Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Environmental Protection Agency.

1[Senate Hearing 119-067]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                       S. Hrg. 119-06756                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,7                  AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS8                  FOR FISCAL YEAR 20269=======================================================================1011                                HEARINGS1213                                BEFORE A1415                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE1617            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                                   on2425                           H.R. 4754/S. 24312627   AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,28ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER29                    30, 2026, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES3031                               __________3233                    Environmental Protection Agency34                       Department of the Interior35                      United States Forest Service3637                               __________3839         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations4041[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4243        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov44                               __________4546                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4760-267 PDF                WASHINGTON : 202648=======================================================================4950                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS5152                     SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chair53MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington,  Vice54LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                   Chair55LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois56JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JACK REED, Rhode Island57JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire58JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon59SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware60JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii61CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin62BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut63KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland64MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico65DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                GARY C. PETERS, Michigan66MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York67                                     JON OSSOFF, Georgia6869                  Elizabeth McDonnell, Staff Director70                  Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director71                                 ------7273 Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related74                                Agencies7576                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Ranking Member7778MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman79SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland80JOHN HOVEN, North Dakota             MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico81DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin82MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York83MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia8485                           Professional Staff8687                             Daniel Mencher88                              Derek Gondek89                               Dave Roth9091                     Melissa Zimmerman  (Minority)92                          Ryan Hunt (Minority)93                        Rishi Sahgal  (Minority)94                      Anthony Sedillo  (Minority)9596                         Administrative Support9798                               Teddy Coes99100                            C O N T E N T S101102                              ----------103104                                hearings105106                        Wednesday, May 14, 2025107108                                                                   Page109110Environmental Protection Agency..................................     1111112                        Wednesday, May 21, 2025113114Department of the Interior.......................................    59115116                        Wednesday, June 11, 2025117118United States Forest Service.....................................   109119120          Statements and Letters of Nondepartmental Witnesses121122                              ----------123124                              back matter125126List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   149127128Subject Index:129130    Department of Interior.......................................   151131132     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES133                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026134135                              ----------136137                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2025138139                                       U.S. Senate,140           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,141                                                    Washington, DC.142    The subcommittee met at 10:33 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen143Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)144presiding.145    Present: Senators Murkowski, Capito, Hoeven, Fischer,146Rounds, Merkley, Murray, Van Hollen, Baldwin, and Ossoff.147148                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY149150STATEMENT OF HON. LEE ZELDIN, ADMINISTRATOR151152              opening statement of senator lisa murkowski153154    Senator Murkowski. Good morning. The committee will come to155order.156    I would like to welcome Administrator Zeldin to the157committee here this morning. I think it is important,158auspicious, that as we begin our budget hearings, we begin the159oversight through the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee with160the EPA. An area of interest, I think, for all of us as we161think about how we ensure that Americans, from Alaska, to162Oregon, to New York, to all the places in between, have the163benefits of clean air, clean water for all of us. So thank you,164Administrator, for being here to discuss the fiscal year 2026165Budget Request.166    We recognize that what we have seen is ``skinny'', as we167refer to it around here. Each year, the subcommittee holds a168hearing to examine the EPA budget requests. Some years the169budget is the focus of the hearing, and others it is Agency170actions that draw the majority of the questions. I think it is171probably safe to assume that this year it is going to be a172mixture of both of these.173    And again, we have just seen the skinny outline of fiscal174year 2026. We have yet to see the full details of the175President's Budget Request. But I have to just sum my comments176at the outset in saying that looking at some of these proposed177cuts, I am looking at them and questioning whether they are178serious cuts. I find many of them problematic. And so I am just179going to be open and honest with my words here this morning.180And we will have good dialogue, constructive dialogue, in this181committee.182    So again, while we are waiting for additional details, I183want to spend my time this morning talking about the vision for184the EPA, and Administrator, how you plan to use your position185to continue to better provide clean air, water, and land for186Americans from Alaska, to Florida, from California, to Maine,187and how a budget like the one that you have proposed could188support that mission.189    Under the Biden administration, I had some very serious190concerns about the regulatory overreach of the Agency. I191expressed them often. I also shared the concerns that I felt192were overzealous enforcement actions coming out of the Agency193that went contrary to the needs of Alaskans. We were able to194figure out how to find common ground in certain areas to make195progress on some things that were certainly good for Alaska.196    I mentioned to you contaminated lands, residential wood197stove, testing and certification. We still have a long, long198way to go on PM 2.5. I think we know that. PFAS 301(h) waivers,199we have got work to do. I think we know that.200    So now we are in a new administration, new administrator,201and perhaps a different direction here. I do appreciate many of202the actions and the initiatives that we have had a chance to203discuss. Certainly, support the willingness to work with the204Army Corps of Engineers to review the WOTUS Rule, your205reconsideration of Clean Power Plan 2.0, the Vehicle Emissions206Rules, and then, of course, a renewed focus on permitting,207something I would think that all of us can come together on.208    But my concern this morning, and what you will hear from me209and I think many others, is the approach that has been taken210with regards to freezing funds, canceling grants, and then the211reorganization of the Agency. I am looking at it not only212through the lens of Alaskans, but really all Americans, who,213regardless of how you feel about the EPA, we benefit from its214data-driven decisionmaking, the remediation efforts, and the215mission to protect human health and the environment.216    And I respect, I give a lot of leeway for an incoming217administration's prerogative to implement changes in support of218the policies and priorities, but it also has to be done with219clear articulation of the goals against which such changes will220be measured. So it is problematic when, as a committee, we are221asking questions and we don't receive basic data that would be222helpful, would be good guidance for us.223    And So when we see implementation of significant changes224without working or seriously communicating with us, your225partners in Congress, it just makes it harder for us to do the226job of supporting your mission. We are on the same side here,227and so we want to work with you in so many of these areas.228    I think we all can agree that there are inefficiencies and229redundancies to be found throughout the Federal Government.230Some of EPA's programs, we know, are overly burdensome. And231again, I applaud the Administration for seeking to find ways to232help ordinary Americans cut through red tape and make programs233easier to access. But the seemingly indiscriminate freezing of234EPA funding, regardless of source, has caused some significant235anxiety from the folks that I am talking to in Alaska.236    One example is the Community Change Grants. In my state, we237have received 150 million from this program. It is communities238like the little Village of Kipnuk, it is the Native Village of239Kotzebue. It took a lot of work to get to the place where they240were able to secure the funding, and they have had their grants241canceled by the Agency without any explanation. And so this is242where some of the anxiety comes; it is just not knowing why.243And it is not just in Alaska. I think members on both sides of244the dais probably will talk about the benefits of the grants to245their states and their communities.246    You have also proposed massive reorganizations of EPA to247include the elimination of the Office of Atmospheric Programs248and the Office of Research and Development, now, it is true249that Agency is funded by our bill, will have the flexibility to250reprogram and reorganize. We provide that flexibility because251we know, we get it, there can be urgent and exigent252circumstances that warrant such actions.253    However, agencies must comply with the requirements and254provide the committees with the requisite information, whether255it is budgetary and staffing implications, but also the256rationale for the actions, to include why these actions are so257urgent. And so far, EPA has not adhered to our reprogramming258guidelines and has been largely unresponsive to the questions.259    So I would certainly expect timely and transparent260responses and information. I would expect EPA to abide by the261parameters that are outlined in our reprogramming guidelines.262And I think, as a former member of Congress, you get it. You263have been on the frustration end of things as well, so again,264ways that we can be working together.265    Now, turning our attention to the fiscal year 2026 budget266proposal, in Alaska we have seen on the ground examples of267really good things being done with some of the programs that268your budget has substantially reduced or proposed to eliminate.269    Example: the proposed reduction of the State Revolving270Fund, reducing it from $2.8 billion down to $305 million. This271is an 88 percent reduction. This was one of the ones, when I272mentioned unserious proposals, this is the one that I am273looking at, because it clearly is one of the most essential274programs that the Agency administers. And you mentioned, as275part of your justification for cutting this program, that the276account has been heavily earmarked. And this is true.277    The 66 members of the Senate, including 17 Republicans,278making it our most bipartisan account, who requested279congressionally directed spending for the SRF accounts did so280in connection with the states to ensure the funding was going281to critical clean water and drinking water projects. Now, I282would also note that in fiscal year 2025, Congress voted for283and the President signed into law a full-year CR that keeps the284State Review Framework (SRF) fully funded rather than reducing285it by the amount of the CDSs.286    So I am going to close my comments here with, I don't know287if it is a note of sympathy or just--it is an acknowledgment,288because I get it. You are, I think, 106 days since you were289confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator. And for an agency290as key and as vital as yours, that is really a short time to291get everything up and running, from enacting the292Administration's priorities, to establishing a clear working293relationship with us here in Congress.294    We know that you are still getting your team in place,295because we are trying to move them through our process here,296and it is slow. And you need those folks. You need the members297of your team. So I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.298There is plenty of time for us to figure out what is working,299what is not, and establish open lines of communication between300our teams that will mutually benefit your mission and all those301that we work for.302    So I am eager to start on that. I thank you for your303testimony today, your willingness to answer our questions, and304just the opportunity to be working with you.305    And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Merkley for his306comments.307308                   statement of senator jeff merkley309310    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski, and311congratulations on being Chair again. You were Chair from 2015312through 2020, so you are well seasoned in that role. One of the313things I really appreciate about the Appropriations Committee,314and this subcommittee in particular, is the bipartisan315collaboration. Eleven of our twelve appropriation bills went316out with, well, massive bipartisan support, most of them317unanimously, including the Interior Bill over several years.318And we look forward to, hoping to replicate that again.319    I just want to see the work that we do in this committee320get taken up on the Senate floor, worked with the House, and321have that whole bipartisan spirit result in a bill that lands322in the Oval Office.323    Administrator Zeldin, welcome. This is the ordinary324business of Congress that we conduct every year. But this year325is not ordinary. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the326power of the purse to Congress. And under the U.S.327Constitution, the President and Executive Branch leaders, like328yourself, are required to carry out those spending laws, even329if you disagree with them.330    As former Appropriations Chair Robert Byrd said, ``The331legislative control of the purse is a central pillar''. The332central pillar upon which the Constitutional temple of checks333and balances and separation of powers rests. And if that pillar334is shaken, the temple will fall. It is central to the liberty,335the fundamental liberty, of the American people.336    But this administration, the Trump administration, is337striving to topple that central pillar of liberty by seizing338the power of the purse. President Trump and OMB Director339Russell Vought are pursuing a deliberate strategy of340impoundments in which they ignore appropriation laws passed by341Congress, laws not just passed by Congress but signed by342Presidents, and withhold funding intended for specific agencies343and programs.344    The EPA, the organization that you lead, is one of those345agencies. This is not the first time that a President has tried346to impound funds for the EPA. President Nixon strived to do347that in 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch348could not steal Congress' constitutional power of the purse. In349other words, the Executive Branch must implement the laws350passed, signed into law as they are written.351    That decision was reaffirmed two decades later, in 1998,352when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not give the353constitutional power of the purse, could not delegate it to the354Executive Branch through a line-item veto.355    Yet under your leadership, Mr. Zeldin, EPA has illegally356and unconstitutionally impounded about $24 billion, including357$1.7 billion in Environmental Justice grants that help358communities address pollution and transition to clean energy.359Historically, we know that low-income communities and360communities of color have suffered the most from pollution.361That is because when people are powerful, they don't want those362plants in their community. So they end up in communities where363people are less powerful, where they have the least resistance.364    And so this funding provides those communities that have365those fewer resources the opportunity to protect themselves366from the impacts of pollution. For instance, in Oregon, a367county was awarded $20 million for rural communities, like368Oakridge, and Veneta, and Cottage Grove to provide shelter369during wildfires and severe smoke events, including upgrading370their HVAC systems and backup power. But the funding was371impounded.372    Also impounded was funding for private capital investments373to leverage private capital investments for solar installations374and efficiency upgrades through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction375Fund. You may not like those programs, but you are376constitutionally obliged to carry out the law as written, and377you are not doing so. Illegally impounding these funds, and378others, EPA is refusing to spend in dangerous communities by379making it harder to address pollution and climate chaos.380    If these illegal and unconstitutional impoundments were not381bad enough, your budget proposal makes a bad situation worse.382It is scant on details. It denigrates science. It antagonizes383Federal employees, and it undermines the core functions of the384Agency. A budget is a statement of values, and your values are385clearly to put the profits of polluters over the interests of386the people.387    Your budget slashes EPA by 54 percent. It drains 90 percent388of funding from the State Revolving Funds, which support389communities in meeting standards for tap water, and protecting390streams and rivers.391    Mr. Zeldin, I go to every county every year in Oregon and392hold an open town hall. I meet with the community leaders393beforehand, and almost always they are raising issues of the394challenge of providing clean water and wastewater treatment.395The cost in small communities per person is extraordinary, and396these grants have been the salvation for communities as they397seek to update infrastructure that is often half a century or398more old.399    My state knows the benefits of SRF funding, the400Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, used that funding to401develop a toxics Reduction Plan to mitigate toxic pollution in402the LaMotte River Basin, and the City of Umatilla has had to403boil water because of water distribution failures and pressure404loss with old infrastructure, and they are using this funding405to modernize their clean water supply.406    Your budget also eviscerates states by eliminating $1407billion in grants for cleanup of waterways, complying with air408quality requirements, handling hazardous waste properly, and409removing lead from drinking water.410    Your budget rips a quarter billion dollars out of the411Office of Research and Development, which conducts the412scientific research needed to inform EPA's decisions on413questions of environmental and public safety. In my home state,414the ORD labs in Corvallis and Newport research how chemical415contaminants will harm communities and ecosystems along the416Pacific Coast. We are both coming from Pacific Coast states, it417is important to us to understand how to protect the water off418our shores.419    Pacific Northwest fisheries are the most productive in the420world. The upwelling of nutrients and the California Current421combine to make them so productive, and therefore this research422is not just critical to the environment but to the economy and423livelihood of multiple stakeholders along our coast.424    Perhaps even more troubling, your budget takes aim against425your own employees. The so-called Department of Government426Efficiency, or DOGE, has already taken a wrecking ball to EPA's427professional staff. EPA is firing and pushing out, by threat,428thousands of staff, including scientists and technical429specialists, whose institutional knowledge is irreplaceable.430And new staff with nothing but stellar performance reviews.431    Without adequate staffing, environmental regulations cannot432be enforced. Perhaps that is your goal. Without adequate433staffing, dangerous pollutants will not be identified. Perhaps434that is your objective. Without adequate staffing, Superfund435sites will continue to leak toxic chemicals. Perhaps that is436your desire. All of this is happening while EPA carries out a437parade of reckless policy actions, tearing down bedrock438environmental laws, even allowing industry to simply send one439email to get waivers from pollution controls that threaten our440health and the environment we live in.441    We need an EPA that upholds the law, and upholds the442Constitution, that is properly funded, is strongly staffed, is443empowered to address urgent environmental challenges of our444time. I hope to hear today that you are changing course from445your reckless and dangerous pursuit in your opening months. The446American people expect and deserve nothing less.447    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley.448    At this time we will turn to the Administrator. It is good449to have you before the committee. Your first such engagement,450so welcome. I think you will find that this Appropriations451Subcommittee is very active, very engaged, with great inquiring452minds. So welcome, Mr. Administrator.453454                  summary statement of hon. lee zeldin455456    Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member457Merkley, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the458opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the459President's fiscal year 2026 Budget Request for the U.S.460Environmental Protection Agency.461    EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's462directive to help deliver clean air, land, and water for all463Americans while restoring common sense, accountability, and464cooperative Federalism to environmental policy. We are465fulfilling our core