--or how do you look at trying to ensure1542that the staff have that spirit, which--the good culture that1543any group needs to perform at a high level while they are1544working to protect some of our most valuable resources?1545    Ms. MacGregor. Well, thank you, Senator, and thank you for1546meeting with me. I had a great meeting with you. Talking about1547Pennsylvania was nice. When I review a lot of this, I have been1548watching, just like you all have, with media reports. I am not1549in the building, as we have talked about already, but I think1550there is a lot of, you know, questions I have, but I also think1551there is a lot of spin, and that tends to happen in these sort1552of instances. Ultimately, I support the President's efforts to1553achieve efficiency in the Federal Government. I think the1554endeavor to achieve efficiency should be applauded. But I also1555agree with you that to achieve efficiency, you have to have1556talent to move permits, you have to have the talent and you1557have to have an inspired workforce to be able to do the work.1558    So I fully understand that that's part of the job going in1559the building, and I look forward to working with a lot of the1560same excellent career employees that I worked with the first1561time around and working to get moving on a lot of the actions1562we need to take at the Department.1563    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, well, again, I am no stranger to1564trying to make government more efficient. As mayor and as1565Governor, we did a hiring freeze for, I think, two and a half1566years when I was mayor as a way diminishing the workforce, but1567we found ways to use efficiencies to actually deliver more1568services to people at a lower cost. But I spent a quarter of my1569time in the agencies talking to the workforce and making sure1570that they were fired up and knew how valuable they were. I1571don't see that happening right now and I find it very1572concerning.1573    And Mr. Danly, the same question to you, with similar1574circumstances, I suspect.1575    Mr. Danly. I am not at the Department of Energy, so of1576course, I don't know the details of anything that's going on1577there. I have read the same press accounts that everybody else1578has. You know, I am no stranger to dealing with the personnel1579end of administrative agencies. I was the Chairman of FERC, and1580I dealt with the personnel there, and I plan to do what I have1581always done before when my advice was sought, which is seek the1582input of the employment counsel and the ethics counsel at the1583Department, whenever making decisions regarding employment.1584    Senator Hickenlooper. All right, got it.1585    And I wanted to also talk to you a little bit about this1586effort to gain energy dominance, but a lot of the clawbacks1587that are being discussed, of funds that were originally1588appropriated to support projects to build advanced energy1589technologies and make investments to try and get electricity1590more reliable, more affordable. The last number we saw was that1591the DOE may rescind up to $104 million of Colorado-based awards1592alone. And that's a rumor. I don't think there is--let's throw1593that number out, and let's throw that number away, but there is1594probably going to be a large number because there is a real1595push to try and find these savings. In many cases, these funds1596were already appropriated by and through Congress and they are1597for things like grid efficiency or grid reliability, or some1598other form of advanced technology.1599    Are you willing to commit that you will obey the law and1600make sure that we don't rescind funds that have been1601appropriated legally for these, I think in many cases, really1602important energy projects?1603    Mr. Danly. So again, just like I said before, I have seen1604the same press accounts everybody else has. Actual rescissions,1605as far as I know, haven't occurred yet.1606    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.1607    Mr. Danly. And I don't know what the plans are, if there1608are, in fact, plans.1609    I absolutely commit to following the law. The focal point1610of my entire career so far is doing honor to the statute, and I1611will follow the law in discharging the duties of the1612Department.1613    Senator Hickenlooper. All right, well, I appreciate that.1614    I thank both of you. I think both of you are in crucial1615positions that are going to have--you are going to have a lot1616to do with what happens in the next couple of years, and we1617appreciate your service.1618    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper.1619    Senator Daines.1620    Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you.1621    I am going to jump right in, Ms. MacGregor. In Montana, we1622are facing serious hurdles to implementing forest management1623projects due to litigation. Our forests no longer have loggers1624in them. They are crawling with lawyers. That's a problem. The1625situation was exacerbated in 2015 when the Ninth Circuit issued1626that Cottonwood decision. Today, as I speak, we have 3001627million board-feet of timber tied up in litigation in Montana.1628Region 1, over 500 million board-feet tied up because of1629litigation. That Cottonwood decision creates a cyclical1630procedural requirement to consult under the Endangered Species1631Act. After a new species is listed, new critical habitat is1632designated, or ``new information'' is found. We just need to1633get the Ninth Circuit Court to be congruent with the other1634circuits, and that is essentially what the Cottonwood fix does.1635It has passed this Committee with strong bipartisan support. So1636we are ready to act on it yet again. We are going to need help1637getting it across the finish line and certainly on the1638President's desk.1639    We have seen hundreds of projects across states in the1640Ninth Circuit that are delayed because we have the Forest1641Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempt to meet this1642ambiguous standard with no on-the-ground impact. We have this1643legislation, again, with strong bipartisan support. So my1644question is, would you commit to working with me and working1645with Congress, to ensure that a permanent solution is found,1646either through administrative action or through this1647legislative fix?1648    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that important1649question, and it's probably no laughing matter. Forest1650management, I know, is life or death in a lot of your states.1651We absolutely commit, and I personally commit to working with1652you on that, and I know that getting--like I said in my opening1653statement--certainty so that these actions can continue is1654incredibly important. And I should say, I was very inspired by1655all of you in the efforts you all led to amend NEPA for the1656first time in 50 years in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. And I1657know when you come together, this body can do amazing things1658that help us implement our laws in a more efficient way.1659    Senator Daines. Thank you. There are just so many wins if1660we can get this problem fixed in terms of improved wildlife1661habitat, improved economic benefits, and overall improved trout1662habitat in the streams that get hammered with the silting from1663the major disastrous wildfires. So lots of benefits, not to1664mention, we literally have had football games on Friday nights1665in Montana canceled because of air quality. This is not the1666smog of LA, this is smoke coming from these wildfires. So it's1667a health risk as well. And then, we, of course, have the tragic1668examples of firefighters losing their lives trying to fight1669these very hot and robust fires.1670    Mr. Danly, a question for you. With your experience at1671FERC, you have firsthand knowledge of our energy and1672transmission needs. Our energy demand is only projected to1673grow, as we talked yesterday. And to meet this demand, we must1674expand our energy production, not replace it. With rising1675demand, and I will tell you, every time I meet with a tech CEO1676today, the conversation is not about the constraint of the1677workforce. The constraint is energy as we want to move forward1678here with a significant increase in data centers and so forth1679to meet the demands of AI and quantum computing. With rising1680demand, we also need to ensure we can maintain our grid1681stability. And the key to grid stability is going to be more1682baseload power. Doing this will ensure we have access to1683affordable, reliable power, 24/7 and year-round. And as we1684talked yesterday, our transmission systems are crucial to1685deliver this power, but we need to expand our systems if we are1686going to bring new projects onto the grid. In Montana, the1687Department of Energy is involved in numerous energy and1688transmission projects that will help enhance our energy1689dominance and support our energy needs.1690    My question, Mr. Danly, is how do you envision the1691Department of Energy strengthening partnerships with our1692states, with our communities, and with energy companies to1693expand energy production and to expand transmission across the1694United States?1695    Mr. Danly. So thank you for the question, Senator and I1696appreciated the conversation we had in your office yesterday.1697The Department of Energy has innumerable different programs1698that are designed to either promote the commercialization of or1699help with the improvement of the preexisting facilities that1700are fundamental to keeping the transmission system working or1701developing new generation. And the President and the Secretary1702have both shown extreme enthusiasm for the idea of getting as1703much new generation online and interconnected as possible. And1704the Department is going to use every one of the tools at its1705disposal to ensure that we have as much generation available1706and as resilient a bulk power system as we can get.1707    And you are correct that the constraining factor for all of1708the tech companies right now is power, not just the amount of1709delivered real power, but also the interconnection sites that1710are available to actually connect the facilities to the bulk1711power system and the availability of power that is on a1712reliable basis. It can be very challenging in constrained areas1713to achieve both of those. And we will not be able to meet the1714commercial demands of our companies if we don't ensure that1715there is more power available.1716    Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Danly.1717    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.1718    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Daines.1719    Senator Cortez Masto.1720    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1721    Mr. Danly, during your FERC nomination hearing before this1722Committee in November 2019, I asked you then if you agreed that1723renewable energy should continue to play an important role in1724our nation's energy mix. And you replied, ``undoubtedly.'' Then1725in response to my follow-up question, you agreed that1726renewables like wind and solar power can be reliably integrated1727into the power grid. Do you still agree with that today?1728    Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I1729remember that confirmation hearing like it was yesterday. Yes,1730they can be integrated. There are challenges to integration.1731It's not the same type of generation that the bulk power system1732was built on from its infancy. And when you reach a certain1733threshold, those challenges become multiplicative. And so,1734there are thresholds that can be reached where it becomes more1735difficult. But yes, the idea that in a time of demand like we1736are facing now, that we would turn away any megawatts that are1737available seems irrational to me, but there are engineering1738problems that attend to use of intermittents.1739    Senator Cortez Masto. In response to another follow-up1740question, you agreed that states hold the authority under the1741Federal Power Act to establish the resource mix that best1742serves their customers. Do you still hold that position?1743    Mr. Danly. The law hasn't changed, and neither has my1744opinion. The states are granted the authority to determine what1745generation is within their borders.1746    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1747    And then, this is a question for both of you. As you've1748heard from some of my colleagues, we have been concerned by1749what you might be walking into in your respective departments.1750We're seeing decisions by the current Administration, from1751tariffs, to firings, to restructurings, that are undercutting1752our national and local economies, including in emerging and1753critical industries like outdoor recreation, travel, and1754tourism. The chaotic executive orders and actions often have to1755be walked back or reversed, such as--and we have heard a little1756bit about this--the firing of federal firefighters, or in my1757state, nuclear safety officials within DOE's National Nuclear1758Security Administration. So my question to both of you is, and1759I will start with you, Mr. Danly--if confirmed, will you commit1760to transparency on future actions taken by you and your1761departments and prioritize substantive responses to overdue1762questions that me and my colleagues have requested in letters?1763    Mr. Danly. So this Committee has seen my correspondence in1764my response to your letters before when I was a Commissioner. I1765did not give you the pro-forma one-pagers, I had these 90-page1766missives that completely laid bare everything at the1767Commission. I have no problem telling this Committee or any1768Member of Congress anything they want to know about what we do.1769    Senator Cortez Masto. Great, that's a yes. I appreciate1770that.1771    Ms. MacGregor.1772    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, I also agree with you that sunshine1773is always important for this Committee and also for the1774American people to understand how their government is working.1775So we will work with you.1776    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1777    Ms. MacGregor, much of the West has been experiencing a1778historic drought, and I think one of my colleagues may have1779asked this question of you already, but let me further1780elaborate. Nevada is one of the several