mission of protecting human health and the466environment while powering the great American comeback and467removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American468families and businesses for far too long.469    We hit the ground running, immediately upon President470Trump's inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup471in Agency history in less than 30 days after the catastrophic472Los Angeles wildfires. We are taking bold steps to combat PFAS473contamination and have advanced redevelopment at 21 Superfund474sites across 13 states, delisting all or parts of four sites475from the National Priorities List.476    We have also completed 25 State Implementation Plans, 16 of477which were backlogged from the prior administration. With this478renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working for479the American people. We are revising the definition of ``Waters480of the United States'' to align with the Supreme Court decision481in Sackett, and have issued immediate actions for Mexico to482permanently and urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis483that has plagued Southern California for decades. Following my484trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly 2 years from the cleanup time485line at the West Lake Superfund site, which has contaminated--486which has been contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan487Project.488    In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the489EPA released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during490those first 100 days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each491and every day. Together, these actions reflect the492Administration's commitment to environmental stewardship,493cooperative Federalism, and delivering results that make a real494difference in people's lives.495    In lockstep with the President's agenda, EPA is also496helping to unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform,497make America the AI capital of the world, and bring back498American auto jobs. We have eliminated waste and abuse in areas499like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, reversed unlawful500overreach like the so-called Good Neighbor Rule, and begun501reconsidering many overreaching rules, including the power plan502and EV-related regulation that threatens grid reliability,503energy affordability, and consumer choice.504    These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs, which505act as invisible taxes on Americans, making it more affordable506now to own a home, heat homes, operate a business, and bring507manufacturing back to local communities.508    By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the509President's fiscal year 2026 budget demands maximum efficiency510from the EPA while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory511obligations, also included in the President's proposal is an512additional $9 million above fiscal year 2025 enacted levels to513equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking water disasters.514    There is also a $27 million increase in funding for tribes515to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on516their lands. As I have stated in the past, at the Trump EPA we517will not view the status quo as a sacred cow that is518untouchable. We will not consider the Biden-era regulations we519inherited to be etched in stone, and we absolutely refuse to520waste even a penny of tax dollars.521    Under the President's leadership, and with the support of522Congress, we will continue to deliver real results with greater523accountability and a stronger environmental return on524investment per dollar spent.525    I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.526    [The statement follows:]527                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Lee Zeldin528    Thank you, Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of529the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you530today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for531the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).532    EPA has wasted no time advancing President Trump's directive to533deliver clean air, land, and water for all Americans--while restoring534common sense, accountability, and cooperative federalism to535environmental policy. We are fulfilling our core mission of protecting536human health and the environment while Powering the Great American537Comeback and removing unnecessary barriers that have burdened American538families and businesses for far too long.539    We hit the ground running, immediately upon President Trump's540inauguration, completing the largest wildfire cleanup in agency history541in less than 30 days after the catastrophic Los Angeles wildfires. We542are taking bold steps to combat PFAS contamination and have advanced543redevelopment at 21 Superfund sites across 13 States--delisting all, or544parts of, four sites from the National Priorities List. We've also545completed 25 State Implementation Plans, 16 of which were backlogged546from the prior Administration.547    With this renewed focus and commitment, the EPA is proudly working548for the American people. We are revising the definition of ``Waters of549the United States'' to align with the Supreme Court decision in Sackett550and have issued immediate action items for Mexico to permanently and551urgently end the Tijuana River sewage crisis that has plagued Southern552California for decades.553    Following my trip to St. Louis, we cut nearly 2 years from the554cleanup timeline at the West Lake Superfund site, which has been555contaminated by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project.556    In fact, to mark the 100th day of the Trump presidency, the EPA557released a list of 100 environmental actions we took during those first558one hundred days, a pace that motivates us to keep up each and every559day.560    Together, these actions reflect the Administration's commitment to561environmental stewardship, cooperative federalism, and delivering562results that make a real difference in people's lives.563    In lockstep with the President's agenda, EPA is also helping to564unleash American energy, pursue permitting reform, make America the AI565capital of the world, and bring back American auto jobs. We've566eliminated waste and abuse in areas like the Greenhouse Gas Reduction567Fund, reversed unlawful overreach like the so called ``Good Neighbor''568rule, and begun reconsidering many overreaching rules including power569plant and EV-related regulation that threaten gird reliability, energy570affordability, and consumer choice.571    These historic actions will reduce regulatory costs--which act as572``invisible taxes'' on Americans--making it more affordable to own a573car, heat homes, operate a business, and bring manufacturing back to574local communities.575    By reducing the EPA's budget by billions of dollars, the576President's FY 2026 Budget demands maximum efficiency from the EPA577while we continue to fulfill all of our statutory obligations. Also,578included in the President's proposal is an additional $9 million above579FY 2025 enacted levels to equip EPA with funds to respond to drinking580water disasters. There is also a $27 million increase in funding for581Tribes to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure on their582lands.583    As I have stated in the past, at the Trump EPA, we will not view584the status quo as a sacred cow that is untouchable, we will not585consider the Biden era regulations we inherited to be etched in stone,586and we absolutely refuse to waste even a penny of tax dollars.587    Under the President's leadership, and with the support of Congress,588we will continue to deliver real results with greater accountability589and a stronger environmental return on investment per dollar spent. I590look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.591592    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. We will593have five-minute rounds in order of arrival.594    And I will begin with my first five minutes. And again,595appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss596some of the particular issues I would like to ensure that we597continue that very direct engagement, not only between us but598also with our staffs. We have had a conversation about599transparency, partnership, and responsiveness, and again, I600think you come to this position really from a good place,601because you have sat in our seats here, so to speak, when you602have asked questions of an agency and you get frustrated603because you are not able to get what you are seeking.604    So there is a lot going on within the Agency, as you have605outlined, and as both the Ranking Member and I have outlined.606But we need to be more informed, rather than getting updates by607way of tweets or stories from the media. The Agency has issued608reorganization notifications, but we are not getting the full609picture or the answers to some of the questions that we have610asked.611    So my direct question to you this morning is just a renewed612commitment that the promise of transparency, partnership, and613responsiveness is there, that we are going to be able to have614meetings between your senior teams and our folks on the615appropriation side so that we can help you, let me help you616type of an approach. And that is what I am seeking from you617this morning, Mr. Administrator.618    Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Madam Chair. And you, uniquely619amongst 535 members of Congress have a bat phone into my620office, which I would encourage you to use at any time. We have621spoken since my confirmation, and when we meet, you often have622a very long list of priorities for Alaska that you are fighting623for, that you are passionate about. And to make sure that we624are working through that list at every opportunity is something625that will be a priority for our team as long as I am here, as626administrator. And I would encourage you to reach out whenever627you would like, and I would be available to work through628whatever is at the top of your list that day.629    Senator Murkowski. Very good. Very good. Let me ask about630the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water631State Revolving Fund, I mentioned in my opening. These are632probably the areas where, on this committee, we have more633bipartisan support for a program, and we are looking at a634budget that effectively eliminates the one thing that we are635all in agreement on.636    So I would ask you to share with me and the others on the637committee why the Agency would move away from such a critical638on-the-ground program when we are talking about access to clean639water?640    Mr. Zeldin. Madam Chair, as you pointed out in your opening641remarks, and as you referenced from the skinny budget that was642released that we are here to talk about today, there has been a643bleeding out of funds deliberately through decisions made by644Congress to earmark. I understand that when I came into this645position, I inherited a lot of earmarks that many of you have646fought for, and I want to be able to continue to work with each647of you and your staffs.648    In some cases, we need to get the recipients to submit649paperwork where they are on the receiving end of big earmarks650so that we can work through this backlog as quickly as we can.651It would be helpful to have a conversation about the SRF and652the use of earmarks and how that has been reducing the funding653through the years. As you all know, there is a difference when654these skinny budgets come out whether or not something is655funded at zero dollars, or it is funded at one dollar.656    Now, that might not seem like much to the American public657in understanding how these conversations go in Congress. The658SRF is not zeroed out in the skinny budget, and in fact it has659hundreds of millions of dollars there in it. So, as we go660forward with this process, I look forward to more conversations661about the SRF, and I am sure members of the House and the662Senate will be having conversations amongst yourselves as to663what you believe to be the appropriate funding level for SRF,664as well as the future of the program, and whether or not665earmarks will continue to be used to reduce that balance. That666is obviously a decision that Congress has a very important role667to play.668    Senator Murkowski. Well, we do, and we can have a separate669discussion about earmarks. I think we both know that earmarks670don't contribute to the top-line number. You are discussing671here a concern that I have raised with you, that there has672been, over the years, congressionally directed spending,673earmarks, that have been moved through the process, authorized674and appropriated to, and still not spent down.675    So my time has expired now. Know that on this next round I676am going to ask for a little more discussion about that. But I677do think that given the significance of the Clean Water State678Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, by679so many of us, that this is something that: Let us have a680broader discussion about how we move forward with, what I would681think most of us recognize, has got to be a priority within the682EPA.683    The Ranking Member of the Full Committee has arrived.684Ordinarily, I would defer to my Ranking Member here for his685questions, but--okay.686    Senator Merkley. So as you can tell from my opening687statement, I am very concerned about the issue of impoundments.688Are you familiar with the concept?689    Mr. Zeldin. Of course, Senator.690    Senator Merkley. You understand that it involves freezing691funds that are to be allocated by law?692    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I am familiar with the impoundments. I693also understand we are having this conversation in the middle694of the fiscal year as opposed to after the fiscal year.695    Senator Merkley. Do you understand that the Constitution of696the United States assigns the power of the purse to Congress,697and do you follow that understanding?698    Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely.699    Senator Merkley. So you understand that when you impound700funds, you are violating the law?701    Mr. Zeldin. No, Senator. We are going to follow--all702statutory obligations, and we will abide by all laws.703    Senator Merkley. But you are not. You are impounding funds704against the law.705    Mr. Zeldin. We absolutely disagree with you, very strongly.706    Senator Merkley. And the courts have also found it is not707just, against the law, it is unconstitutional.708    Mr. Zeldin. If you are citing a particular district court709judge, Senator, that is one thing, but there are a lot of710district court judges coming up with their own interpretations711of the law. That will go through litigation processes, but at712EPA we follow the laws.713    Senator Merkley. So it is the Supreme Court of the United714States that has weighed in. And do you consider the Supreme715Court not to be a legitimate source of decisionmaking?716    Mr. Zeldin. Of course, the Supreme Court is the highest717court in the land.718    Senator Merkley. Then why are you not following the Supreme719Court's understanding of the Constitution and the law?720    Mr. Zeldin. We are following all laws and the Constitution,721Senator.722    Senator Merkley. Then why have you frozen 1.7 billion in EJ723grants illegally and unconstitutionally?724    Mr. Zeldin. They are neither illegally nor725unconstitutionally frozen, Senator.726    Senator Merkley. Are they legally frozen?727    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, sir.728    Senator Merkley. Under what authority of the law?729    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, Congress appropriates funding, and730then, say, if the Biden administration is in place last year731and they are there at the beginning of the fiscal year, they732might apply their own administration's policy priorities. So733they might decide to send money to, say, the State of Alaska,734and they might include aspects of fighting for equity or735education instead of remediation----736    Senator Merkley. But it wasn't the Biden administration737that passed this law, it was Congress. And so this is in the738law as written and as signed by President, and yet you are739defying it.740    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, it would be important that the premise741of your question, I mean, we are going to have to just disagree742as strongly as possible, whether or not anything----743    Senator Merkley. You have also frozen Greenhouse Gas744Reduction funds, again illegally and unconstitutionally. Are745you going to follow the constitution?746    Mr. Zeldin. Neither illegally nor unconstitutionally,747Senator.748    Senator Merkley. Well, we now have several court decisions749that have said you have acted, and you referred to district750court decisions, but you don't agree with those district751courts?752    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if you are referring to a district753court decision that was then stayed by the D.C. Circuit, then I754would also encourage you to look at the appeals process, which755is important. And as you referenced earlier in a prior756question, how important it is to look at the Supreme Court,757well, then that message that you would be making to the D.C.758district court judge is that the D.C. district court judge759didn't have jurisdiction over that case and it belonged inside760the Court of Federal Claims. I agree with you how important it761is to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court.762    Senator Merkley. So there is one district court decision763you abided by, and that was related to the clean school buses.764If other district courts say that this is an illegal765impoundment, an unconstitutional impoundment, will you follow766the findings of those district courts, or will you simply767appeal it upwards?768    Mr. Zeldin. We will abide by all laws and the United States769Constitution at all times.770    Senator Merkley. Well again, the administration has771responded to some district court decisions by saying: We will772simply appeal it. We will seek a stay in an appeal. Will you773follow--when a district court says you have illegally impounded774funds, will you follow that district court decision?775    Mr. Zeldin. Well, as you pointed out, Senator, the Supreme776Court is the highest court in the land. So, if a district court777judge makes a decision, we are not going to assume that the778United States Supreme Court is going to agree with that779district court.780    Senator Merkley. Even though the Supreme Court has781repeatedly ruled that impoundments are unconstitutional. So782your decision is to simply appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking783a different decision this time around?784    Mr. Zeldin. Well, I know that we are talking about785hypotheticals of district court decisions to come, but as far786as the district court decision that have been made----787    Senator Merkley. It is actually, not hypothetical, because788we already have a series of district court decisions saying789that this is illegal and unconstitutional.790    Mr. Zeldin. As far as the district court decisions that791have been made, it is important to note, as I stated a minute792ago, the district court judge decision that you were793referencing in the D.C. Circuit was instantly stayed by the794D.C. Circuit.795    Senator Merkley. Do you understand that impounding funds796essentially makes the appropriation power of Congress very797difficult? We have to reach decisions about funding that is798important to Alaska, to Oregon, but also to every region of the799country. And if then we strike this law, we strike these800decisions to help address environmental issues in every part of801the country, and then the Executive comes along and says: We802want the power of the purse. We are going to treat these laws803as suggestions. We are going to freeze these funds for programs804we don't like, or regions we don't like, or congressional805districts we don't like, that completely undermines the806dialogue and the ability of--here in Congress to produce807bipartisan bills?808    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I don't know if on either side of the809dais I have ever heard in one round of questions more premise810of questions that I possibly disagree with. I refuse to waste a811dollar of tax dollars, period.812    Senator Merkley. Since you are violating both the law and813the Constitution, will you follow your oath? And if you cannot814follow your oath, will you resign from your office?815    Mr. Zeldin. Yeah, Senator, listen, you like to preface your816questions with declaring everything unconstitutional, illegal.817We could not possibly disagree more strongly with what you are818saying. What I do believe would be illegal is for me to play819along where I am seeing unqualified recipients getting funding,820where I see an entity like a $2 billion recipient, Power821Forward Communities, that gets $100 of GGR funds in 2023, and822then they get $2 billion in 2024.823    When I see self-dealing and conflicts of interest loading824up recipients of people who are Biden officials, and Obama825officials, and Democrat donors; when I see wording of financial826agent agreements and account control agreements that tie the827hands of the EPA behind its back, will I play along with that?828No, absolutely not, because this is the----829    Senator Merkley. In which case, you should resign, because830the President is involved in self-dealing.831    Mr. Zeldin. I should resign, because I don't want to waste832money?833    Senator Merkley. At a level we have never seen on this.834    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if I refuse to waste money, I should835resign?836    Senator Merkley. If I would just conclude, Madam Chair,837Madam Chair, I will just conclude by saying this issue of838impoundments is an extraordinary challenge. The Supreme Court839has ruled twice. The Constitution is clear. You took an oath to840the Constitution, and it is extremely destructive of our841legislative process for you to be engaged in this.842    Senator Murkowski. Let us move to Senator Fischer.843    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.844    Administrator, it is really good to see you today. Thank845you for being here. Before I get to a couple questions, I846wanted to quickly just note the support for some of your847efforts. Earlier this month, you announced reorganizational848efforts to strengthen the Agency. You specifically noted how849these efforts will help to address the over 12,000 pesticide850reviews that need to get done. Nebraska farmers rely on many of851these crop protection tools, and we need to ensure strong852science and risk-based reviews.853    Madam Chair, I would ask to enter into the record a letter854from the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)855Coalition in support of the Administrator's work there.856    Senator Murkowski. Without objection.857    [The information follows:]858859    Senator Fischer. Thank you. I would also like to quickly860thank you, Administrator, for your deregulatory efforts,861including reconsideration of the Clean Power Plan 2.0 Rule.862Nebraska is an all public power state, the only one in the863union, and our rural electric cooperative, they have raised864significant concerns about that rule.865    So Madam Chair, I would like to also enter this supportive866press release from the National Rural Electric Cooperative867Association (NRECA) into the record.868    Senator Murkowski. Without objection.869    [The information follows:]870871    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Administrator, a couple of872months back, Secretary Rollins met with me and several of my873colleagues about the importance of Congress passing a874permanent, nationwide solution to allow for the year-round sale875of E15. And I thank you. I thank you for acting