Basin States that1781relies on water from the Colorado River. We are currently1782engaged in negotiations to set the guidelines for future water1783allocations because we also know that the current guidelines1784expire in 2027, and we need to start now, and we have started,1785even before now. But the new operations have to be in place1786before the end of 2026 to avoid confusion and conflict for the1787entire Southwestern United States. Despite 20 years of1788collaboration, the Upper and Lower Basin have not yet reached1789an agreement. The Department of the Interior must be a leader1790to bring the seven Basin States together on these alternatives1791and develop the post-2026 guidelines.1792    As Deputy Secretary, how will you prioritize this process1793to ensure the Basin can reach a consensus and avoid litigation1794before time runs out with the necessary guidelines that we have1795to pass?1796    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, thank you for that question. I was1797able to enjoy several meetings with many Senators on this dais1798about this particular issue. And I know that avoiding1799litigation on this incredibly important Basin is absolutely a1800must, and it's going to be a priority of the Department to work1801together with the seven Basin States, tribes, water users,1802hydropower generators, everyone--the 40 million people who rely1803on a smart solution that must be state-led.1804    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I am looking forward to1805that. We need that involvement. And I--if you don't know, the1806Senators in the Basin States, we all work very well together on1807this particular issue, and we are looking for that involvement1808from the Department of the Interior as well. So thank you.1809    Senator Barrasso. Senator Padilla.1810    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1811    Echoing Senator Cortez Masto's comments on the entire Basin1812States working so well together, because you know how critical1813that is, and we had that conversation in my office just1814yesterday.1815    But Ms. MacGregor, I definitely appreciated the opportunity1816to go through some of my priorities with you when we met1817previously, and I hope you took away from our meeting the1818constant theme of collaboration on so many of these intricate1819and complex issues, including but not limited to the recently1820established national monuments in California. As I mentioned,1821these protected landscapes, we crafted very intentionally to1822ensure that there is no energy potential that is being1823compromised as a result of the designation of the Chuckwalla1824and Sattitla National Monument, and I think you have that1825confirmation through the endorsements of these monuments by1826energy utilities and energy developers. I raised the same1827background with Secretary Burgum, both in our conversations and1828in writing, that the Department's review that has been called1829for--public lands must include meeting with the stakeholders1830that were involved--stakeholders that include the Congressional1831delegation, the Governor of California, the state's energy1832agencies, local officials, and notably, the tribal leaders who1833actually spearheaded the movements and the creation of these1834monuments.1835    And so, it took me a little bit by surprise when last month1836the Administration issued, but then rescinded, a fact sheet1837that suggested that the White House terminated the recently1838designated national monuments, all despite the fact that the1839President, in my opinion, doesn't have the legal authority to1840undo a monument under the Antiquities Act. I am not sure if you1841were involved at all with the crafting of the executive order1842and/or the fact sheet, but I guess my first question would be,1843are you aware of the broad, bipartisan, local, and tribal1844support for the Chuckwalla and Sattitla National Monuments?1845    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I have closely watched that monument1846establishment.1847    Senator Padilla. Is that a yes?1848    Ms. MacGregor. Yes.1849    Senator Padilla. Okay, because we want to get you on the1850record recognizing the broad-based support for the creation of1851these monuments.1852    Now, more broadly, as a matter of policy, do you believe1853that local communities and tribal leaders should have a say in1854the management of their public lands?1855    Ms. MacGregor. I think local involvement is something that1856everyone on this dais agrees with.1857    Senator Padilla. Okay, well, I am talking just about you,1858not the folks on the dais. You are the nominee before us----1859    Ms. MacGregor. Local involvement is embedded in almost all1860the Organic Acts at the Department, so, yes.1861    Senator Padilla. Good, good. Good-faith consultation and1862engagement is what we are looking for.1863    Now, as the Department did under the first Trump1864Administration, will you commit to releasing any rollbacks that1865you may be considering for public comment prior to taking1866action, if you are confirmed?1867    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, it's hard for me to commit on a1868completely hypothetical question related to the Antiquities1869Act, especially given that the Antiquities Act of 1906 has the1870designation of monuments purely within the ambit of the1871President of the United States. But I do know that that1872monument and many monuments are important to you and the State1873of California, and I will absolutely work with you. But I1874haven't seen any direction from the President yet. I am1875familiar with that of the past, but I have not seen any yet,1876unless I have missed something related to a review of our1877national monuments.1878    Senator Padilla. Okay. I wasn't trying to debate the1879Antiquities Act, just referencing what seemed to be the policy1880in the first Trump Administration of sharing publicly before a1881natural effort to roll back, and I would hope that continues in1882this second Administration.1883    A question in my time remaining for Mr. Danly. California1884proudly was the first state in the nation to launch a hydrogen1885hub. We refer to it as ARCHES, which will facilitate a network1886of hydrogen production sites to catalyze the use of hydrogen1887throughout California, and frankly, jump-start the hydrogen1888economy, not just in California, but across the country. The1889California hub enjoys bipartisan support from our California1890delegation. However, last week, the Department of Energy ``cut1891list'' reportedly included ARCHES and other hydrogen hubs to be1892cut. So I want to point out that ARCHES, again, is not just1893critical to California, but critical to our national economy.1894    If confirmed, would you commit to working with California1895to ensure that funding is not arbitrarily taken away?1896    Mr. Danly. Thank you for the question, Senator. And I have1897had a series of inquiries like this along the way. Of course, I1898am not in the building, and I don't know what is being1899contemplated, but I am obviously happy to work with any member1900of the Committee on any of the subjects that the DOE is working1901on in their state.1902    Senator Padilla. And should you be confirmed, would you be1903willing to commit to meet with the ARCHES staff before any1904final decision on cuts are made?1905    Mr. Danly. Again, I am not certain what, should I be1906confirmed, what my schedule is going to be like or what the1907normal fora are for engagement. I don't know what the rules1908are----1909    Senator Padilla. Meeting with the leadership of the hub1910that may be on the chopping block, but one of the most1911important hubs in America.1912    Mr. Danly. I certainly would have no objection to doing so,1913I just, it's a little premature to start filling calendars for1914a position I haven't yet been confirmed----1915    Senator Padilla. I am not looking dates and times, just1916your commitment and willingness to----1917    Mr. Danly. I am perfectly happy to work on any of the1918projects that the DOE is working on.1919    Senator Padilla. Okay, we will be following up.1920    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1921    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.1922    Senator Hoeven.1923    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1924    Welcome to both of you. I appreciate you stopping by and1925visiting with me, and look forward very much to working with1926you.1927    Starting with you, Ms. MacGregor. We have got some1928legislative priorities, and I would like your help on it. So I1929am going to ask on the record here if will help us. We are1930working on the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act, which1931would allow tribes in our state to swap land with the state to1932the benefit of the tribes and to the benefit of the state. It1933involves tribal-owned land and state-owned land. That's one.1934The other is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. You1935might have heard about it, perhaps Secretary Burgum mentioned1936it to you because he has really worked on it hard. It's a great1937project. We have worked on it hard. And we have passed1938legislation here through this Committee and across and through1939the Congress to make it happen, but there is more to do. And1940then also the Dakota Water Resources Act, which, actually,1941Senator Padilla co-sponsored with me.1942    But those three are legislative priorities, and I ask for1943your help with them. Are you willing to help?1944    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir.1945    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.1946    The next is, the Biden Administration implemented on BLM1947lands what they call a BLM Public Lands Rule. Essentially, it1948closes off about half of the BLM lands in our state--and we1949have a lot of them--to oil and gas and closes off almost all of1950them for federal coal. And I would ask that you work with us to1951roll back that harmful policy.1952    Ms. MacGregor. I am familiar with that rule, sir. And I1953would be happy to work with you ongoing on that matter.1954    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.1955    Are you committed to multiple use on federal lands? It is1956the law, by the way.1957    Ms. MacGregor. It's the law, sir, so yes.1958    Senator Hoeven. Good.1959    And then, in a lot of cases, we have split estates on1960mineral interests between the Federal Government and maybe the1961state or private individuals. Don't you think it's important1962that we get timely response from the Federal Government so as1963to not disenfranchise individual private property rights or the1964states?1965    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir. That was in my opening1966statement. I think timeliness is incredibly important.1967    Senator Hoeven. And the same on NEPA reviews?1968    Ms. MacGregor. Yes, sir, that is also the law.1969    Senator Hoeven. And then, are you pro-horse or anti-horse?1970    Ms. MacGregor. It depends on the horse.1971    [Laughter.]1972    Senator Hoeven. Good answer. As somebody who was raised1973with horses, she knows her stuff. In this case, I am looking1974for a pro-horse answer though, because we are working on1975legislation to protect the horses in Theodore Roosevelt1976National Park, and would welcome and appreciate your assistance1977with it, if you are so inclined.1978    Ms. MacGregor. I have some ideas for you.1979    Senator Hoeven. Great.1980    Ms. MacGregor. Some horses.1981    Senator Hoeven. Yes, yes. But you are willing to work with1982us on it?1983    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely.1984    Senator Hoeven. Okay, thank you.1985    Mr. Danly, we need more baseload for the stability of the1986grid, and I mean, I think you coming into this position to work1987with Secretary Wright is really outstanding given your, not1988only legal background and all that, but your work on the FERC.1989I mean, I think that is just a great background for this1990position, and so I welcome that. We need more baseload on the1991grid. I want you to talk about that and then I also want you to1992talk about how we get, you know, carbon capture technologies to1993economic viability. We have technological viability, as our1994Chair knows, or current acting Chair, I guess. He is actually1995our Whip, but I see they are letting him chair the Committee1996today, so. How do we get more baseload? How do we get to1997economic viability for carbon capture technologies?1998    Mr. Danly. So this has been--the subject of needing more1999baseload power for the stability of the bulk electric system is2000a subject that I talked about multiple times, including in2001colloquies with you, in front of this Committee when I was at2002FERC, and that still remains true. The baseload needs now2003though are not merely for the services that are required to2004keep the system stable, from spinning mass and the like, but at2005this point we need more baseload power simply because we are2006having increasing demand for real power delivered. And so, it2007now has the dual purpose of we need baseload to shore up the2008stability of bulk power system and we actually just need to2009deliver more power reliably.2010    Senator Hoeven. Right, and so, for Maine and New Mexico,2011places like that, we need baseload so they don't have problems2012getting their power, right? It's really important for our good2013friends there.2014    Mr. Danly. So the Federal Power Act is a national act that2015tries to make sure that everybody can have access to power2016across state borders. And yes, baseload power anywhere in an2017interconnection is good for everybody in the interconnection.2018How to get more of it? We have problems with the development of2019transmission, which was a subject that had come up before, but2020there is also the problem, at least in the areas that are2021regulated by FERC jurisdictional markets--baseload power has2022historically been undervalued. And we see this in retirements2023of assets that still have useful life in them. We see the2024scarcity in the pricing in the most recent prints in the PJM2025base residual auction, and the way fundamentally to fix this is2026to pay rates that are commensurate with the benefits that2027baseload power delivers to the power system.2028    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, see, this