on the876emergency summertime waivers to allow for the year-round sale877of E15 again this year. But certainly this yearly exercise, it878needs to be done permanently.879    We need to pass a solution, a permanent solution, and not880have your Agency have to go through this product every single881year. The President tried to get E15 done permanently through882regulation back in 2019, and he has maintained strong support883for it since.884    I want people to understand the history here, Mr. Zeldin.885We have effectively been operating under year-round E15 for the886last 6 years, although President Trump's regulation, or through887President Trump's regulation, and then yearly emergency888waivers; is that correct?889    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator.890    Senator Fischer. Is it true that despite President Trump's891best efforts, if we want real certainty here for consumers,892Congress has to act; is that correct?893    Mr. Zeldin. That is the most durable and easiest solution894to this issue.895    Senator Fischer. Thank you. And lastly, having that896permanent, nationwide, legislative solution for the year-round897E15 would certainly be a more efficient and effective use of898EPA's time and resources; is that correct?899    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. As the Chair pointed out, I have900been in the position a little over 100 days, and I have had901many, many, many meetings about this topic, and a lot of902passionate advocacy from--including you, Senator, and your903colleagues and your constituents. If Congress was to finalize a904long-term, durable solution, so much of that advocacy on your905part, all of your time, can be better spent fighting for other906priorities of your constituents.907    Senator Fischer. Thank you. As you know, the last908administration failed to issue the Renewable Volume Obligations909that were due last November. The RVOs, they also set volumes910that were 2023 to 2025 that were too low, and it didn't account911for the increased soy crushing levels to support biofuel912production, including increased crushing capacity that is going913to be coming online in Nebraska.914    I hope that you will set blending volumes for biomass-based915diesel that are in line with production and capacity of that916industry. Do you have any update on the time line for when we917can expect to see the RVOs?918    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. We are going through a rulemaking919process now over the course of the next few months. We did920inherit a blown deadline. We are looking to not only resolve921that deadline in setting RVOs, but to also look to the future922and to operate going forward in a way where we don't blow any923deadlines moving forward.924    So, over the course of the next few months, there is going925to be an opportunity for the public to weigh in during a public926comment period before a final decision is made. We have already927started to hear a lot of advocacy from many of your928constituents in Nebraska fighting hard for RVOs.929    Senator Fischer. As you know, the farm economy is suffering930right now, and farmers are worried about a number of things. In931order to help provide more certainty I really appreciate your932agency being on time with what needs to be done in order to933provide them with that assurance and with certainty.934    Mr. Zeldin. Yes.935    Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir.936    Senator Murkowski. We will next turn to the Ranking Member937of the Full Committee, Senator Murray.938    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski,939Ranking Member Merkley. I look forward to working with both of940you this year.941    Administrator Zeldin, you helm an agency that was created942by a Republican President that is responsible for making sure943that Americans can drink clean water, and breathe clean air and944lead healthy lives. It seems to me the Trump administration's945entire vision for your Agency amounts to burn it down. Now,946burning down the EPA might be a great way to generate smog, but947it is a terrible way to protect families' health.948    Look at the $25 billion in Federal funding you have been949illegally freezing and canceling in my state and across the950country. We are talking about investments in things like heat951pumps to reduce energy costs and pollution, wildfire952preparedness to prevent smoke exposure, or infrastructure953upgrades to protect drinking water from floods and earthquakes.954    Blocking this funding is hurting communities everywhere. It955has prompted lawsuits as well as investigations by the956Government Accountability Office (GAO), and I have to say to957you it is unacceptable to hear from GOA (sic) that your Agency958has not been cooperating with those requests from them. And now959the President's request would slash funding for your Agency by960over 50 percent, taking it back to levels last seen 50 years961ago, by the way.962    And I should note, protecting the health and well-being of963the American public doesn't happen on its own. The EPA is964powered by skilled and dedicated public servants, a group you965have worked to demonize for months on end. Now, while you966proudly gut your own Agency's workforce, you leave hardworking967Americans who are suffering the consequences. Your job is to968make sure kids have clean water when they turn on the tap,969fresh air when they go outside. Your job is to make sure that970our rivers in Washington State are full of salmon, not toxic971sludge. And your job is to follow the law and to get the funds972out that Congress passed.973    For the past 2 years, this committee has passed bipartisan974spending bills to invest in the EPA and into our communities.975And despite the draconian budget that you have put forward, I976am going to be pushing to work with this committee on a977bipartisan agreement once again that safeguards our health and978our environment.979    Now, Administrator Zeldin, at the same time you propose980cutting the EPA's budget by 54 percent and slashing staff by981over 20 percent, and gutting many of EPA's core programs, you982insist that despite these cuts, the EPA can carry out the983Congressional directives of the bill we passed with bipartisan984support through this committee without compromising the EPA's985responsibilities. There is no way that can be true.986    Do you understand, Administrator, that your job is to987execute the bipartisan laws negotiated in this committee and in988Congress and carry them out faithfully, not to gut the programs989that Congress passed into law?990    Mr. Zeldin. Of course we will fulfill all statutory991obligations, and I would encourage you to read the announcement992that we put out the morning of the President's 100th day that993has 100 environmental wins from the first 100 days of the Trump994presidency. I don't know if you have had an opportunity to read995it yet, but based on what----996    Senator Murray. Well, I have had an opportunity to see your997budget, and when you eliminate offices and slash staffing and998propose cutting the budget in half of EPA, you are making999certain that the Government will not be able to protect the1000public from pollution. That is not what Congress intended.1001    Now, the Federal Government has given states significant1002responsibility to implement our bedrock environmental laws,1003like enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking1004Water Act. EPA provides basic funding, categorical grants, to1005every single state so they can carry out more than 90 percent1006of on-the-ground work that is necessary to comply with1007environmental laws. Your budget cuts 16 of 19 categorical grant1008programs, which the Environmental Council of the States, a1009bipartisan organization of environmental agency directors from1010all 50 states, says will, quote, ``Incapacitate state1011environmental programs''. That is from them, not from me.1012    We are talking about massive cuts, $843 million for Texas,1013$459 million for Florida, $169 million for Louisiana. It is1014hard to see this as anything other than the EPA abandoning its1015responsibility to states. And I want to ask you, have you1016consulted with any of the states on this proposal to eliminate1017almost all the categorical grant funding?1018    Mr. Zeldin. Every aspect of this skinny budget was done1019deliberately as a result of a lot of conversation, a lot of1020thoughtful conversation----1021    Senator Murray. With the states?1022    Mr. Zeldin. States are absolutely included as it relates to1023conversations that take place--about conversations that take1024place about our priorities.1025    Senator Murray. Well, I will say my state and many of the1026states said this would be devastating, and states cannot1027shoulder this burden. And I look forward to working with this1028committee to, as we have done before, in a bipartisan way, make1029sure that we fund these programs.1030    Finally, your Agency has been cutting billions of dollars1031in grants, indiscriminately, irrationally, across the country,1032including in my home state of Washington. And I want to give1033you an example: wildfire and extreme heat waves, they are major1034threats to public health for a lot of the country. A few weeks1035ago, the EPA terminated a grant that would have made sure1036community centers in Spokane had the infrastructure needed to1037serve as a refuge during extreme weather and wildfire1038emergencies. There was no explanation for that cancellation.1039    That is a community that saw 19 people die and over 3001040people hospitalized during a heat wave a few short years ago,1041where wildfires are a constant threat. So let me ask you, is it1042WOKE to protect people from wildfires and heat stroke?1043    Mr. Zeldin. I don't know if you are going to get anyone in1044America to answer yes to the way you put that question out1045there.1046    Senator Murray. Well, is it inefficient? Is it wasteful?1047Why was this grant eliminated?1048    Mr. Zeldin. Well, there are hundreds of grants. I would1049have to have that individual grant in front of me. One of the--1050well, when Congress sets an appropriated level on a particular1051type of grant, we need to make sure that over the course of the1052fiscal year that that money is being spent, that we are working1053with Congress----1054    Senator Murray. Well, apparently, after 4 months, you1055decided that this community in Spokane didn't need to deal with1056their extreme weather and wildfire emergencies. I don't know1057whether the--you won't tell me whether it is inefficient,1058waste, but whatever your word is.1059    Mr. Zeldin. We are not.1060    Senator Murray. But you need to know that you are1061abandoning communities in my state and across the country, and1062that funding was appropriated for work exactly like this.1063    Thank you, Madam Chair.1064    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Let us go to Senator Hoeven.1065    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.1066    And Administrator, thanks for being here today. Appreciate1067having you. Both North American Reliability Corporation (NERC)1068and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have expressed1069concerns about grid reliability for our electric grid1070nationwide. And the reason, as you know, is very simply because1071we are losing baseload on the grid and we have more and more1072variable sources of energy.1073    And one of the big reasons we are losing that baseload is1074because of the regulatory blizzard that has been put in place1075by the Biden administration that is forcing coal plants to1076close down with no benefit to the environment. We continue to1077move forward in our state with the latest, greatest1078technological innovations to address SOx, NOx, mercury, CO2,1079you name it, right, and yet they are still forcing these plants1080to close down.1081    But it is putting the grid at risk. So talk to me about how1082you are going to take steps to unwind these burdensome rules,1083like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule, and like1084the Clean Power Plan 2.0?1085    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, we believe at EPA we can choose to1086both protect the environment and grow the economy. It is not a1087binary choice where we have to pick one or the other. Over the1088course of the last couple years of the Biden EPA, there were a1089lot of regulations that came out, many of which seeking to1090strangulate entire industries, to put, for example, the coal1091sector completely out.1092    Well, these are jobs. For many states, this is how they are1093powering their lives. This is an important engine of their1094economy. On March 12th, EPA announced many different regulatory1095actions, including a reconsideration of that Biden-era MATS1096Rule, including what is called Clean Power Plan 2.0, as you1097referenced, and other rules as well.1098    Now, some people like to post some photograph, you know, of1099the '60s and '70s and say that if we get rid of some regulation1100from 2024, this is what the water is going to look like, this1101is what the air is going to be like. We are talking about1102regulations from the last year or two. And we are going to go1103through a reconsideration we are going to follow the1104Administrative Procedures Act. There is going to be a public1105comment period. And while I cannot prejudge the outcomes now,1106at the end of the process, when I am supposed to, we will make1107a decision on what the future should look like on each1108individual regulation, Senator.1109    Senator Hoeven. Right. The same thing now for Waters of the1110U.S., talk to me about how we are going to make sure that1111private property rights are respected with Waters of the U.S.,1112which once again the Trump administration had put in place a1113responsible rule.1114    Mr. Zeldin. The Supreme Court, in Sackett, has very clear,1115simple, prescriptive language as to what should be a Water of1116the U.S. EPA seeks to follow the Supreme Court in Sackett and1117to make sure that there is a simple, durable rule that can1118withstand the test of time, that would allow any farmer or1119rancher, landowner, anywhere in America, or state like Alaska1120and others, they will know whether or not water that is on land1121is a water of the U.S. or not.1122    And what is very important to point out is that just1123because a water might not be a Water of the U.S., as it relates1124to Sackett, that doesn't mean that a state loses the ability to1125have oversight over that waterway. And that is a big1126misunderstanding as to what we are talking about here.1127    So we are doing a rulemaking to reconsider the definition1128of Waters of the U.S., to get the definition for EPA in line1129with the Sackett decision of the United States Supreme Court.1130    We don't want any of your landowners to have to go pay an1131attorney or a consultant to tell them whether or not the water1132on their property is a water of the U.S. I want every one of1133your ranchers and landowners to know whether or not there is a1134Water of the U.S. on their property. We owe it to them. And we1135should look at a map of the United States that has one1136definition that is being followed in all 50 states. We1137shouldn't have different definitions depending on what state we1138are in. And no matter what happens in presidential elections of1139the future, if we do this right and we come up with a simple1140definition that follows the Supreme Court decision in Sackett,1141the definition that we come up with now should be one that1142withstands the test of time.1143    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And I also appreciate you1144referencing respect for states' rights. Respect for private1145property rights and respect for states' rights are1146constitutionally protected, and it is vitally important that1147the EPA and other Federal agencies don't overstep those1148constitutional rights.1149    Mr. Zeldin. Agreed, Senator.1150    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.1151    Senator Murkowski. Don't forget permafrost.1152    Senator Baldwin.1153    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.1154    Mr. Zeldin, Wisconsin's coastal communities and tribal1155nations depend on the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to1156protect water quality of both Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.1157The initiative has been essential for cleaning up pollution,1158managing invasive species, and safeguarding access to clean1159water for over 40 million people. For every dollar spent on the1160Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, nearly $4 in additional1161economic activity is produced. These outcomes have only been1162possible because of strong collaboration between EPA and its1163regional partners.1164    So your fiscal year 2026 skinny budget makes no mention of1165the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, or the staffing1166necessary to carry it out. So I would like you to tell us today1167what the Administration's budget will include for the Great1168Lakes Restoration Initiative?1169    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, while we are here and we are only able1170to speak about the skinny budget because the full budget has1171not been released, because you are asking about the Great Lakes1172Restoration Program, and I have heard from the Vice President,1173who has fought for this program as well, a former Senator from1174Ohio. This is something that there is great pride inside of the1175Agency for, the Great Lakes Restoration Program. There is a lot1176of support inside of the Administration to make sure that this1177program is funded and it continues very strong.1178    Senator Baldwin. Okay. So it will continue and it will be1179fully funded?1180    Mr. Zeldin. It will.1181    Senator Baldwin. In the budget.1182    Mr. Zeldin. It will absolutely continue. And while I can't1183speak to a full budget that has not been released yet, I am1184confident that you will have a smile on your face as it relates1185to the Great Lakes Restoration Program when you see it.1186    Senator Baldwin. Wisconsin communities also face several1187challenges that make it more difficult to meet the demand and1188the expectation of access to clean drinking water. And we have1189increasing threats from PFAS contamination, an overabundance of1190lead service lines still, and inadequate and aging wastewater1191infrastructure. Our public water systems have relied on the1192EPA's State Revolving Funds to upgrade their water systems, to1193fix things that are broken so that they can protect families1194and workers.1195    This budget decimates the State Revolving Funds, and our1196nation's primary Federal program for funding water1197infrastructure projects. How do you justify this funding cut,1198this decimation, to a family in Milwaukee seeking to protect1199their children from lead in their drinking water due to lead1200service lines? Or a farmer relying on a rural public water1201system that hopes to provide PFAS-free water to their workers1202and their livestock?1203    Mr. Zeldin. As I mentioned, Senator, to Chairwoman1204Murkowski's question on this topic earlier, this is a good time1205for a conversation as it relates to the bleeding out of funding1206for SRF. Congress chooses----1207    Senator Baldwin. We are having this conversation right now.1208    Mr. Zeldin. Right.1209    Senator Baldwin. And you are hearing, I hope strongly, from1210this committee that we are committed to restoration of those1211funds because they serve such a vital function in our1212communities.1213    I wanted to add a couple of words to Senator Fischer's1214question about biofuels. I just want you to know that the1215biofuels industry is incredibly important in Wisconsin. We have1216several ethanol and biodiesel producers. Certainly, we have1217corn and soybean farmers and rural manufacturing jobs that1218depend on a predictable and forward-looking renewable fuel1219standard.1220    A strong standard would not only provide domestic market1221certainty to farmers during a time of volatile international1222market access, as you know, but also invest in our nation's1223energy independence while lowering fuel costs for consumers and1224creating domestic manufacturers jobs.1225    So I urge you to release a proposed renewable volume1226obligation rulemaking soon, and hope that the proposal will1227reflect market growth and demand in this sector.1228    Mr. Zeldin. I agree.1229    Senator Baldwin. All right. Lastly, Wisconsin is home to an1230array of diverse landscapes, from the coasts of the Mississippi1231River, and the Great Lakes, to the wetlands and grasslands1232across the Driftless Area of our state, to the Chequamegon-1233Nicolet National Forest, many of our state's most effective1234environmental conservation and restoration projects across1235these regions promote biodiversity to protect their ecosystems.1236    Can you confirm for me right now that the Trump1237administration's executive order to ban diversity, equity, and1238inclusion at the Federal level has not led to projects being1239deprioritized, delayed, or defunded by EPA if they mention such1240terms as ``biodiversity''?1241    Mr. Zeldin. Off hand, I can't think of a particular1242example. I would have to go back and talk to the team to see if1243there is anything.1244    Senator Baldwin. Can you assure me that the executive order1245on diversity, equity, and inclusion has not led to random word1246searches for words like ``diversity'' that lead to cutoffs in1247funding? Can you guarantee me that that has not happened at the1248EPA?1249    Mr. Zeldin. I wouldn't guarantee that. I would imagine that1250if we--when we received an executive order as it relates to1251diversity, equity, and inclusion that the team was probably----1252    Senator Baldwin. Does that include ``biodiversity'', in1253your opinion?1254    Mr. Zeldin. What I am saying is I would have to--as it1255relates to that term ``biodiversity'', I would have to check1256with the team. I am not aware of that, but I would have to ask.1257    Senator Baldwin. Do you think supporting and promoting1258biodiversity somehow violates the President's executive order1259relating to bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion funding?1260    Mr. Zeldin. I would have to see examples of how that term1261was applied to a particular program or grant in order to be1262able to answer that.1263    Senator Rounds [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.1264    And on behalf of the Chairman, I think she went to vote,1265now that we are actually trying to get our 15-minute votes in1266again, and I think we are all trying to honor that.1267    Okay. Administrator Zeldin, first of all, welcome, I am new1268to this subcommittee as well, and I look forward to having the1269opportunity to work with you. I want to thank you, first of1270all, for your willingness to revise the Waters of the United1271States, or WOTUS Rulemaking. As you know, the last several1272decades, wetlands that were drained to become cropland prior to12731985 have remained exempt from regulation under the Clean Water1274Act.1275    The first Trump administration clarified the rules1276governing prior converted cropland, or PCC, protecting affected1277land from clean water regulation as long as it was used for1278agricultural purposes at least once every 5 years. You are1279going to hear a lot about these ag issues as you come into this1280position. The most recent Waters of the United States (WOTUS)1281rule under the Biden administration ended the prior converted1282cropland exemption immediately upon a change in use.1283    This departs significantly from the flexibility provided by1284President Trump's 2020 WOTUS Rule. I recently introduced the1285Farmers Freedom Act to codify President Trump's earlier1286definition of prior converted cropland.1287    My question today for you, Administrator Zeldin, as you1288work to