is why your experience on2029the FERC is going to be very important to DOE. And of course, I2030meant to include Washington State in making sure that that2031power is there and viable and available on the hottest day or2032the coldest day, whatever the needs may be.2033    But again, I think that this kind of expertise is going to2034be very important as we address the issues in our national2035grids.2036    Mr. Danly. It is critical. And without the deployment of2037sufficient generation, the United States--AI isn't the only2038source of the demand that is rising, but it is a very important2039one. The Biden Administration estimated that we were about 182040months ahead in AI development for the language training models2041in China. Eighteen months is the blink of an eye in utility2042planning terms, and there is real need to develop generation to2043meet that.2044    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also Mr. Ranking2045Member, I appreciate it.2046    Senator Barrasso. Senator Cantwell.2047    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just2048asking staff if they remember the last time that somebody2049voluntarily mentioned the Federal Power Act at a hearing, so2050thank you.2051    Mr. Danly. I would hope that I was that person.2052    Senator Cantwell. You were. You were.2053    Well, we will go back in the record and search and see when2054was the last time somebody brought it up. We often bring it up2055as members, but not a witness voluntarily. So I think it shows2056your prowess. So let me just jump right into it.2057    As it relates to--we will just stick on this subject for a2058second. Do you commit to opposing any proposals to auction off2059assets, including those owned by Bonneville Power2060Administration?2061    Mr. Danly. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I had trouble2062hearing you.2063    Senator Cantwell. We don't want to--BPA's a unique2064situation.2065    Mr. Danly. Oh, Bonneville, yes.2066    Senator Cantwell. Will you commit to not auctioning off any2067of the PMA assets, including those by Bonneville?2068    Mr. Danly. So the Power Marketing Administrations are2069fundamental components of the Department of Energy and provide2070electricity to huge swaths of territory in America. I love the2071Power Marketing Administrations. I just don't know anything2072about--I know there have been talks at different times for the2073Power Marketing Administrations to be privatized and the like.2074I have no interest in that subject historically in my career.2075And I don't really know enough about that to give an informed2076answer here. It certainly isn't anything I have heard talked2077about recently, but----2078    Senator Cantwell. Yeah, well, maybe, yeah, take a little2079homework assignment.2080    Mr. Danly. Yeah.2081    Senator Cantwell. Bad idea.2082    Okay so, PNNL, as it relates to grid modernization,2083chemistry, and materials science--will you advocate for robust2084resources for our national labs to continue to play a role on2085the forefront of innovation as it relates to key energy2086national defense applications?2087    Mr. Danly. I think the national labs are fundamental to2088America's geostrategic position in the world, and on top of2089that, I am just a really big fan of them.2090    Senator Cantwell. Well, a lot of great work is being done2091there. I invite you to come also and see the fusion technology2092in the Pacific Northwest--three different fusion companies that2093are underway. I do think we have to think about this, like if2094the United States wants to run fast, if we do, if somebody2095creates a miracle solution here, how do we get it integrated2096very quickly into the grid. So I invite you to come and look at2097that.2098    Hanford--very big issue for us, and Hanford cleanup. I am2099concerned about the layoffs from DOGE and retirements. And so,2100I don't want to lose qualified workers. One of the major2101obligations by the Federal Government is to live up to the Tri-2102Party Agreement. And so, will you commit to supporting a budget2103that meets the milestones of that agreement, which is previous2104energy secretaries committing to a plan for cleanup? So these2105are legal commitments that everybody has made, our state, just2106as a state where this activity is housed, and obviously,2107concern about the environmental contamination played a key role2108in getting those agreements. But will you live up to a budget2109that lives up to the milestones of the agreement?2110    Mr. Danly. So fundamentally, the budgets are not the2111purview of the position to which I have been nominated, but I2112will say this--the cleanup of the legacy waste sites is one of2113the handful of the truly core missions of the Department. And I2114have every intention of abiding by the agreement, and to the2115extent that the Department has obligations to discharge, I will2116see them discharged properly.2117    Senator Cantwell. So you would worry if, like, so many2118workers were laid off in the area that you didn't think you2119could meet those milestone agreements--that would be something2120you would be concerned about?2121    Mr. Danly. I mean, put another way, would I be concerned,2122should I be confirmed, would I be concerned that we didn't have2123the workforce to discharge the duties that Congress gave us?2124Yes. But that would apply to virtually anything that we are2125told to do, so.2126    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I need to get to Ms.2127MacGregor.2128    If I could, last year, we spent 96 days at the National2129Preparedness Levels of 4 and 5, which means we are using all of2130our available resources to fight fires. Over the last ten2131years, that only happened in 2021. So, we are very concerned2132about what this year's fire season is going to look like, and2133so, we don't want to see a layoff of critical employees that2134are going to help us for the future. The Department has a2135responsibility to fight here. Will you support--how would you2136make sure that we have the workforce that we need as part of2137our incident command teams, and if confirmed, will you not2138support a production plan, including off-selling of public2139lands that would reduce our access?2140    Ms. MacGregor. Thank you for the question, Senator.2141    I stated earlier that I think wildfire--and I think I2142stated in my last hearing that it is one thing that actually2143keeps me up at night in this job--if confirmed--that wildland2144firefighters are absolutely part of our essential workforce,2145and getting them out there is just as equally important as2146wildland wildfire management efforts that the Department, not2147only our Department--states, in partnership with us, local2148communities, the Department of Agriculture, do to help give2149that toe-hold so that we can fight fire better and more2150effectively. And I absolutely will commit to you to work on2151wildland firefighting staffing to make sure we have what we2152need.2153    Senator Cantwell. I am asking--the two of you are the first2154witnesses to come before us since all the DOGE cuts. So I am2155asking you, specifically, will you stop any cuts that will2156affect wildland