develop an updated WOTUS framework, will you consider1289revisiting the definition of prior converted cropland?1290    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I would be happy to follow up with you1291on that to make sure that we are heeding your calls and1292considering the merits of your point.1293    Senator Rounds. Thank you. And look, I really appreciate1294your comments on WOTUS and where it is going, and the concern1295to have some clear definitions laid out that everybody can1296understand from administration to administration. The ongoing1297uncertainty surrounding WOTUS regulations has been a major1298challenge for American farmers, and I have appreciated your1299commitment to working closely with the ag producers as you1300undertake this rulemaking process. And I appreciate that. You1301are going to find there are a lot of folks that want to work1302with you on that particular issue.1303    My next question; and you know, I want to just go back to1304something just to provide you an opportunity. There are a lot1305of us here that really do think that there is an importance to1306the clean and drinking water state revolving loan funds, and1307there is a $2.46 billion decrease in the skinny budget proposal1308that has been laid out. So let me just ask this question on it:1309Congress appropriates and we direct, we authorize and so forth.1310    My suspicion is that Congress will seriously consider1311reappropriating those funds again. Would it be fair to say,1312although there have been some suggestions that you are not1313following the law and so forth, if we appropriate it and direct1314that it be put back into those revolving loan funds, you will1315follow the law and you will see that it has been done?1316    Mr. Zeldin. Of course. Yes, Senator.1317    Senator Rounds. Okay. And I just appreciate that, because I1318think the misunderstanding is that somehow you are not going to1319follow a law on this, when Congress puts it in, and we say no,1320we want it back in, and it should go back out to the states. At1321that stage of the game, we can count on you working with us to1322get it done appropriately?1323    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and I appreciate you raising this1324point and this example. Congress appropriates funding, and then1325the Agency distributes that funding as it is required to under1326the law. That doesn't mean from one administration to the next,1327that the Trump administration is going to come in agreeing with1328the policy priorities of the prior administration that just1329left office.1330    There might be a disagreement of opinion between1331administrations, and we come in towards the beginning of a1332fiscal year, the way that funding will go out over the course1333of a fiscal year might be applying the new administration's1334priorities, as the American public voted for last November.1335    Senator Rounds. Right, and based upon where there is broad1336latitude provided to the Executive Branch in the expenditure of1337those authorities, but where the Congress is more specific in1338their appropriations, it makes it cleaner and more directed in1339terms of your ability to decide upfront whether it is truly the1340will of Congress to do it in one particular program, such as1341these Revolving Loan Funds?1342    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, I love your question. And this applies1343to so much, from appropriation to policy. If Congress wants an1344agency to take a specific action, Congress can give an1345obligation to an agency. I am here, as I was during my1346confirmation process, and I will continue to come before1347Congress committing to fulfill all statutory obligations. And1348if there is some new statutory obligation that is created1349because of some law that is passed, say a month from now, our1350Agency will fulfill those statutory obligations. It is a really1351important point. Thank you, Senator.1352    Senator Rounds. Thank you.1353    And at this time, on behalf of the Chairman, I would1354recognize Senator Van Hollen.1355    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator.1356    And welcome, Administrator Zeldin. I noticed that as a1357member of Congress during the first Trump administration, you1358opposed their recommended cuts to EPA's Long Island Sound1359Program. Similarly, during the first Trump administration,1360those of us who represent Chesapeake Bay states successfully1361opposed, on a bipartisan basis, their proposed cuts to the1362Chesapeake Bay Program.1363    I am glad to see that the Spend Plan that was submitted by1364EPA for fiscal year 2025 shows that you plan to continue to1365invest in the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program at the1366appropriated and authorized levels of 92 million. I just want1367to confirm with you today, yes or no, that is right, isn't it?1368    Mr. Zeldin. Yes. Everything in the skinny budget that is1369before us, the answer is yes when repeating what you all are1370reading.1371    Senator Van Hollen. Well, this is with respect to the spend1372plan, which is separate from the skinny budget.1373    Mr. Zeldin. Right.1374    Senator Van Hollen. If you also----1375    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and by the way--and I will answer1376maybe your next question, the Chesapeake Bay Program, which I1377know you are fighting hard for, as we heard Senator Baldwin1378reference and the Great Lakes Restoration Program, the1379Chesapeake Bay Program is an amazing program. Our team takes1380great pride in running it. It is filled with a lot of success1381stories that span multiple states, including yours, and we will1382make sure that you also have a smile on your face as Senator1383Baldwin will have on hers when the full budget is released and1384you see the numbers for Chesapeake Bay.1385    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that very much. You1386anticipated my next question, right, fiscal year 2026. So thank1387you. Now, let me turn to an area where we have some significant1388disagreement, which is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In1389just the last few days, an independent analysis of the benefits1390of that fund was conducted by the University of New Hampshire.1391It was released. Simple question, have you had a chance to read1392it?1393    Mr. Zeldin. Is that the one that was written by a former1394Biden administration official?1395    Senator Van Hollen. I don't believe so but we can check it.1396    Mr. Zeldin. I think so.1397    Senator Van Hollen. Here is my question.1398    Mr. Zeldin. I don't know if there is a----1399    Senator Van Hollen. Have you read it, was my question?1400    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if you are referring to the----1401    Senator Van Hollen. This is on May 12th.1402    Mr. Zeldin. Yes. If you are referring--if that is the one1403that I am thinking of, because I was presented a document, it1404might have been that, what you are looking at, I understand it1405was referred to as independent.1406    Senator Van Hollen. All right. Okay.1407    Mr. Zeldin. But my understanding from the person who gave1408it to me is that it was written by a former Biden----1409    Senator Van Hollen. Well, we will take a look at it, but1410hopefully, just being a member of an administration doesn't1411disqualify somebody from a fair analysis.1412    Let me move on, because this analysis shows significant1413benefits from the deployment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction1414Fund, including 41,000 new jobs each year compared to current1415policy, over $20 billion in additional wages by the year 2031,1416and very importantly, a whopping savings of $52 billion over1417the next 20 years for consumers. And I hope you will read it1418and give it a fair look, because you have made some wild,1419untrue, and reckless statements to justify your illegal1420freezing of these funds.1421    And Mr. Administrator, I can say that with confidence1422because the veracity of your statements has been scrutinized by1423the Federal courts. Right, that is where, unlike on media1424outlets, you actually have to present evidence under penalty of1425perjury, you and your lawyers on your behalf.1426    So let us look at what Federal District Court Judge Chutkan1427has said, after weighing the evidence and claims that you have1428made. During a hearing in early April, the judge pressed the1429lawyers for any evidence to back up your claims of waste,1430fraud, and abuse, and found that EPA, and I quote, ``Never1431proffered this adequate evidence'', unquote. The judge wrote1432that the EPA, and I am quoting, ``Has failed to provide a1433single piece of evidence to support your claims''.1434    She went on to find that EPA acted, quote, ``arbitrarily1435and capriciously'', unquote. And she goes on to make a number1436of other factual findings in that case. I am well aware of the1437fact that you have appealed her decision, but these are factual1438findings based on the lack of evidence for the claims that you1439have made.1440    Let me ask you this. You have received five letters, some1441as early as February 24th, from committees of Congress on this1442question of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. We checked this1443morning, based on what we know, you have not replied to a1444single one. So my final question here----1445    Mr. Zeldin. That is not accurate, sir.1446    Senator Van Hollen. What is that?1447    Mr. Zeldin. I don't believe that is accurate.1448    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Well, we double-checked, and if1449we are wrong, we will correct the record. But there are five of1450them. And my question here to you today is twofold. One, will1451you commit to responding to those letters from Members of1452Congress? And number two, will you meet with me to discuss the1453Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, its status, and its future?1454    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, we had, as you know, an opportunity to1455talk about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund a couple weeks ago1456when we saw each other, I am happy to have a follow-up meeting1457to discuss it further. I have personally read every single1458letter that every Member of Congress has sent me, whether you1459are on, you know, Senate Approps, you are on Senate EPW, or you1460are not, and that same thing applies to the House side. I have1461read every letter.1462    I believe every single member of this committee who sent me1463a letter has received a response up to this particular point.1464You referenced the judge--the D.C., a District Court Judge's1465decision, and it is important to note that that decision was1466stayed by a circuit court. I would further point out, because--1467and I don't know, Senator, if you have actually read the1468judge's 31-page opinion.1469    Senator Van Hollen. Actually, I have. And I have got it1470right here.1471    Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Great. If you would not mind, Senator, if1472you can look--can I just finish the point real quick?1473    Senator Van Hollen. Of course.1474    Mr. Zeldin. Then if you can--if you wouldn't mind, checking1475out the footnote on page 29.1476    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.1477    Mr. Zeldin. It says that we have not provided any evidence1478of reduced oversight after the November election, but we1479provided the judge the January 13th amended Account Control1480Agreement that does exactly that. Now, it is a decision that1481the judge makes to make believe that that document, that that1482wasn't provided to the judge. Now here is the other thing----1483    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Administrator--I am going to1484reclaim my time.1485    Senator Murkowski. And I am going to intervene because we1486are in the middle of two votes. We still have three more1487members that need to ask their questions, so.1488    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. I just want,1489therefore, Mr. Administrator, I look forward to meeting with1490you to discuss these things. As you know, in court, that is1491where people have to testify under penalty of perjury. I don't1492mean you, your lawyers on your behalf. And these are the1493findings I read from the judge.1494    Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to1495continuing the conversation and getting responses to those1496letters. I wasn't citing them from this committee's members.1497There are five other members on other committees, including1498EPW, who at least have told us they have not gotten responses.1499So we will follow up on that one.1500    Senator Murkowski. And we will have an opportunity in the1501second round.1502    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Okay.1503    Senator Murkowski. Senator Capito.1504    Senator Capito. Oh. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am going1505to just make a statement, that I have to go back because I have1506an EPW hearing, and you are coming in front of our committee, I1507believe, next week.1508    First of all, I am really pleased that EPA officials are in1509Charleston, West Virginia. The past EPA wouldn't come to1510Charleston, West Virginia unless we kind of pressured them1511under duress to talk about the new WOTUS Rule. So I know, I am1512pleased that you all are listening to our farmers, our1513landowners, our local officials are being heard, so I1514appreciate the quick and outward listening sessions that you1515are doing to a very overreaching and impactful rule.1516    On your reorganization, and we can dig into this more next1517week. I am very pleased that you have put more emphasis on the1518Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. As you1519know, our chemical office over the last 4 years has been1520extremely sluggish, if non-existent, in terms of licensing new1521chemicals, which are cleaner, greener, and safer. And for the1522life of me, I could not figure out why they were stuck.1523    We have a small refinery in West Virginia that has had1524three court cases that have judged on their behalf for the1525small refinery exemption. I know I brought that up to you1526before, so hopefully you are still looking into that.1527    And the last thing I would say is the Clean Power Plan 2.0.1528Luckily, it is getting frittered away because of the impacts it1529would have on jobs in my state and also on the ability for all1530of our states to provide the energy that we need and that we1531know we are going to want here in the future. So thank you very1532much. You don't need to respond, I just wanted to say welcome,1533see you next week, and appreciate it.1534    Thank you, Madam Chair.1535    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Capito. We are all1536running this morning, so don't take any offense that we are1537like jack-in-the-boxes here.1538    Let us go to Senator Ossoff.1539    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for1540convening the hearing.1541    Administrator, good to see you, and welcome.1542    Mr. Zeldin. Thanks.1543    Senator Ossoff. Administrator, are you familiar with1544Thomasville, Georgia?1545    Mr. Zeldin. I have been in a lot of parts of Georgia. I was1546just in Georgia about a week and a half ago.1547    Senator Ossoff. Thomasville is in Southwest Georgia. It is1548a great town, known for southern hospitality, great people,1549Mayor Mobley, Pastor Rich, there is a lot of agricultural1550activity around there. There is also a history, a legacy, of1551heavy industry that has led to significant air pollution, and1552there remain significant concerns about air pollution,1553specifically particulate matter 2.5, and reported high levels1554of leukemia and pneumonia in and around Thomasville.1555    And as you know, oftentimes these rural communities don't1556get the love and attention of the Federal Government, they can1557be forgotten. In Georgia, big cities tend to get a lot of the1558Federal support. So there was great news for the good people of1559Thomasville last year when they won an EPA grant to help build1560a new health clinic, rehabbing the gym in the school to build a1561new federally qualified health center near three daycare1562centers, as well as to upgrade wastewater infrastructure.1563    Earl Williams, who leads the Thomasville Community1564Development Corporation, called the grant a game changer. Mayor1565Mobley said the award represented a, quote, ``Transformative1566opportunity to make vital health and safety improvements.''1567    But, Administrator, you canceled the grant, and I would1568like to know why.1569    Mr. Zeldin. So I am looking at, this was part of the1570Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program?1571    Senator Ossoff. That is right.1572    Mr. Zeldin. And this gets to an earlier interaction that we1573had, and Senator Rounds got added as well. When Congress1574appropriates a block of funding, an administration is going to1575apply their policy priorities to how that money is going to get1576spent. A new administration comes in. We still have to spend1577the appropriated funding unless something changes with----1578    Senator Ossoff. Administrator, with respect, I understand1579the appropriations process. My question is why you canceled1580this grant. What is it about building a new health clinic and1581upgrading wastewater infrastructure for my constituents in1582Thomasville, Georgia, that is inconsistent with administration1583policy?1584    Mr. Zeldin. So I don't have the full grant in front of me.1585I only have a topline, which program it came out of. So when a1586new administration comes in and they apply their policy1587priorities----1588    Senator Ossoff. You are repeating yourself. My question is1589why you canceled this grant.1590    Mr. Zeldin. So when a new administration comes in, in this1591case, President Trump put out executive orders as it relates to1592environmental justice, with regards to DEI, I would imagine1593that would----1594    Senator Ossoff. What does this have to do with--is a new1595health clinic for Thomasville, Georgia, Woke?1596    Mr. Zeldin. As I imagine, as we look through the details of1597the particular program, there must be some aspects of this1598applying the last administration's priorities on environmental1599justice or it has got----1600    Senator Ossoff. Here is a community, here is a community1601that suffered from air pollution, has a high disease burden as1602a result. Finally, the Federal Government comes, they are going1603to help build a health clinic and upgrade some infrastructure.1604You canceled the grant, devastating for the community.1605    Here is what the Head of the Community Development1606Corporation said about your decision to cancel this grant,1607denying my constituents a new health clinic, and new wastewater1608infrastructure. A decision you made that hurts my constituents1609in Thomasville. Here is what he said, quote: ``We all worked so1610hard for this, and we won. And then all of a sudden, one day,1611it is gone. And it was just a great sense of disappointment. It1612was almost like I lost a good friend.''1613    He sent me another letter, he said, quote: ``Our community1614is devastated.'' You hurt my constituents, and I don't need a1615civics lesson on the appropriations process or a broad critique1616of this program. I want to know why you canceled this grant.1617    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, so you are--when you go back to them1618and they ask. Well, did you find out why the grant got1619canceled----1620    Senator Ossoff. Well, do you know why? I am asking you. I1621am asking, you canceled the grant.1622    Mr. Zeldin. You can say----1623    Senator Ossoff. I don't need to ask them why the grant got1624canceled because it was your decision. So tell me why you1625canceled the grant.1626    Mr. Zeldin. Well, you can say--you could say, I asked the1627question and then decided to spend the entire five minutes1628cutting him off eight times in the middle of his first answer,1629so I was unable to get a full response.1630    Senator Ossoff. Why do you not answer the question1631specifically and directly? Why did you cancel this grant? Why1632are you denying my constituents a new health clinic and new1633wastewater infrastructure?1634    Mr. Zeldin. Do you want me to repeat anything that I said1635and asked----1636    Senator Ossoff. No. I said, I want you to actually answer1637the question with specificity and not give a broad critique of1638this overall program or a lesson on how the appropriations1639process works.1640    Mr. Zeldin. If you were listening to anything that I said,1641Senator----1642    Senator Ossoff. Okay. You don't have an answer?1643    Mr. Zeldin. I already answered your--say whatever you want,1644Senator.1645    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair.1646    Senator Murkowski. Administrator, I had asked you, or we1647had had a discussion about the congressionally directed1648spending projects. You have indicated that, indeed, we have got1649a backlog here that we need to address. My understanding is1650that since fiscal year 2022, Congress had directed 2,264 CDS1651projects at the EPA. Only 705 have received the funding. So I1652think both of us would agree, you know, we have got an issue1653here. There is a problem.1654    The fiscal year 2025 CR, of course, did not include the CDS1655projects, so I am looking at that and saying, all right, the1656Agency has the balance of the fiscal year to work on catching1657up from this backlog of the CDSs, can you just give me a little1658bit of your understanding in terms of how you have directed1659your team to expeditiously get these projects out the door in a1660more timely manner?1661    Mr. Zeldin. I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. The1662backlog goes back years, and I have directed my team to both1663work with the members of Congress who represent those areas,1664the members of Congress who requested those earmarks, to get1665assistance. In the case where the recipient has not been1666responsive, and simultaneously to try to engage as much as1667possible directly with the recipient to try to get the1668recipient to submit their paperwork; we want to completely get1669through the entire backlog that we inherited as quickly as1670possible.1671    Senator Murkowski. Can we help you with that?1672    Mr. Zeldin. Yes.1673    Senator Murkowski. I mean, I am working with my1674constituents right now as we are moving forward in this year's1675appropriations and getting requests for CDSs. So can you1676perhaps either let me know who it is on your team that we need1677to be communicating directly to if there are snags on your end1678or perhaps, again, you are just not able to get in touch with1679the applicant?1680    Mr. Zeldin. 