firefighting efforts?2157    Ms. MacGregor. I will absolutely evaluate any proposed2158cuts, should they be, you know, proposed for wildland2159firefighting cuts, and review those very closely. I can't2160imagine a situation where that would occur, but if it did, I2161would want to make sure that we are balancing and keeping the2162resources we need to fight fire.2163    Senator Cantwell. Yes, I think most of us would just be2164able to agree today. No one here wants those cuts, no one. We2165think we need more resources. We think we have a pretty good--2166you will see a lot of western members here, and we have a very2167good handle on what's happening. We have had to deal with it2168for a long time. And so, we had to fight to get the money out2169of deficit reduction and back into the firefighting budget.2170That was a major bipartisan accomplishment, mostly led by this2171Committee. And now, we just want to keep moving forward. The2172Palisades fire was more than a wake-up call, more than a wake-2173up call. So we need more resources, not less.2174    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2175    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.2176    Senator McCormick.2177    Senator McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to2178our nominees. Congratulations to both of you and your families.2179    Mr. Danly, I am going to start with you. I am thrilled to2180see a fellow Army man come before our Committee, and we are2181talking a lot today about artificial intelligence and the2182importance of it for our economy and for our national security.2183To reap the full benefits of the AI revolution, we need power.2184We need an expansion of natural gas production and nuclear2185power, in particular, to power the next generation of AI. What2186do you think are the biggest challenges to expanding natural2187gas production and to increasing nuclear capacity in the United2188States?2189    Mr. Danly. Most of them are regulatory. The actual siting2190of generation is left to the states, as was alluded to earlier,2191but the regulatory burdens that attend the submission of any2192Section 7--that is NGA Section 7 Natural Gas Pipeline--are so2193profound that the risk premiums make it almost impossible to2194allocate capital rationally. And so, even though over the short2195and intermediate term, natural gas is the obvious solution to2196plug holes in resource adequacy, especially in areas that have2197constrained transmission systems, the biggest problem is the2198permitting of natural gas pipelines.2199    And as far as nuclear goes, you know, we recently had two2200new AP1000 units that went live in Georgia. My hope at the time2201had been that, once the first company went through the2202minefield clearing the path, everybody would follow after them2203immediately, and that hasn't happened. And my understanding,2204from the people I talk to about it mostly is, first of all,2205AP1000s are really big, but the main problem is the rates paid2206on the back end in the markets. For any of the areas that the2207two-thirds of Americans who are served by FERC markets, it is2208impossible to get rates paid, especially at capacity prices,2209that are commensurate with the upfront costs and the long-term2210ongoing costs of running a nuclear power plant. Even though the2211actual cost of delivered power is completely reasonable, it's2212everything that goes into the setting, construction2213application, and permitting that is expensive, not to mention2214the after-the-fact litigation. And so, really these are2215regulatory challenges primarily.2216    Senator McCormick. Very good, thank you.2217    And Ms. MacGregor, good to see you the other day. We didn't2218talk about this, but I wanted to bring up the question of2219critical minerals, which are so necessary to our national2220security and to ensuring that we maintain a dominant position2221vis-a-vis China, our primary competitor. And China, as you2222know, is seeking to get control of rare mineral supply chains2223around the world with mineral extraction processing and2224refining. As you know also, domestically many of those critical2225minerals lie on federal land. It takes years to develop these2226mining projects, and the constant delays and overzealous2227environmental regulations have, in the past, deterred2228investments in these capital-intensive projects.2229    So what will you do--what can you do to tackle these2230challenges to spur mineral development in the United States?2231    Ms. MacGregor. Senator, that is a great question, and2232coming from Pennsylvania, which is one of the original mining2233states, I think it's incredibly important that our country2234continue to be a leader when it comes to mining, milling, and2235production. And in my past position at the Department of the2236Interior, I had the stress of reviewing the United States2237Geological Survey Annual Mineral Commodity Report that goes2238between 18 to 20 different mineral commodities every year where2239we are nearly 100 percent reliant on foreign adversaries. And2240that worries me very much, especially when we have abundant2241resources here and smart regulations to be able to deploy them2242and mine them responsibly. And I personally, in the past,2243worked on a lithium mine in the State of Nevada, in my position2244in the Department last time around. I envision that there are2245more opportunities in the future. And if confirmed, I really2246look forward to working on that because I think we need to be a2247leader.2248    Senator McCormick. Thank you.2249    Mr. Danly, I am going to try to squeeze in one more2250question about the national labs. This Committee had a meeting2251about China and its attempt to infiltrate our universities, our2252national labs, as our primary adversary. As Deputy Secretary,2253what role do you expect to play in implementing, hopefully,2254more robust research security policies at DOE and across our2255national labs to make sure we are protecting against the risk2256of foreign researchers taking our innovation and technology2257elsewhere?2258    Mr. Danly. Yes, so, I think that's--when I first learned2259about the sheer volume of foreign researchers that came to the2260national labs and used the facilities in close proximity to the2261other researchers, I was really shocked by it. And when I2262further looked into it and found that there were very few--2263seemingly, at least by the press reports, press accounts--few2264constraints placed on that research being done and the choice2265and vetting of the people that arrive, I was, again, shocked by2266it.2267    So I don't know the specific actions that I would take,2268should I be confirmed, but it is something that I think is2269really serious and has to be dealt with immediately.2270    Senator McCormick. Thank you.2271    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator McCormick.2272    Senator King, did you have an additional question?2273    Senator King. Yes, I wanted to follow up--a very productive2274discussion, Mr. Danly. First, I would mention that one of2275bottlenecks, Senator, on natural gas is it takes five years to2276get a turbine. They are so backed up that that's a bottleneck2277in itself. If you wanted to build a gas turbine, you would need2278at least five years and then, of course, you have to do the2279ancillary transmission. But I wanted to talk about--we often2280use the word baseload, and you mentioned earlier in your2281exchange with Senator Cortez Masto that renewables--solar and2282wind--can play an important role in meeting this energy demand2283that is coming. And if you add storage, then you've got2284baseload. And I think one of the most important things that the2285Department is doing is research into battery storage. I learned2286recently that, you will excuse the term, the availability of2287battery storage has exploded over the last three years.2288    Mr. Danly. Please don't use that term.2289    [Laughter.]2290    Senator King. Sorry. It has expanded dramatically, how is2291that?2292    And would you agree that this is an important area, because2293solar and wind today are the cheapest forms of energy, about2294three cents a kilowatt-hour all-in, compared with other2295sources. Combined cycle is three and a half cents, but other2296sources are much more. And they are also the fastest to the2297market. So I hope that you agree that storage is an important2298area of research and development in order to expand capacity on2299the grid from all sources.2300    Mr. Danly. Absolutely. Research into storage is, like all2301research, incremental, but the change in the effectiveness of2302batteries, the rate of discharge, and the total capacity2303availability has increased over time. If we could solve the2304technical, engineering, and cost elements to storage, that's2305not just a matter of allowing intermittent resources to have2306more continuous output, it also allows for the delivery of2307services to the bulk power system that otherwise would have to2308be provided directly by generation, and could solve any number2309of transmission constraints that right now we have to have2310generators for.2311    Senator King. Exactly. It could be a peaker. It could have2312all kinds of roles on stabilizing the grid.2313    Mr. Danly. Yeah, it could provide ancillary services that2314just because of the geography and the topology of the system2315would otherwise only be fixed by putting in, let's say, a2316combustion turbine or something like that.2317    Senator King. Well, the Department is working on a number2318of initiatives at NREL and other places on battery development2319and technology. So I hope you will be a cheerleader for that2320when you get to the Department.2321    Mr. Danly. Should I be lucky enough to be confirmed, I will2322cheerlead the national labs and I am completely behind the idea2323of trying to figure out the storage question.2324    Senator King. Thank you.2325    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2326    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.2327    Any other questions on this side? Then I am just going to2328proceed to mine.2329    But congratulations to both of you. Thank you so much for2330taking the time to visit with me. Let me start with Ms.2331MacGregor.2332    The Biden Administration's Bureau of Land Management2333finalized what was the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan.2334They did it on the way out the door, December 2024. It occurred2335not even a week after our Governor, Governor Mark Gordon,2336submitted his appeal to the proposed plan. The final plan is2337going to devastate the people of Southwest Wyoming and lock up2338millions of acres of land that the local communities and the2339entire state rely upon. The Governor, the state legislature,2340the county commissioners, and the local communities all2341strongly oppose this plan that came out in the final days of2342the Biden Administration. Will you commit to work with my2343office and the state to undo this disastrous plan?2344    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I am very familiar with that plan, and2345I want to say that the law itself has a really important2346consistency review that is required to be conducted by the BLM.2347And it concerns me when you have a resource management plan2348that you work on for years and your ultimate result is2349something that ends up inconsistent with what the state would2350like. I think that's something we can absolutely work with you2351on.2352    Senator Barrasso. So in terms of before implementing the2353Biden Administration's flawed plan, you are going to continue2354to work with us?2355    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely.2356    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.2357    The Resource Management Plan for Buffalo, Wyoming--the2358Biden Administration finalized a Resource Management Plan for2359the Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office that is going to ban new coal2360leasing in the Powder River Basin, the most energy-rich area in2361the country. This short-sighted decision is an insult to2362Wyoming communities and harmful to American energy security. If2363confirmed, would you work with me to reverse this plan?2364    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, yes, I will work with you on that plan2365as well.2366    Senator Barrasso. On oil and gas leases, the previous2367Administration, I believe, had a disgraceful record on oil and2368gas management. President Biden blocked production at every2369turn, deferred over 600,000 acres from leasing in Wyoming that2370were previously cleared for oil and gas production. Glad to see2371there is already a lease sale in Wyoming this year. I think it2372needs to continue. If confirmed, will you work to offer2373additional acres for leasing?2374    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, conducting lease sales is a requirement2375of the law. I will obey the law and we will issue lease sales.2376    Senator Barrasso. Great.2377    In terms of sage-grouse, Wyoming is home to a large2378population of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. For over237915 years, Wyoming has been at the forefront of adopting new2380management approaches to protect the species. Our state has led2381successful efforts to balance conservation with economic2382development. The Biden Administration proposed to designate2383over 600,000 acres in Wyoming as Areas of Critical2384Environmental Concern, also known as ACECs. That is going to2385lock up thousands of acres in Wyoming, halting production and2386development across the state. Would you be willing to reopen2387the Department's greater sage-grouse management?2388    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, we worked on the sage-grouse resource2389management plan in the last Administration, and I was2390interested to learn that this issue is remaining and needs to2391be addressed and we will work with you on it.2392    Senator Barrasso. Great.2393    In terms of federal grazing, the Department of the Interior2394plays a critical role in managing federal lands across the2395West. Almost half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the2396Federal Government. Land managed under multiple use is required2397to be managed without impairment of the productivity of the2398land. These are public places that people from