100 percent. And as you well know, the EPA is1681broken down into all sorts of different program offices.1682    Senator Murkowski. Right.1683    Mr. Zeldin. And it not be just one person for all grants,1684it might depend on whether the backlog might--we might be1685talking about a backlog inside of the Office of Water, where1686they need assistance from the Members of Congress, or maybe it1687is another office. Maybe it is the Office of Air and Radiation.1688We would look forward to an opportunity to work with you and1689your team and all Members of Congress on both sides of the1690aisle as much as possible to eliminate the backlog that we1691inherited.1692    Senator Murkowski. Good. Let us do that. I think that is a1693good plan. Many members here have asked about different grants,1694and programs, the pauses, the freezes. It has been particularly1695frustrating in Alaska when we hear that there has been a holdup1696in terms of the grant award. We have got just a limited1697construction season. It is just hard. And even if you are not1698choked by ice, you might have a barge that comes up with your1699materials for a project maybe once, maybe twice a season, and1700so it can push a project back not just months but by another1701season, another year, perhaps multiple years.1702    It has been hard to provide some clarity to our communities1703on which grants are going to be awarded, which are just going1704through the review process that you shared with us, which1705grants have been terminated. So I would ask if your folks could1706provide a list of what has actually been paused for review1707versus what has been terminated.1708    I think we have heard, for instance, on the EJ grants, that1709one has been perhaps more clear. But there are a lot in1710between, and I think it would help our communities if there was1711more certainty as to what has actually been terminated versus1712what is still in the pipeline for review. So I would ask for1713your help on that.1714    Mr. Zeldin. Absolutely, Madam Chair. And we will continue1715to be distributing funding appropriated by Congress as we go1716through the rest of the fiscal year. That will include funds1717for your great, great state, and we look forward to us working1718with you on the process.1719    As you know, when the President first came in, there was an1720administration-wide pause that was lifted. The pause that was1721then instituted for EPA was more specific to some of the1722Inflation Reduction Act programs. There was a Clean School Bus1723Program concern that was raised early in the Administration1724when Lion Electric and their bankruptcy issue caused some1725questions to be asked to make sure that the concerns with Lion1726Electric were just specific to Lion Electric. And as it relates1727to the grants that were cancelled, that is something that, if1728you have any questions about what was included in that, we are1729happy to answer any individual questions.1730    Senator Murkowski. Good. Okay, we will look forward to work1731with you on that list.1732    Senator Merkley.1733    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have four1734letters from communities in Oregon that I would like to enter1735into the record.1736    Senator Murkowski. Without objection.1737    [The information follows:]1738    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]17391740    Senator Merkley. Thank you so much. So the City of1741Chiloquin is a city of under 1,000 people in rural Oregon, and1742they had remediated a brownfield site, winning the award for1743the Oregon Brownfield Project of the Year, and had worked very1744hard and realized when you only have 1,000 people, it is pretty1745hard to even write grants, let alone win one. So they were very1746excited about their grant for a municipal center.1747    Not only would it have been city offices but also an1748emergency shelter. It is a community that is affected by1749wildfire smoke more years than not, and an emergency readiness1750center to respond to emergency with upgraded communications. So1751they had a grant awarded and obligated that you cancelled, and1752can you explain to the people of Chiloquin why this grant was1753canceled?1754    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, and I know Senator Murray asked about1755a specific grant, Senator Ossoff, asked about a specific grant,1756you are asking about a specific grant. I don't have all of the1757details on every single grant in front of me. However, I would1758have no hesitation whatsoever to be able to have a follow-up1759conversation, to the extent you are interested, that Senator1760Murray is interested, that Senator Ossoff is interested, to go1761through all of those individual details. And it is possible1762that the issue that might be present on a particular request is1763something that can get fixed, that can get addressed, as it1764relates to difference of administrative policy priorities from1765one administration to the next.1766    I went through a bunch of different Alaska grants before we1767were here today, and I found that there were different--that1768the grants might have an aspect that isn't consistent with this1769administration's policy priorities, but other aspects of it1770were. So we can work through that.1771    Senator Merkley. So this is a grant that was both awarded1772and obligated. How does a community proceed to plan, because1773they are contracting for design, they are contracting for1774construction. The grant has already been awarded, you unawarded1775it. It seems to me like once it has been obligated, that should1776be kind of like, okay, well, we will take those priorities to1777the next set of grants rather than undoing the existing ones.1778    So I think that is particularly upsetting to the rhythm of1779how communities can proceed with confidence if a grant that has1780already been awarded and obligated can be snatched back.1781    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator. I would encourage--and I am going1782to be, you know, in front of House Approps tomorrow, and next1783week Senate EPW, which you serve on, and House E and C1784Subcommittee. And my message would be for all of your1785colleagues that if anybody wants to ask about a specific grant,1786I would encourage them to reach out to us right now, as opposed1787to waiting until we are here for a Q&A, and I am getting asked1788about a very specific grant, as opposed to your office1789contacting us and saying: Hey, by the way, when we are at the1790hearing, I would like to ask you all sorts of very detailed1791questions about this one specific grant, if you would not mind1792bringing it. Because then, in that case, Senator, I would be1793standing here ready to answer a thousand questions about every1794individual grant.1795    Senator Merkley. Well, there was a kind of a procedural1796question embedded in that, which is, if a grant has been1797already obligated, and so here the community has contracted for1798design, perhaps for construction, isn't it not kind of deeply1799inappropriate to then undo that at that point?1800    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, if it is not consistent with1801administration priorities, depending on how the program was1802appropriated by Congress and depending on what the details are1803of that individual grant, that grant can be subject to1804cancellation.1805    Senator Merkley. Okay. I will follow up with a question on1806specifically why these grants were funded--or unfunded. The1807second one is from a plan for a community health project to1808increase tree planting in a heat kind of dome section of a very1809poor part of Gresham, Oregon, and air conditioning and space to1810address respiratory illness. The community, there is the1811philosophy, when you say it is inconsistent with the philosophy1812of the Government, is the incoming Government against1813addressing air conditioning to address heat, emergencies, or1814spaces to address respiratory illness during smoke emergencies?1815    Mr. Zeldin. You are asking about a specific grant. I would1816need the details of that particular grant to be able to1817answer----1818    Senator Merkley. Actually, I was asking about whether the1819philosophy, is that the philosophy of the incoming1820administration, that you are against--you may have undone this1821for who knows what reason, but are you opposed to tree planting1822and spaces to address respiratory emergencies?1823    Mr. Zeldin. Tree planting is fantastic. We would encourage1824more of it, Senator.1825    Senator Merkley. Well, if you look at these individual1826grants, which I am sure there are so many of them, I know that1827they were done with kind of a huge swath of cancellation, but1828if you look at them and go, well, there is nothing about this1829that we oppose, we like to have community health centers built,1830is there a possibility you will restore those grants?1831    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, over the course of the rest of the1832fiscal year, it is our intent to continue to be spending money1833that was appropriated by Congress to fulfill our obligations1834and to follow the law, and it very well will end up including1835grants that were canceled. The way that the grant may be1836finalized under new terms might not include whatever the1837particular aspect was that led to its cancellation the first1838time, but I am sure that there is going to be many examples of1839grants that will end up going back out the door just not1840without----1841    Senator Merkley. Yes, possibly, you may be restoring1842grants, if I just summarize what you just said?1843    Mr. Zeldin. Yes.1844    Senator Merkley. Yes?1845    Mr. Zeldin. Yes.1846    Senator Merkley. The third one is a community health center1847in the Town of the Grand Ronde, and to have a place to1848coordinate national--response to natural disasters. I know you1849are not going to give a response to this specifically, but in1850philosophy, it is not that the administration is against1851community health centers?1852    Mr. Zeldin. I remember during the first Trump term, that1853was something that there was an increase of funding to1854community health centers. That was a subject of legislation. I1855remember because I was in the House at the time.1856    Senator Merkley. And the fourth one is an early learning1857center, and the administration is not against early learning1858centers, in philosophy?1859    Mr. Zeldin. I have not heard of any administration, or any1860Member of Congress, or otherwise, being against something like1861that.1862    Senator Merkley. Well, these are important grants. I think1863there may be elements of each of these grants that you don't1864particularly like, like they are going to put solar panels on1865the roof, or the wording of the grant used the word1866``resilience'' or said ``we are responding to heat emergencies1867from climate change.'' I am sure there are words you don't1868like, but I hope when you review these grants, and you have1869stated your intention to spend the money in these categories by1870the end of the fiscal year, which is only months away, that you1871will examine these.1872    I will get you a list for Oregon. I think in these small1873communities, it is so hard to even write a grant, and it is1874such a victory when they win a grant and say, we can finally1875solve a major community problem.1876    And I know I am over my time, Madam Chair, but I will close1877just with this note. Because you have responded to the question1878of earmarks, or congressionally directed spending on the1879Revolving Water Fund, so in Oregon, we call these community-1880initiated projects. The communities say, here is our very top1881need, and will you fight to get us help because we cannot1882afford this water treatment on the front end, or wastewater in1883the background.1884    And I think very similarly, I think it is in Alaska1885communities say, here is our priority, Senator Murkowski is1886fighting for them. I think that is kind of the best1887arrangement. It sounded to me like you didn't like the idea of1888us fighting for the top priorities for our communities, but I1889think it is absolutely our responsibility. Better to have the1890communities say they want their priority is, and us fight for1891them, than some bureaucratic decision made 3,000 miles away, or1892further away from Alaska.1893    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Senator, there are so many great examples1894of what is called congressionally directed spending, earmarks1895where it is a member----1896    Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.1897    Mr. Zeldin. Community-initiated projects.1898    Senator Merkley. Thank you.1899    Mr. Zeldin. Where a member of Congress, House, Senate, is1900fighting for something that is filled with merit, purely, it is1901a great project that is going to have extremely positive1902outcomes. There are many of those examples, and that is1903something that I am not here to say, you know, generally1904encouraging or discouraging. That is a decision for Congress to1905make as to whether or not and how much to do it. My job is to1906make sure that the money gets out the door when Congress does.1907I don't want to use the wrong word ``congressionally'' not1908congressionally-directed.1909    Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.1910    Mr. Zeldin. Congressionally-initiated funds. We will make1911sure that the money gets out the door, Senator. The point as it1912relates to the description, the notes in the skinny budget as1913it relates to SRF, is just the concern of how that pot of money1914has been used, with regards to these funds.1915    With that being said, I am sure that there are many1916different examples, many examples of what was described there1917being good outcomes for a particular community. A very1918thoughtful congressionally initiated--community-initiated1919funding.1920    Senator Merkley. Community-initiated projects.1921    Mr. Zeldin. So I was used to the term ``earmark'' when I1922was in Congress, but we call it something else now.1923    Senator Merkley. The reason I don't love ``congressionally1924directed'' is it is not some invention of us up here that we1925just say: Oh, what do we want? No, it is what have our1926communities identify they want. So I have been trying to get1927the Appropriations Committee to change its terminology to1928reflect what is actually happening, and I think it puts it in a1929strong light.1930    Senator Murkowski. So I want to just follow on Senator1931Merkley's comments here, because the operating plan for fiscal1932year 2025 we have received, it is very much in line with the1933previous year's funding level for each line item. There is a1934lot of changes that have been discussed, but it sounds like you1935are committing to spending the funds as delineated in the1936Agency's spend plans.1937    And I guess my ask to you is, if that is not going to be1938the case, that the committee, or the subcommittee--excuse me--1939receive a reprogramming request, so that we basically follow1940the process of procedure here, if in fact we are not doing--the1941Agency is not doing the spend out as we have anticipated, as1942these small communities understand them.1943    I just have two very quick follow-ons. One is very easy for1944you because we have discussed it at length, but it is a1945significant issue in my state when it comes to contaminated1946lands. The history that I have shared with you of Alaskan1947Natives receiving their settlement of lands being conveyed by1948the Federal Government, and basically, they were conveyed1949tainted lands, lands that were contaminated by various actions1950of Federal agencies, whether it is the land managers or the1951Department of Defense.1952    And so we have made some good progress with EPA. And1953believe me, this is not EPA's fault or liability for the1954contamination, it is the Federal Government's, but what we have1955learned is that the EPA is uniquely qualified to help us solve1956this issue. Over the past couple years, there has been roughly1957$20 million in funding that has been directed to contaminated1958lands, and the agencies have been doing some really good work.1959    I just need your commitment that we are going to continue1960with this. $20 million, unfortunately, doesn't even get the1961first project cleanup. We know that these are expensive, but it1962is an obligation. It is a liability of our government, and we1963owe it, whether it is to Alaskan Natives as conveyance of their1964settlement, or to others. And I know that when we are talking1965super funds, brownfields, contaminated lands, we just have so1966much work to do here. So know that you have cooperation on my1967level here.1968    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to1969visiting over the course of the next couple weeks, being in1970Alaska, might be able to have the opportunity to hear about,1971see about--see this firsthand. And I will, with regards to all1972appropriations, make sure that we are fulfilling our1973obligations under the law. So if Congress appropriates the1974funds, we will make sure that it is spent.1975    Senator Murkowski. Very good. PFAS is something that we1976talk a lot about in Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Last1977month you announced that EPA will, quote, ``Tackle PFAS from1978all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing,1979stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding1980polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive1981receivers.'' You said this was just the beginning of the work1982that EPA is going to do to tackle PFAS, which I certainly1983appreciate, and I know most everyone up here does.1984    Can you tell me whether the operating plan and the skinny1985budget requests, whether they actually reflect this kind of1986full forward push on PFAS, and whether it includes the $101987billion that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding provided1988to take on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)1989contamination? I am looking at this skinny budget, and I am1990saying, good for you, let us go on PFAS. But I am worried about1991making sure that we are actually budgeting to do so.1992    And I am also worried about whether or not with the RIFs1993that we have seen to date, as well as what is anticipated about1994perhaps an additional fork in the road, whether we are going to1995be able to do the job. So again, this is something where you1996are going to have good support from people on this committee1997for the initiative. But do you have the budget, and do you have1998the people?1999    Mr. Zeldin. Yeah, Senator, we are actually adding people2000into this effort inside of the Office of Water. As you noted,2001this spans multiple program offices at EPA. A lot of the PFAS2002work is done inside of the Office of Water, the reorganization2003announcement that we made a couple weeks ago includes boosting2004that effort inside of the Office of Water.2005    The press release from April 28th that you referenced2006included a lot of different actions that we plan on taking, and2007everything that the Agency has announced is already factored2008into the skinny budget that is before the committee today.2009    Senator Murkowski. And so let me just ask more directly,2010whether or not you are concerned that the RIF or the deferred2011resignation is going to impact your ability to execute, whether2012it is on the PFAS side, or contaminated lands, or any number of2013issues that you have heard here from members?2014    Mr. Zeldin. No, Madam Chair. This is a very important2015priority of ours at EPA. When I was in Congress, I was a member2016of the PFAS Task Force. I had voted for the PFAS Action Act2017when I was a member of the House. I represented the district2018that had all sorts of different PFAS contamination issues. This2019is something that, in many respects, started during President2020Trump's first term in office and has continued to progress2021since. And we are going to make sure that we are hitting the2022ground running.2023    That is included in the April 28th announcement. But as we2024noted in that announcement, those are just some of the many2025decisions and important work that are before us. It is a very2026high priority.2027    Senator Murkowski. So you have spoken to the adequacy to2028meet the PFAS mission. Are you concerned about your numbers2029EPA-wide to do your overall mission, not just specific to PFAS,2030but with everything else that you are looking at? Because the2031reduction in staffing is very significant, you have got to2032admit that. And so you have got a big task, and we want you to2033be able to execute on that. So I just want to hear from you2034whether you have any concerns about your staffing levels right2035now?2036    Mr. Zeldin. Madam Chair, we are going to fulfill all2037statutory obligations. One of the things that was a surprise to2038me coming into the position was just how many people who are2039employees at the Agency were not working on any statutory2040obligation at all. And I also want to say that there are a lot2041of amazing, dedicated employees at EPA. The American public2042might feel disconnected from Agency employees who might be2043working in Washington, D.C., but there are a lot of people who2044have been there for a long time.2045    They believe in the Agency mission, they work hard every2046single day. One of the reforms we brought in coming in is2047ending COVID-era remote work. And it is great to hear noise in2048the building, to see the foot traffic, and to see people being2049productive and collaborative. But if anyone out there was2050tuning in and they don't know what the Agency looks like, it is2051filled with a lot of amazing, dedicated workers who believe in2052the Agency's mission, and we are going to work hard to make the2053public proud.2054    Senator Murkowski. Well, I am glad that you have2055acknowledged your workforce because I think you do have people2056who are good public servants. They are proud of the work they2057do, and the work that they do has value, and we want to2058recognize that.2059    I know our second vote is coming to the end.2060    Senator Merkley, do you have anything quick?2061    Senator Merkley. Just very quickly, I want to accentuate my2062concern, following on your concern of the employees. By the2063rough count we have now, we lost about 400 people of2064probationary staff who were fired within their first year, 5602065in the first round of deferred resignations, 180 in the DEIA2066who have been riffed. That is 1,129 deferred resignations.2067Second round, 1,800 have opt-ins, so now we are up to almost20683,000.2069    Office of R&D rumored that they are reduced to 5002070positions, which would be a loss of 1,300 additional. So now we2071are at 4,300. I will just point out that for two decades the2072level of employment at EPA was about 17,000. Right now it is2073about 14,000. So subtracting the numbers I just shared, we are2074talking about more than 4,000 reduction from that. Meanwhile,2075there are all sorts of programs that have been established over2076time.2077    This Congress has said we want to undertake things like2078addressing the environmental laws, and the fuel economy2079standards, and the Innovation Manufacturing Act, and updates to2080the Clean Water Act, and updates to Safe Drinking Water, so you2081have all these additional responsibilities, but it sounds like2082you are aiming to reduce the employment to around 10,000, and2083therefore it raises doubts that this work can really get done.2084Do you share those concerns? Or should we be concerned?2085    Mr. Zeldin. Senator, when the President's full budget comes2086out in the coming weeks, there will be more information as it2087relates to what you are raising on the number. The number that2088you just cited, though, is lower than the actual number. So2089from that respect, again, I know we are here to talk about the2090skinny budget because that is what has been released, and we2091are still waiting for the release of the full budget. Some of2092the numbers that you gave were accurate, some weren't and----2093    Senator Merkley. Well, just fill us in, you aim--well, just2094fill us in. What are you aiming for? You are aiming for 10,000,209511,000?2096    Mr. Zeldin. The way that the--the right answer is going to2097be based off of, as we go through the reorg, each office is2098going to be identifying how much that office needs, how much2099each region needs to be able to fulfill our statutory2100obligations, to fulfill our mission, and to power the great2101American comeback. Each office, when they have their number, it2102all gets added up, and that is the right-sized number of----2103    Senator Merkley. So we will get the--we will get the number2104later, is what you are saying?2105    Mr. Zeldin. Right. I am just filling you in on the process2106of how we are going to arrive at that. We are in a process of2107going through the reorganization now. That is how we will2108arrive at that final total number, which is higher than the2109number today.2110    Senator Merkley. All