Wyoming depend2399upon accessing for their livelihoods. Congress directed2400grazing, timber harvesting, recreation, as well as energy and2401mineral development to take place on these lands. Will you2402support the multiple-use mandate of federal lands?2403    Ms. MacGregor. Absolutely, sir, that is the law.2404    Senator Barrasso. With regard to the Colorado River Basin,2405the Colorado River flows through seven states, and the Upper2406Basin includes Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. We need2407short-and long-term solutions that provide Westerners the water2408that we need. More water storage, improved federal flexibility,2409better data, and improved forecasting can help accomplish these2410goals. What do you think is the role of the Department in these2411negotiations between the Colorado River Basins, which is2412currently ongoing?2413    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, it sounds like I will be spending a lot2414of time in Wyoming.2415    Senator Barrasso. We appreciate it. We would love to have2416you.2417    Ms. MacGregor. I think the role of the Department is2418ensuring that we have a responsible solution that provides for2419the 40 million people who rely upon that water, but the2420solution must be state-based.2421    Senator Barrasso. Okay.2422    With regard to the grizzly bear, the grizzly bear is fully2423recovered. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of2424grizzly bear has been fully recovered for 20 years. Wyoming is2425proud of the role that we played in leading the recovery. The2426population has been delisted two times, under both Democrat and2427Republican administrations. It has been relisted by a federal2428judge. The only thing that Presidents Biden, Obama, Trump, and2429Bush all agreed on is that the grizzly bear is fully recovered.2430But we have federal judges who are taking a different approach.2431The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress to protect2432species from extinction. Does it make sense for the Federal2433Government to manage and waste taxpayer dollars on a species2434that is in no danger of becoming extinct?2435    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, I believe we are borrowing some great2436talent from the State of Wyoming to assist us on a lot of these2437issues, especially as it relates to the grizzly bear and the2438science behind that decision.2439    Senator Barrasso. Great.2440    Mr. Danly, congratulations to you as well. Let's talk about2441Advanced Reactor Demonstration Projects--nuclear energy.2442Developing first-of-its-kind technology requires time and2443resources. This is especially true for nuclear energy. The2444Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program2445is meant to help developers overcome these hurdles. It is work2446that had begun in earnest during the first Trump2447Administration. The program was signed into law by President2448Trump. I look forward to continuing this good work in getting2449the current projects over the finish line. If confirmed, will2450you ensure the Department of Energy remains committed to this2451mission?2452    Mr. Danly. Both the President and the Secretary have2453expressed their enthusiasm for next-gen reactors. I think they2454are almost certainly going to be part of any solution we have2455to meeting power demand. I have every intention of supporting2456the program and working with you on it.2457    Senator Barrasso. Great.2458    So Russian uranium--last year, Congress passed legislation2459to ban imports of Russian uranium into the United States. The2460law is intended to revive American uranium production and2461strengthen our nuclear fuel supply chain. This is needed to2462reliably supply critical baseload power plants. The legislation2463must be implemented correctly. The Department of Energy has the2464discretion to provide waivers to companies seeking to import2465uranium from Russia. Do you agree that waivers should be used2466only as a last resort?2467    Mr. Danly. We need to remove our reliance for uranium on2468other countries. It is very difficult to have affordable,2469reliable, and secure energy if the fundamental inputs are in2470the hands of either adversarial or even hostile nations. And I2471absolutely agree that the waivers are designed only for use in2472extremis, when you have to have the fuel.2473    Senator Barrasso. All right, because we are now seeing that2474sales of nuclear material are coming from China.2475    Mr. Danly. Which are coming from Russia.2476    Senator Barrasso. Which are coming from Russia, exactly. I2477am glad you know, because the first Trump Administration2478recognized our dependence on uranium imports to fuel our2479nuclear reactors as a national security risk. It convened the2480Nuclear Fuel Working Group to develop recommendations to2481address the issue. As an extension of the work, in 2023,2482Congress passed the Nuclear Fuel Security Act to rebuild our2483nation's nuclear fuel supply chain. Congress repurposed $2.722484billion in 2024 to support this goal. If confirmed, will you2485make it a priority to build and secure our nuclear fuel supply2486chain, including enrichment and conversion?2487    Mr. Danly. Senator, the entire supply chain from beginning2488to end for nuclear power has to be absolutely resilient and2489redundant within the United States. And the Department of2490Energy would not be fully discharging its functions if it2491didn't work on that.2492    Senator Barrasso. Before ending this hearing, any other2493questions?2494    [No response.]2495    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.2496    So for the record, I will ask three questions addressed to2497each nominee before the Committee. Will you be available to2498appear before the Committee and other Congressional Committees2499to represent Departmental positions and respond to issues of2500concern to Congress?2501    Mr. Danly. I will.2502    Ms. MacGregor. I will.2503    Senator Barrasso. Are you aware of any personal holdings,2504investments, or interests that could constitute a conflict or2505create the appearance of such a conflict, should you be2506confirmed and assume the office to which you have been2507nominated by the President?2508    Mr. Danly. I am aware of no conflicts.2509    Ms. MacGregor. Sir, aside from the ones I disclosed that I2510discussed and will divest, no, there will be no conflicts.2511    Senator Barrasso. Great.2512    Are you involved in or do you have any assets held in blind2513trusts?2514    Mr. Danly. No.2515    Ms. MacGregor. No.2516    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.2517    I want to thank the witnesses and congratulate you. Thank2518you for your testimony.2519    All Senators, I thank. We had a very good turnout for the2520questioning today.2521    Questions for the record of the hearings are due by 6:002522p.m. this evening.2523    The hearing is adjourned.2524    [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]25252526                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED25272528                              ----------25292530[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]25312532                                 [all]