right. Well, we look forward to those2111details. You mentioned the PFAS mission, and EPA just2112announced, and so therefore you are announcing, I guess, that2113your plans to weaken the rule curbing ``forever chemicals''.2114And what are those chemicals? Those chemicals are PFAS,2115originally covering six PFAS contaminants including PFOA and2116PFOS. I am concerned that really, if this information, which2117just came out yesterday, sounds like it is at odds with your2118commitment to tackling PFAS. I am concerned about the numbers.2119I know it sounds like we are going to learn a lot more when we2120have a full budget and a full vision laid out before us, we can2121have a more detailed conversation.2122    Mr. Zeldin. Well, Senator, I don't know if you are quoting2123a news story, and it might not come as a shock to you, but2124sometimes the news says stuff that is not accurate, that is not2125what the Agency announced.2126    And as it relates to PFOA and PFOS, you said that we were2127weakening the standard, and that is actually the opposite of2128what the Agency actually announced. We were keeping the2129standard, and there was an issue as it relates to the four2130other chemicals, and that is something that we are going to be2131going through a process. But that doesn't mean that it gets2132weaker. The number might end up getting lower, not higher.2133    Senator Merkley. Okay.2134    Mr. Zeldin. So when you go through a process and we follow2135the law, at the end of it, the final Maximum Contaminant Levels2136(MCL) might be a lower number, not a higher number.2137    Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, I will just submit for the2138record this article from the Washington Post titled, ``EPA2139Plans to Weaken the Rule Curbing Forever Chemicals in Drinking2140Water.''2141    Senator Murkowski. Without objection.2142    [The information follows:]2143    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21442145    Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony, but we will2146look forward to a lot more information as we have a full budget2147and a full reorganization plan.2148    Mr. Zeldin. Yes, thank you. And Madam Chair, I would2149encourage the committee to look at the actual announcement from2150EPA as opposed to The Washington Post.2151    Senator Murkowski. We will have further discussion about so2152many of these issues, the reorganization, what we are seeing2153with the grants.2154    But I appreciate, Administrator Zeldin, you appearing2155before the committee, responding to our questions.21562157                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS21582159    We will hold the record open until May 21st for additional2160questions from members and would look forward to your responses2161to those as well.2162                 Questions Submitted to Hon. Lee Zeldin2163          Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito2164    Question. In March, your office announced plans for 31 deregulatory2165actions across three major areas. More broadly, the President has2166issued an Executive Order on ``Reducing Anti- Competitive Regulatory2167Barriers,'' and the Office of Management and Budget is soliciting input2168on deregulation. Can you provide information on how EPA plans to engage2169with stakeholders subject to EPA regulations to evaluate opportunities2170to streamline overly burdensome regulations?2171    The New Chemicals Division performs a critical role in reviewing2172submissions so that new chemicals can be evaluated with respect to2173approval for commercial use (e.g., utilized in domestic manufacturing2174of high tech). However, the Agency has been encountering chronic2175challenges with completing reviews within the statutory period of 902176days. Can you assure us that EPA is properly resourcing the New2177Chemical Divisions to ensure that reviews are completed within the2178statutory period?2179    Answer. EPA agrees that the TSCA new chemical review process is2180critical for advancing innovative chemistries for all sectors of our2181manufacturing economy. To improve the efficiency of the new chemical2182review process, a functioning and stable IT system is necessary. The2183previous Administration publicly acknowledged that systems were either2184not functioning or, at times, completely shut down which paralyzed the2185agency's ability to review these important submissions. EPA is grateful2186to President Trump and Congress for passing the continuing resolution2187which includes $17 million to help improve the IT systems used in the2188TSCA program, especially in our review of new chemicals. We will ensure2189that this money goes to support improvements for our IT infrastructure.2190    We have pivoted staff that were working on nonregulatory programs2191to assist in the New Chemicals Division and support efforts regarding2192the backlog. We are analyzing our processes and procedures to identify2193process improvements to shorten the review period for new chemicals,2194eliminate the use of unrealistic assumptions and provide some2195regulatory certainty for submitters.2196    Additionally, on May 2, 2025, EPA announced the next phase of2197organizational improvements to better provide clean air, water, and2198land for all Americans. This action is part of a larger, comprehensive2199restructuring effort to help EPA fulfill its statutory obligations and2200deliver on its mission to protect human health and the environment. The2201reorganization will bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate2202science into EPA's statutory programs. The plans include specific2203changes for OCSPP that will strengthen and build the agency's chemical2204safety programs, including the New Chemicals Program. Adding additional2205expertise to the TSCA program will help ensure we're using the best2206science and latest tools to really drive our programs into the future--2207reviewing chemicals more efficiently, providing better protections for2208consumers and workers; and increasing innovation and economic growth.2209    Question. There continues to be a lack of viable alternatives to2210PFAS chemicals. PFAS are used in critical industries, including many in2211the national security sector. Yet, the proposed budget makes2212significant cuts to EPAs Office of Research and Development, the2213scientific research arm of the agency that provides funding to finding2214alternatives to these chemicals.2215    What steps are you taking to ensure that critical research in PFAS2216alternatives is not impacted by these cuts?2217    Answer. Understanding the characteristics of PFAS chemicals is2218essential to the ability to identify appropriate alternatives. As noted2219in Administrator Zeldin's April 28, 2025, announcement on EPA's efforts2220to address PFAS, EPA is committed to implementing a PFAS testing2221strategy that includes analysis of existing information on PFAS, as2222well as generation of critical data either through collaborative2223efforts with internal and externals stakeholders, or by using test2224order authority under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.2225For example, EPA is evaluating how groups of structurally similar PFAS2226behave to help identify features that may relate to their hazardous2227characteristics.2228    Question. Administrator Zeldin, granting West Virginia's state2229primacy of Class VI permitting was a significant step in allowing my2230state to lead on carbon capture and storage projects. As you know,2231state primacy is a critical tool to faster permitting decisions by2232removing bureaucratic hurdles in DC and allowing the states who know2233their natural resources best to lead on permitting. State primacy will2234greatly improve the deployment of CCUS projects across the country.2235According to EPA, eight states are pursuing Class VI primacy, and we2236want to make sure EPA has the resources and ability to process these2237applications in a timely manner. How is EPA utilizing its resources to2238expeditiously process and approve state primacy applications? How is2239the agency working with states in the primacy application process and2240do you support efforts to process these applications in a timely2241manner?2242    Answer. EPA appreciates the funding Congress has provided for the2243Underground Injection Control program. Consistent with Pillars 2 and 32244of the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, granting a2245state primacy for Class VI Wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act2246bolsters American energy dominance and expands cooperative federalism2247while recognizing that states are best positioned to protect their2248underground sources of drinking water. One of my first decisions as2249Administrator was to charge the Office of Water with fast-tracking UIC2250primacy and permitting. As a result, on May 15, 2025, proposed to2251approve the State of Arizona's request to oversee Safe Drinking Water2252Act permitting for all underground injection wells in the state.2253    EPA is also committed to ensuring that all UIC permits, and primacy2254packages are processed in a timely manner. To effectuate this2255commitment, EPA has established a Tiger Team to ensure every efficiency2256possible is utilized in issuing these important statutory functions as2257well as addressing the significant backlog that formed under the prior2258administration.2259    Question. Administrator Zeldin, under the previous Administration,2260EPA moved at a glacial pace on individual Class VI permit applications.2261If the U.S. is going to lead on CCUS deployment, which supports our2262energy security and dominance, EPA has to process these applications in2263a timely manner. I know you share this view, and I credit you for the2264actions you've taken to-date to improve the permit review process. I2265appreciate that the EPA under your leadership is not going to make the2266same mistakes of the previous Administration. According to EPA, there2267are 170 well applications currently under review and that number will2268grow as investments in CCUS projects continue to increase. What steps2269are you taking to ensure that existing applications and new permit2270applications are processed in a timely manner? What do you think were2271the primary causes of delays in processing individual permit2272applications under the previous Administration and how can we overcome2273them? Please let us know how this Committee can aid you and your agency2274in providing timely review of permit applications.2275    Answer. Consistent with Pillars 2 and 3 of the Powering the Great2276American Comeback Initiative, permitting Class VI Wells under the Safe2277Drinking Water Act bolsters American energy dominance while promoting2278job creation and economic opportunity. One of my first decisions as2279Administrator was to charge the Office of Water with fast-tracking UIC2280primacy and permitting. As a result, on April 7, 2025, issued final2281Class VI permits to Oxy Low Carbon Ventures LLC for three wells for2282geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in Ector County, Texas. EPA is2283committed to approving permits as quickly as possible and ensuring they2284meet requirements to protect drinking water sources.22852286                                 ______22872288               Questions Submitted by Senator Deb Fischer2289    Question. The U.S. rendering industry diverts 54 billion pounds of2290animal byproduct from the landfill each year. They help recycle2291unwanted animal materials as well as used cooking oil and transform2292them into ingredients for dozens of products including fuels, pet food,2293fertilizer, and other industrial uses. Since the 1990s, rendering has2294been included in EPA's ranking of food recovery strategies to reduce2295waste, previously called the Food Recovery Hierarchy. The last2296administration removed rendering from EPA's new ranking systems, now2297called Wasted Food Scale, with no scientific evidence or reasoning2298provided for the change. State and local governments as well as the2299private sector model their food waste strategies, incentives, and2300programs after the Wasted Food Scale. Can you commit to looking at2301restoring rendering to the nation's food recovery and waste strategy?2302    Answer. Yes. Dedicated EPA employees are exploring a potential path2303forward for including aspects of rendering into the Wasted Food Scale2304and the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and2305Recycling Organics. We will continue to work with the industry to2306develop the needed data to support this effort.2307    Question. During the hearing, you stated that a congressional2308solution on year-round sale of E15 would be the most durable and2309easiest solution to this issue. Is it accurate that through regulatory2310means tried by President Trump in 2019 and through emergency summertime2311petitions, the year-round sale of E15 has effectively been the status2312quo?2313    Answer. Yes. EPA's action to extend the 1-psi waiver to E15 in 20192314allowed year-round E15 sales beginning that summer. That rule remained2315in effect through the summer of 2021. Since 2022, EPA has issued2316emergency fuel waivers that have allowed continued E15 sales in the2317summer months.2318    Question. Would a legislative fix be more efficient and effective2319use of EPA resources?2320    Answer. Yes. A legislative solution would provide the greatest2321certainty for EPA and industry.2322    Question. Crop protection tools are critical for Nebraskan farmers2323to produce food safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively for the2324nation. When evaluating pesticide safety, can EPA commit to: Seeking2325input from USDA and impacted stakeholders when designing pilot projects2326or mitigation actions related to pesticides on listed species and their2327designated habitat?2328    Answer. Yes, EPA remains committed to working with and seeking2329input from USDA and impacted stakeholders as EPA begins to implement2330any necessary mitigations to protect listed species and critical2331habitat (if designated) into registration and registration review2332decisions. EPA meets regularly with USDA's Office of Pest Management2333Policy (OPMP) as well as with grower, state, and industry groups to2334discuss issues of particular concern from these different perspectives.2335    Question. Ensure that any epidemiological study or data considered2336by the Agency for regulatory decision making in the pesticide review2337process meets existing data quality requirements and can be verified2338and independently reviewed by the Agency?2339    Answer. EPA strives to use high-quality studies to support its2340regulatory decisions for pesticides. Studies are subjected to robust,2341independent evaluations by EPA to ensure data quality and the utility2342of the data to inform regulatory decisions based on current standards.2343This includes taking into consideration rigorous guidelines that have2344been established for how testing must be conducted, as well as existing2345guidance on how to evaluate and incorporate relevant and reliable data.23462347                                 ______23482349               Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds2350    Question. Administrator Zeldin, I was encouraged to see the Trump2351administration extend the MATS compliance deadline for coal-fired power2352plants to 2029. Will you consider supporting additional measures to2353provide regulatory relief for these facilities?2354    Answer. Yes. EPA submitted a draft proposed reconsideration of the23552024 MATS rule to OMB.2356    Question. Administrator Zeldin, States such as California are2357attempting to override the EPA by imposing additional, stringent2358regulations on pesticides-creating a significant burden for2359agriculture. Do you share my concern that conflicting State and local2360labeling requirements jeopardize the future of pesticide use in2361American agriculture?2362    Answer. EPA and States work collaboratively to avoid conflict on2363labeling to ensure growers have clear and consistent directions for2364using pesticides. Core labeling requirements for all pesticides sold in2365the United States are mandated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide2366and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its implementing regulations. The EPA2367reviews and approves all pesticide labels before they can be sold,2368ensuring they contain the necessary information for use that will not2369cause unreasonable adverse effects. States can enact their own2370regulations that are stricter than the EPA's, but they cannot impose2371labeling or packaging requirements that are in addition to or are2372different from those required by FIFRA.2373    Question. Administrator Zeldin, how can the EPA address PFAS2374contamination while making certain that local water operators are not2375unduly burdened by the regulatory response?2376    Answer. EPA is committed to addressing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl2377substances (PFAS) in drinking water while following the law and the2378science. On May 14, 2025, EPA announced the agency will keep the2379current National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for2380perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS),2381which set nationwide limits for these ``forever chemicals'' in drinking2382water. EPA also announced its intent to extend compliance deadlines for2383PFOA and PFOS, establish a Federal exemption framework, and initiate2384enhanced outreach to water systems, especially in rural and small2385communities, through EPA's new PFAS OUTreach Initiative (PFAS OUT).2386This action will help address the most significant compliance2387challenges EPA has heard from public water systems, members of2388Congress, and other stakeholders, while supporting actions to protect2389the American people from certain PFAS in drinking water.2390    On May 14, 2025, EPA also announced its intent to rescind the2391regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS,2392PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of2393these three plus PFBS to ensure that the determinations and any2394resulting drinking water regulation follow the legal process laid out2395in the Safe Drinking Water Act.23962397                                 ______23982399            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen2400    Question. In 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act. Section2401131 of the Act amends Section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation2402Act, and codifies the ENERGY STAR program ``to identify and promote2403energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy2404consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through2405voluntary labeling of, or other forms of communication about, products2406and buildings that meet the highest energy conservation standards.'' 422407U.S.C. Sec. 6294a(a). The Act requires, among other provisions, that2408the Administrator of EPA work with the Secretary of Energy to promote2409ENERGY STAR technologies as preferred for energy efficiency and2410reducing pollution, preserve the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label,2411and other specific activities. In addition to these statutory2412requirements for the EPA to conduct the ENERGY STAR program, the Full2413Year Continuing Resolution for FY2025 is based on funds for the ENERGY2414STAR program. How is EPA's proposed reorganization of the Office of2415Air, which purports to eliminate the Office of Atmospheric Protection2416including the ENERGY STAR program, consistent with these laws?2417    Answer. We are currently evaluating a number of different options2418related to Energy Star; however, EnergyStar is a program the private2419sector can effectuate without excessive taxpayer resources.2420    Question. Does EPA intend to transfer the ENERGY STAR program to2421another entity and if so, is additional authority needed?2422    Answer. EPA is currently evaluating a number of options related to2423Energy Star including, but not limited to, privatizing the program or2424moving responsibilities to the Department of Energy.2425    Question. What steps will EPA take to obtain Congressional approval2426of its plans for ENERGY STAR?2427    Answer. EPA will follow the law in making decisions on the Energy2428Star program.2429    Question. Administrator Zeldin, did you account for these Federal2430cost savings to the taxpayer in your decision to eliminate ENERGY STAR?2431If so, what did you determine were the annual cost savings for the2432Federal government in using ENERGY STAR? If not, can you commit to the2433committee that you will develop an estimate of those cost savings and2434report to this committee a detailed accounting?2435    Answer. While the benefit of Energy Star is widely recognized,2436multiple private sector partners have reached out to EPA about taking2437on this work, similar to how LEED certification is run by a nonprofit.2438I recognize that EPA should concentrate our focus on statutorily2439required, uniquely Federal activities. We are looking at next steps for2440the program.2441    Question. What is the value of U.S. economic activity generated by2442the ENERGY STAR program?2443    Answer. It is unclear what the economic activity generated by the2444program is versus what the economic activity would be without this2445program. As this program does not preclude the purchase or sales of any2446product this program is essentially a government-sponsored advertising2447regime. We expect that companies will and would have promoted their own2448products but for the Energy Star program. This does not account for tax2449benefits that state or the Federal government has tied to Energy Star2450program which can be modified to a performance-based approach that2451minimizes or eliminates potential impacts.24522453                                 ______24542455             Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich2456    Question. Late last year, Congress did something it doesn't do very2457often pass a standalone, bipartisan legislation, through regular order.2458Senator Risch and I worked with 39 other Senate cosponsors to pass the2459Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act to make it2460easier for third-parties to clean up polluted mines they had no role in2461causing.2462    Can you provide an update on the EPA's work to stand up this pilot2463program, and what you need from Congress to make it successful?2464    Answer. EPA's Office of Mountains Deserts and Plains has been2465meeting with stakeholders, federal land managers, and potential Good2466Samaritans as well as developing the key documents for establishing the2467pilot project permit program. The current plan is to issue the 152468authorized permits so that work in the field can begin on the following2469schedule:24702471  --2026 Construction Season: 1--3 projects24722473  --12027 Construction Season: 2--5 projects24742475  --12028 Construction Season: Remaining projects to reach 15 total24762477    Congress gave EPA seven years to issue the 15 pilot project2478permits--we plan to do it in four years.2479    Question. Administrator Zeldin, you have said that you would ensure2480Americans have access to clean water. But this Administration is2481proposing to cut $2.46 billion in funding specifically set aside for2482clean and safe drinking water. If the administration cuts this funding,2483and states like New Mexico do not have the funds to cover the2484difference, how will we make the water infrastructure improvements2485needed across the country?2486    Answer. The State Revolving Loan funds will continue to revolve as2487loan repayments, state match, and federal capital replenish the fund to2488allow for additional loans to be made for water infrastructure2489projects. In addition, EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and2490Innovation Act (WIFIA) program is also available to provide low-cost2491financing to public and private borrowers for all types of wastewater,2492drinking water, and stormwater projects. In New Mexico for example,2493$20.9 million is currently revolving in the Clean Water SRF and $24.72494million in the Drinking Water SRF. After decades of sustained federal2495investment, states are ready to contribute more funding to this mature2496program.2497    Question. This administration has, illegally, frozen and attempted2498to claw back funding for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This2499program was authorized by Congress and would improve air quality and2500create jobs in communities across the country. Administrator Zeldin,2501what would you say to the communities that competed for and were ready2502to use this funding to develop their local economies and provide good2503paying jobs for their residents?2504    Answer. EPA terminated these grants because the programs were2505designed through self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified2506recipients, and reduced agency oversight. Instead of awarding money to2507shovel-ready projects, the Biden EPA again decided to fund2508organizationsthat fund organizations that fund organizations that,2509potentially, might use the money to fund projects. EPA looks forward to2510restructuring the program in a more efficient and accountable way.2511    Question. The Energy Star program at EPA is, by its own admission,2512``one of the most successful voluntary U.S. government programs in2513history''. Fundamentally, EnergyStar saves families money. Over the2514last 33 years, the program has saved consumers an estimated $5002515billion. Why block consumers from choosing what's best for their2516budgets?2517    Answer. Removing the EnergyStar program as a public taxpayer2518expense would not prevent consumers from making choices that are best2519for their budgets. Companies provide information related to the cost of2520the products and energy usage as part of their sales information. There2521are many different approaches that we are exploring that could save the2522federal government significant amount of money, while still continuing2523the areas of success with the program. This could involve working with2524the private sector for more efficient implementation.2525    Question. For decades, the EPA has published Inventory of2526Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks reports. This annual report provides2527a comprehensive accounting of total greenhouse gas emissions from all2528man-made sources in the United States and data on carbon dioxide2529removal from the atmosphere by forests, soils, and other sinks. The2530gases covered by the Inventory include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous2531oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and2532nitrogen trifluoride. In a recent op-ed, you said ``one of the core2533elements of the EPA's mission is protecting air quality.'' How will the2534EPA protect air quality without recording and publishing emissions2535data?2536    Answer. EPA continues to record and publish emissions data related2537to criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.2538    Question. How does the EPA plan to ensure meaningful and consistent2539consultation with Tribes during permitting reform processes, especially2540given the unique role Tribes play as either permitting agencies or as2541sovereign governments impacted by state-issued permits?2542    Answer.2543  --The EPA is guided by the federal trust responsibility to federally2544        recognized tribes, longstanding practice and experience2545        consulting with tribes, and internal policies that guide EPA's2546        work such as the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and the EPA2547        Consultation Policy.25482549  --EPA follows these policies and complies with the federal trust2550        responsibility when implementing programs under federal2551        environmental law. EPA notes that it was one of the first2552        federal agencies to have a formal Indian policy describing the2553        manner in which the agency works in partnership with Tribes.25542555  --Further, OITA provides national guidance on the EPA Consultation2556        Policy and each major EPA headquarters and regional office have2557        staff dedicated to implementing the policy on agency actions,2558        including on potential reforms to permitting processes.25592560                                 ______25612562           Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand2563    Question. The Long Island Sound Program is one of EPA's Geographic2564Programs and it's a program that we worked together to reauthorize in25652018 while you were a Member of Congress. We have seen firsthand the2566great results this funding has had for the ecological health and water2567quality of the Sound. The President's FY26 skinny budget did not2568include any details on the Long Island Sound Program. Can you give me2569and the subcommittee your support to continue fully funding the Long2570Island Sound Geographic Program?2571    Answer. The Long Island Sound Program is one I have long supported.2572Its support for the protection and restoration of water quality,2573habitat, and living resources in the Sound is fully funded in the FY25742026 Budget Request with $40 million.2575    Question. The success of the Long Island Sound Geographic Program2576relies on dedicated EPA staff. EPA leadership and continued2577participation in the program is crucial, especially as there is a new2578and updated Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for 2025 to25792035. What steps will you take to ensure adequate staffing to carry out2580Congressionally- authorized geographic programs like the Long Island2581Sound Program?2582    Answer. I have committed to ensuring that EPA has the necessary2583staff to fulfill its statutory obligations, including for this program.2584    Question. The Long Island Sound is just one of the Geographic2585Programs to support New York's waterbodies and watersheds. The EPA has2586Geographic Programs that fund restoration, education, and community2587engagement activities in Lakes Erie and Ontario through the Great Lakes2588Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain through its Basin Program, and2589the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, of which, the headwaters are in New2590York's Southern Tier. The skinny budget does not mention these2591programs. Can you commit your full support to fund the Great Lakes2592Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and the2593Chesapeake Bay Watershed?2594    Answer. EPA greatly values the important work happening in the2595Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Lake Champlain Basin Program, and2596the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and funding is provided for each of these2597programs as part of the President's FY 2026 Budget Request. Great Lakes2598is fully funded with $368 million, Chesapeake Bay is fully funded with2599$92 million and Lake Champlain with $15.6 million.2600    Question. New York State has over 80 Superfund sites, of which over260120 are on Long Island, and we also have one of the largest Superfund2602sites in the country-the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. I am2603concerned by the President's proposed decrease in funding for EPA's2604Superfund Program. I am especially concerned by the loss of dedicated2605EPA staff in Region 2 who work to hold polluters accountable and2606remediate some of the most dangerous and contaminated sites on Long2607Island. Will you push back against OMB, OPM, and DOGE to protect staff2608in EPA Region 2 and Superfund staff in all of EPA's regional offices?2609    Answer. I fully support all our employee's decision to take or not2610take the DRP/VERA option. I am excited that the majority of the hard-2611working staff throughout the agency will remain at the EPA to continue2612to ensure that we meet our statutory obligations, including our2613Superfund program. We will continue to fund our important Superfund2614work in Region 2.2615    Question. EPA staff conduct significant outreach to New York2616communities. As it relates to Superfund sites, it's crucial for the EPA2617to communicate and conduct outreach to nearby communities and2618stakeholders. New York's population is incredibly diverse, and2619according to the State, there millions of households whose primary2620language is not English. They speak dialects of Chinese, Spanish,2621Russian, Yiddish, Bengali, Korean, Haitian Creole, Italian, Arabic,2622French Polish, and many more. Do you agree with that it's important for2623the EPA to communicate with communities near Superfund sites? And if2624so, then can you commit to me that the EPA will do this outreach in2625languages other than English to ensure New York communities are2626informed of the EPA's Superfund activities and educated on the2627potential public health risks of these sites?2628    Answer. EPA will continue to prioritize working with local2629communities with efforts to accelerate cleanups at Superfund sites2630being our most effective way to help these communities. EPA is also2631exploring ways to use AI tools to assist with translation needs.26322633                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS26342635    Senator Murkowski. And with that, the committee stands2636adjourned.2637    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Wednesday, May 14, the2638subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of2639the Chair.]26402641     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES2642                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 202626432644                              ----------26452646                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 202526472648                                       U.S. Senate,2649           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,2650                                                    Washington, DC.2651    The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen2652Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)2653presiding.2654    Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Mullin, Rounds,2655Merkley, Murray, Van Hollen, Heinrich, Baldwin, and Ossoff.26562657                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR26582659STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS BURGUM, SECRETARY26602661              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI26622663    Senator Murkowski. Call to order the Senate Interior2664Appropriations Subcommittee.2665    Secretary Burgum, good morning. Welcome to the committee.2666It is good to have you here to discuss the President's fiscal2667year 2026 Budget Request for the Department of Interior.2668    I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about2669the important work that the Department does, including its2670leading role in supporting America's energy agenda, empowering2671Indian Country and Tribal Nations, providing recreational2672opportunities to tens of millions of Americans, and generating2673billions of dollars in economic output.2674    It has been a real pleasure. I have appreciated the2675meetings that we have had, the conversations that we have had2676by phone, and it has been great to meet the various assistant2677secretary nominees from the Department. I have enjoyed our2678conversations there. I am impressed by their understanding of2679the issues that they focus on and their commitment to public2680service. You are building out quite the team.2681    It was great to be able to talk to Kate MacGregor. She has2682a little bit of history with the Department and comes with a2683lot of knowledge and understanding, and certainly on Alaska-2684related issues. So we are eager to get her confirmed and to2685work, as well as some of the other nominees. We are still2686waiting for some of the key ones. As the Chairman of the Indian2687Affairs Committee, we are anxious to have a nominee for the2688Bureau of Indian Affairs as well.2689    So I want to thank you. I want to thank you, I want to2690thank President Trump for recognizing Alaska's amazing natural2691resource potential. This was very significant in the day-one2692executive order, everything from the Ambler Road to the2693National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA), our non-2694wilderness coastal plain, Alaska LNG, but there has been very2695swift, very early, and decisive action in this space, and it is2696welcome both here in Washington, DC., and certainly in my2697state. So I am looking forward to working with you to further2698facilitate the development of Alaska's resources.2699    I know you are looking forward to going to Alaska in just a2700couple of weeks. Hopefully, it is going to be a great trip,2701lots of good information, good feedback, and good weather. I am2702hopeful that the Denali will be out in all of its majesty and2703splendor, and you will be reminded why Alaskans prefer the2704Koyukon Athabascan named Denali, meaning ``the great one.''2705    The President and you have set out an ambitious agenda,2706particularly with respect to the focus on energy and economic2707development. I am very supportive of this endeavor and know2708that I want to be your partner in achieving so many of the2709goals. But beyond the actual resource development, the2710Department of the Interior can be an economic force for good in2711many different ways. And one of the most important economic2712drivers that we see up in Alaska, aside from the resource end2713of things, is within the Department, within the National Park2714System.2715    National Parks in the home states of the members on this2716subcommittee and generates a collective $7.4 billion of2717economic output annually. That is more than the gross domestic2718product of 40 different countries. But it is not just the2719economic output that makes parks so important, it is the2720experiences of traveling to parks, seeing the wildlife, having2721an adventure that creates a lifetime of memories. We have had2722discussions about some of your early years and the significance2723of that.2724    Back home in Alaska, we have already had about 150,0002725people come through on cruise ships this year. That might not2726surprise other people, but this is early for us. We estimate a2727total of 1.65 million visitors for the tourism season. That is2728about double the population of our state. So when we see a2729skinny budget that proposes to cut $1.2 billion, or 35 percent2730from Park Service, it is hard to square that with the claims2731that DOI is focused on fostering the American economy, again2732recognizing that our economy is more than just our natural2733resource development.2734    Another area of concern that I will address in my questions2735within the National Park Service budget proposal is the concept2736of turning over management of national parks to the states. I2737am trying to figure out exactly how this would work. I am kind2738of thinking it is like me putting my kids in charge of the2739upkeep for the house that I own. In some instances, it might2740make good sense, but as a wholesale best practice, I worry2741about how that might impact the parks or our people.2742    So should this concept be included in the full budget2743request, I would hope that we have a really thorough2744conversation with you to better understand the justification2745for the proposal.2746    I am concerned about what the skinny budget proposes for2747the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian2748Education (BIE). Cutting nearly $1 billion from Indian Affairs2749would hurt the Federal Government's ability to meet its trust2750responsibility to Native people. In some of our conversations I2751have shared, some of the areas where I think the Department has2752failed Indian Country, and this is in areas like probate, where2753we have an extraordinary backlog, public safety and justice,2754missing and murdered Indigenous people, as well as the2755education of Native American children.2756    And while I appreciate that the skinny budget alleges that2757proposed cuts would enable tribes to focus on law enforcement,2758I am not sure how reducing BIA law enforcement funding by $1072759million is treating the program as a core priority of tribes. I2760know because I hear it, tribes have been requesting more2761support for this program to address a serious lack of policing.2762So I worry that cuts of this magnitude cannot be made up for by2763directing tribes to apply for grants at the Department of2764Justice (DOJ), as the skinny budget suggests.2765    I want to end my opening comments this morning by talking2766about what I consider to be, and I know that you put equal2767priority to, and that is the men and women of the Department,2768the people who actually make things happen. We have talked2769about a lot of good ideas for using new systems, IT systems,2770artificial intelligence, how we can make the Department more2771efficient. These are good goals, worthy goals. And I hope to2772see that detailed more in the budget.2773    But I think we know when we are talking about management of2774our public lands, if you don't have the necessary staff,2775whether out in the field or in the headquarters, all the2776investments that we want to make can become less efficient.2777When I think about the executive order as it relates2778specifically to Alaska, we have got some good things that we2779want to do up north when it comes to resource development, but2780scientific and ecological assessments that are provided by USGS2781are relied upon not just by Federal Land Management agencies,2782but by the industry as well.2783    So USGS science helps avoid polar bear dens, identify2784permafrost, map caribou migration patterns. So when we see cuts2785to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), but also Bureau of Land2786Management (BLM), and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),2787and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and2788Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE),2789it causes me to wonder: are we going to be able to accomplish2790what we are all seeking to accomplish together?2791    I think it is important also that people have expertise and2792knowledge about the places that they serve. I had this2793conversation with folks in the Forest Service, you just can't2794take somebody who maybe comes from Indianapolis, a good Forest2795Service person, but you put them out at the Mendenhall Glacier2796Visitor Center, where their job is bear management. They don't2797have a clue about bear management. We want to make sure that we2798are making good and smart decisions.2799    I know you are probably going to get a lot of questions2800today about staffing cuts and how that is going to impact the2801operations of the Department, and not just here in Washington,2802but around the country.2803    I do wish that the acting assistant secretary for Policy,2804Management, and Budget, Mr. Hassen, is here today to answer2805some of these questions, because he seems to be in charge of2806making a lot of the decisions about the staffing and the reorg.2807I am hoping that he is going to be in a position to be more2808responsive to my staff about some of the questions that we have2809raised.2810    But ultimately, and you know, you have been a governor--you2811know the buck stops with you. He can be responsible for certain2812things, but ultimately it is you that are accountable. So2813getting the answers to questions about the reorganizations, the2814impacts of Reduction in Force (RIFs), how the Department will2815operate national parks, protect reserves, and implement the2816President's energy agenda. So getting this channel of2817communication going back and forth in a good and constructive2818way I think is going to be important.2819    But my bottom line to you this morning is, I am pleased2820with your nomination. I am excited that you are there at the2821Department. I am really excited about the shift that we are2822seeing in Alaska, where the Department has really gone from2823being a problem to being a partner in so many different areas.2824So looking forward to what we are going to be able to do2825together.2826    With that, I will turn to Senator Merkley.28272828                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY28292830    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Chair2831Murkowski. And welcome, Secretary Burgum.2832    Mr. Secretary, I am just astonished, and not in a good way,2833by all we have seen over the last 4 months at the Interior2834Department. Coming into this second Trump administration, I2835feared that Interior would open up more lands to drilling and2836mining, deepening our addiction to fossil fuels, and ignoring2837the growing impact of climate chaos. And of course, that chaos2838has huge consequences for the health of our public lands.2839    And that fear was justified, despite the U.S. operating at2840an all-time high for energy production, and more than 192841million leased acres sitting idle across the country, that is284246 percent of the onshore acres and 79 percent of the offshore2843acres, yet, the administration lied to the American people, and2844declared a bogus energy emergency. And now you are expediting2845fossil fuel permitting and dropping protections for vast swaths2846of public lands while restricting renewable energy production.2847You don't have an ``all of the above'' energy policy, you have2848a ``fossils above all'' policy, and one that hurts our future.2849    I also feared that a second Trump administration would2850undermine the Endangered Species Act, in order to pave the way2851for industry and developers to not have to be bothered by2852protecting species on the brink of extinction or the health of2853their ecosystems, and right on time, the Department proposed a2854change to the Endangered Species Act declaring that habitat2855destruction doesn't count when it comes to harming species.2856    But Mr. Secretary, I never expected to see, not even for a2857second, an administration that would fire or push out under2858threat hundreds of dedicated public lands employees, including2859firefighters and park rangers, who keep us safe and protect our2860national treasures. I never expected to see an administration2861openly propose to offload vast numbers of national park sites2862onto the states, fracturing our treasured system with an eye on2863profit rather than preserving our collective heritage.2864    I never expected to see an administration brazenly violate2865bipartisan congressional direction written into law by holding2866back funds for state and tribal historic preservation offices,2867national heritage areas, international anti-poaching groups,2868and volunteer trail groups. I never expected to see an2869administration that would callously propose to forsake our2870treaty and trust responsibilities to sovereign tribal nations.2871    In your confirmation hearing, you said how proud you were,2872as governor, of the strong partnership you had with tribes in2873North Dakota. We don't have to wonder what tribes think today2874about your proposal to cut core tribal programs for road2875maintenance, for public safety, for social services, and other2876vital services, nearly in half. Or cut tribal school2877administration by 80 percent in a system with $1 billion in2878deferred maintenance and dozens of schools in desperate2879condition.2880    A broad coalition of organizations from across Indian2881Country, serving tribal nationals and tribal citizens, sent you2882a letter on April 11th calling these cuts absolutely2883unacceptable and that they, quote, ``undermine the sacred2884promises made by the United States to tribal nations.''2885    Madam Chair, I would like to submit that letter for the2886record.2887    Senator Murkowski. Without objection.2888    [The information follows:]2889    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]28902891    Senator Merkley. I never expected to see an administration2892delay funding for wildfire preparedness and fire red card2893employees who are trained to fight wildfires, or try to end air2894and smoke monitoring in national parks as we enter wildfire2895season. And here we are, on the brink of another fire season.2896You have left us less prepared.2897    Safeguarding endangered species and ecosystems, preserving2898public lands, supporting tribal nations, protecting against2899wildfires are fundamental responsibilities of the Department.2900For the Trump administration, however, it is clear that none of2901that is sacred.2902    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, ``There is2903nothing so American as our national parks. The country belongs2904to the people.'' An environmentalist and novelist, Wallace2905Stegner, said, ``National parks are the best idea we ever2906had.''2907    If creating the national park system was the best idea we2908have had, this administration's assault on the national park2909system is one of the worst. Parks bind us together as a nation.2910They are shared natural wonders, open to all. Parks preserve2911and show us our shared history, places where we can take pride2912in what happened there, and places where we can learn how to2913live up to our ideals.2914    Congress created nearly every national park site by law,2915not just our crown jewels, but each of the park sites,2916including sites that are not part of the capital N, capital P2917system, like the Oregon Caves system in Oregon. They all2918deserve recognition. Each location is special and part of our2919national story.2920    But this administration wants to strip down the national2921park system and hand out the parts. Mr. Secretary, you like to2922talk about unleashing America's balance sheet, focusing on the2923mining and exploitation profit potential of our public lands.2924But accounting for the value of public lands is not as simple2925as a business spreadsheet. How do you value recharging one's2926soul on the rim of the Grand Canyon? How do you measure the2927value of a fourth grader gasping in awe at the unspoiled2928natural wonder of Crater Lake in Oregon, or of an adult who2929watched civil rights marches on TV in the '60s walking across2930the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, and reliving the2931fight for racial equality and remembering Bloody Sunday, 1965?2932    This administration talks about public lands like they are2933just a transaction, available for wheeling trade, or for sale.2934But they are not just a transaction. They are part of the soul2935of this nation. They are to be celebrated, protected, and2936passed on to the next generation and the generation after. Our2937National Park sites, our National Wildlife Refuges, our2938National Landscape Conservation System belong to the American2939people. They are not for sale.2940    So today, I will try to dive deeper into the shocking2941strategy of selling off America's treasures, destroying2942endangered species and ecosystems, walking away from our2943responsibility to the tribes, and the effort to fire dedicated2944professional Federal workers, and to freeze funding for parks,2945nonprofits, and most dangerously, wildfire preparedness.2946    I look forward to the discussion. Thank you.2947    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley.2948    Mr. Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. You have2949five minutes to give us a little bit of the outline here. Your2950full statement, of course, is included as part of the record.2951And we look forward to the exchange with members at the2952conclusion.2953    Please proceed, and welcome.29542955                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG BURGUM29562957    Secretary Burgum. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, and2958Ranking Member Merkley. It is a pleasure to be here this2959morning. I look forward to a dialogue on the topics raised2960during your open comments, and other questions that the members2961may have.2962    So again, thank you for the opportunity to testify this2963morning, to President Trump's fiscal year 2026, Budget2964Blueprint, and talk about the actions we can take working with2965you to make America safer, stronger, more beautiful, and more2966prosperous.2967    Interior-managed resources hold a significant portion--2968position on America's balance sheet. The public lands and2969minerals within Interior's domain include more than 480 million2970acres of surface land, 750 million acres of subsurface mineral2971estate, and more than 2.5 billion acres offshore. Our natural2972resources are national assets, and they should be responsibly2973developed to grow our economy, help us balance the budget,2974generate revenue for the American taxpayers.2975    With commonsense approaches and modern systems, we can2976increase our return for citizens, strengthen our economy, and2977create great-paying and meaningful jobs, all while protecting2978our beautiful lands, our abundant wildlife, our clean air and2979water.2980    The President's fiscal year 2026 Budget Blueprint requests2981$11.9 billion in current authority for the Department, which2982provides significant savings for the American people. Of that2983about $10.6 billion of that is within the jurisdiction of this2984committee. The fiscal year 2026 Budget features strategic2985investments to further President Trump's commitment to energy2986dominance, which is the foundation of American prosperity,2987national security, and world peace.2988    Last month, we were working to remove layers of red tape2989that undermine coal production on Federal lands. Clean American2990coal is a triple win for our country because thermal coal2991provides reliable and affordable baseload electricity.2992Metallurgical coal is foundational for bringing back our steel2993industry, and the mining and refining of our coal that contains2994critical and rare earth minerals is essential to secure our own2995domestic supply chains for our defense, transportation, and2996tech industries.2997    We are also busy rectifying mountains of restrictions2998designed to restrict resource development in Alaska. And we are2999increasing the production of affordable, reliable energy on3000Federal lands. We have taken commonsense, simple measures to3001help increase production in the Gulf of America by 100,0003002barrels a day, which will help reduce the price at the pump for3003American families. And we are following the law, and we have3004proudly announced that we will have the first lease sale in the3005newly named ``Gulf of America'' that will occur later this3006year.3007    Right now, America is in an artificial intelligence (AI)3008arms race with China. And keeping our energy production for3009electricity, our baseload power production open, will help us3010win this contest while driving down electricity costs for3011American families. We are also undertaking efforts to establish3012our position as a leading producer and processor of critical3013and rare earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity3014at home, strengthen domestic supply chains of the United States3015and its allies, and reduce the precarious position that we are3016in relative to China controlling 85 percent of the refining for3017rare earth minerals.3018    Preventing and combating wildfires is vitally important to3019protect people, communities, the environment, and the Federal3020wildfire risk mitigation suppression responsibility is split3021currently across five agencies and two departments. This3022creates duplicative and ineffective structures. The budget that3023you are seeing today reforms wildland fire management to create3024operational efficiencies by creating a unified Federal wildland3025fire responsibility that would combine those five agencies to3026help work on suppression, risk mitigation, and coordination3027with non-Federal partners.3028    The Department of the Interior upholds the Federal3029Government's unique trust responsibilities by fostering the3030government-to-government relations between the Federal3031Government, the federally recognized Tribes, American Indians,3032and Alaskan Natives. And this budget supports programs at the3033Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education,3034sustaining the Federal Government's support for core programs3035that benefit tribal communities.3036    Since becoming Secretary, I have traveled to national3037parks, historic sites, Bureau of Land Management locations,3038Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Reclamation sites to learn more3039and hear from leadership on the ground, hearing from them about3040the red tape that we put on their lives that gets in the way of3041doing the great work that those team members on the front lines3042do. We are instituting changes to get more people actually3043working on the front lines, more minutes on mission, if you3044will, in the parks, in firefighting. And we will be talking3045more about that today.3046    We are opening more areas to hunting and outdoor3047recreation. Hundreds of more locations across our wildlife and3048public lands will be open to help drive tourism, create jobs,3049and generate revenue for local communities, all while promoting3050responsible stewardship of our natural resources as we work3051with conservation, fishing, and hunting groups across the3052country.3053    Interior is also very focused on streamlining our core3054business operations, which appears to not have been looked at3055for decades and decades. This will result in dramatically3056improved efficiencies and lower costs for American taxpayers.3057It is going to allow us to take costs out of the budget without3058affecting any of the operations that we all care about on the3059ground at the refuges and parks.3060    This budget is about putting America first and doing what3061is best for the American taxpayer as Interior moves forward.3062These initiatives set the foundation for a renewed focus on3063responsible resource management and economic growth.3064    I appreciate that this subcommittee has strongly supported3065the Department's mission. I look forward to working closely3066with you to advance the President's priorities. Thank you.3067    [The statement follows:]3068                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug Burgum3069    Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and distinguished members3070of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in3071support of President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Blueprint request3072for the Department of the Interior and discuss what our team is doing3073to make America safer, stronger, more beautiful, and more prosperous.3074    The Department of the Interior oversees onshore and offshore energy3075resources, honors Federal Trust responsibilities with our Tribal3076neighbors, delivers water to the West, and oversees wildlife refuges3077and national parks. The resources that we sustainably govern directly3078impact the lives of every American every day.3079    Interior-managed resources hold a significant position on America's3080Balance Sheet. The public lands and minerals within the Interior domain3081include more than 480 million acres of surface land, 750 million acres3082of subsurface and mineral estate, and more than 2.5 billion acres3083offshore. We believe that our natural resources are national assets3084that should be responsibly developed to grow our economy, help balance3085the Budget, and generate revenue for American taxpayers. With common3086sense approaches and modern systems, we can increase returns for our3087citizens, strengthen our economy, and create great-paying and3088meaningful jobs--all while protecting our beautiful lands, our abundant3089wildlife, and our clean air and clean water.3090    The President's 2026 Budget blueprint requests $11.9 billion in3091current authority for the Department of the Interior, providing3092significant savings to the American people. Of that amount, $10.63093billion is within the jurisdiction of the Interior-Environment3094Appropriations subcommittee. The 2026 Budget blueprint was provided so3095your subcommittee may begin debate and consideration of appropriations3096bills for the upcoming fiscal year.3097    Unleashing American Energy. The 2026 Budget for the Department3098features strategic investments to further President Trump's commitment3099to Energy Dominance, which is the foundation of American prosperity,3100national security, and world peace.3101    This Budget prioritizes America's energy independence with a3102strategy that focuses on the development of ample baseload power that3103is needed to solve the inherited electricity crisis which underpins the3104National Energy Emergency that was wisely declared by President Trump3105on his first day in office. The Department of the Interior has already3106taken meaningful measures to reverse the mountains of red tape intended3107to suppress US energy production. We are increasing production of3108affordable, reliable energy on Federal lands and reviving our Nation's3109understanding of the National security need for mining for critical,3110rare earths, and other important minerals. The Budget also advances key3111national priorities including enhanced border security, an optimized3112workforce that leverages resources and maximizes taxpayer dollars, and3113the President's commitment to restore confidence in America's fiscal3114management by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary spending.3115    At the end of the previous administration, 625 million acres of3116offshore acreage--certainly worth trillions of dollars--was bafflingly3117restricted from development with the stroke of a pen. President Trump3118acted swiftly to remedy that insanity. We proudly announced that the3119first lease sale in the appropriately renamed Gulf of America will3120occur this year--a move that generates immediate and long-term revenue3121for the Treasury. With a simple, commonsense offshore commingling3122policy change we're increasing production of oil in the Gulf of America3123by 100,000 barrels per day--which will help reduce the price at the3124pump for American families. And as we begin to get back into the3125business of mapping the full extent of the resources within the Federal3126estate, we recently published a finding showing there is at least 23%3127more recoverable oil and gas in the Gulf of America than previously3128known! This number will continue to increase, as new innovations occur.3129    President Trump made himself very clear via executive order that he3130wanted to unleash Alaska's energy potential, so we have been busy3131reviewing and rectifying the mountain of restrictions--including 683132Executive orders from the previous administration--that were designed3133to restrict resource development in Alaska. Interior plans to reopen up3134to 82% (19 million+ acres) of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska for3135leasing and energy development opportunities. We are in the process of3136reinstating a program that makes the entire 1.56-million-acre Coastal3137Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) available for oil3138and gas leasing. And we have initiated action along the Trans-Alaska3139Pipeline Corridor and Dalton Highway north of the Yukon River to convey3140these lands to State of Alaska. These are critical steps for developing3141the proposed Ambler Road, which would provide access to mineral-rich3142areas, and the crucial Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Pipeline project.3143    Americans rejoiced when President Trump formally ended the ``War on3144Coal'' that caused great damage to our economy and national security.3145Beautiful, clean American coal has survived decades of regulatory3146assault and will play a pivotal role in continuing to power America3147going forward. Last month, we ended the Obama-era Federal Coal3148Moratorium and removed layers of red tape that undermined beautiful,3149clean American coal production on Federal lands. We approved the3150expansion of the Spring Creek Coal Mine in Montana, which has 403151million tons of recoverable resource and directly supports hundreds of3152American jobs. Clean American coal is a ``triple win'' for our country3153because thermal coal provides reliable and affordable baseload3154electricity, metallurgical coal is foundational for bringing back our3155steel industry, and the mining and refining of coal that contains3156critical and rare earth minerals is essential to secure our own3157domestic supply chains for our defense, transportation, and tech3158industries which are currently heavily dependent on foreign sources.3159Moreover, the US Geological Survey recently provided us with an3160estimate that our coal reserves are worth somewhere around $83161trillion--which should be counted as a big-time asset on America's3162Balance Sheet!3163    Right now, America is in an Artificial Intelligence Arms Race with3164China. Beijing controls the processing of 85% of critical minerals and3165is dramatically increasing their coal production and other forms of3166baseload power. The Communist Party leadership knows that the A.I. Arms3167Race will be won by the country with the best technology and most3168electricity. We hold a slight lead in our AI software, but we are now3169forced to play catch up on baseload power generation due to the Climate3170Extremist policies of the prior administration that raised prices,3171lowered reliability, and contributed to our National debt and deficit.3172Keeping domestic coal-fired power generation open will help us win this3173contest, help ensure 24 x 7 x 365 reliability, while also driving down3174electricity costs for American families even as the demand rises as3175data centers are built.3176    The Department is also undertaking efforts to establish our3177position as the leading producer and processor of critical and rare3178earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity at home,3179strengthen domestic supply chains for the United States and its allies,3180and reduce the global influence of adversarial States. We will3181prioritize America's critical mineral dominance by updating the U.S.3182Geological Survey's (USGS) list of critical minerals and continuing the3183ongoing geological mapping of the country. The Budget will also support3184programs that support USGS's ability to provide high-level energy and3185mineral characterizations that will afford greater understanding of the3186country's expansive resources. On these fronts, we're already making3187great progress with actions such as approving rare earth mineral3188exploration at the Colosseum Mine. And as part of our commitment to the3189``Map, Baby, Map!'' surveying ethos, we published a factsheet on deep3190sea mineral opportunities.3191    The Budget also saves taxpayers $80 million by eliminating the3192Department's ``intermittent'' energy programs that focus on3193unaffordable, unreliable energy to the detriment of American consumers,3194businesses, and communities. This includes eliminating funding that3195supports offshore wind projects that harm coastal communities,3196wildlife, and military readiness.3197    Improve Wildland Firefighting. Preventing and combating wildfires3198is vitally important to protect people, communities, and the3199environment. Nearly 65,000 wildfires burned more than 8.9 million acres3200across the United States last year, endangering communities, critical3201infrastructure, and local economies. The trend of increasingly extreme3202and frequent wildfires has continued, with catastrophic fires in3203Southern California and the Southeast in recent months.3204    Federal wildfire risk mitigation and suppression responsibilities3205for wildland fire are currently split across five agencies in two3206different departments. This current duplicative and ineffective3207structure defies commonsense. The Budget reforms Federal wildland fire3208management to create operational efficiencies by consolidating and3209unifying Federal wildland fire responsibilities into a new centralized3210Federal Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the Interior. The3211new unified service will employ all Federal wildland firefighters,3212procure and sustain Federal wildland fire resources and manage Federal3213wildland fire response policies. This new service will streamline3214Federal wildfire suppression response, risk mitigation efforts, and3215coordination with non-Federal partners to combat the wildfire crisis.3216    Supporting Tribal Nations. The Department of the Interior upholds3217the Federal Government's unique trust responsibilities by fostering the3218government-to-government relations between the Federal Government and3219federally recognized Tribes, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The3220Budget supports programs at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of3221Indian Education, sustaining the Federal Government's support for the3222core programs that benefit Tribal communities. At the same time, it3223streamlines programs for Tribal communities, to reduce inefficiencies3224and eliminate funding for programs and activities found to be3225ineffective. For example, the Budget eliminates the Indian Guaranteed3226Loan program for Tribal business development because it is duplicative3227of several other programs across the Federal Government that offer3228loans to small businesses and which Tribal businesses are eligible for3229and receive.3230    Expanding Outdoor Access. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt3231gave remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Gateway to3232Yellowstone where he described our National Parks as ``great natural3233playgrounds'' that exist for the ``benefit and enjoyment'' of the3234American people. Since becoming Interior Secretary, I've traveled to3235National Parks, historic sites, and wildlife refuges to learn and hear3236from leadership on the ground. We're instituting changes to get more3237people actually working in the parks and are looking forward to what3238Yellowstone Superintendent Cam Sholly forecasted to be an ``outstanding3239summer.'' We've also attended events for the National Park Foundation,3240Trust for the National Mall, and met with National Trust for Public3241Lands leadership to help fortify the public-private partnerships that3242provide funding to enhance experiences for the hundreds-of-millions of3243annual visitors.3244    President Trump knows very well that America's connection with our3245beautiful public lands is strengthened through expanded access. In a3246major step to expand recreational access to America's public lands,3247Interior recently announced 42 new proposed hunting opportunities3248across more than 87,000 acres within the National Wildlife Refuge3249System and National Fish Hatchery System. This proposal would more than32503X the number of opportunities and 5X the number of stations opened or3251expanded compared to the previous administration, underscoring the3252Trump Administration's strong national commitment to outdoor recreation3253and conservation. By opening more areas to hunting and outdoor3254recreation, we're helping drive tourism, create jobs, and generate3255revenue for local communities, all while promoting responsible3256stewardship of our natural resources.3257    Responsible Land Management. When it comes to land management, we3258are cutting wasteful spending by prioritizing the Administration's3259goals of federalism.3260    America needs more affordable housing, and the Federal Government3261can help make that happen by making Federal land available to build3262affordable housing stock. We created a Joint Task Force on Federal Land3263for Housing with Secretary Turner and HUD to increase housing supply3264and decrease costs for millions of Americans.3265    Under this agreement, HUD will pinpoint areas where housing needs3266are most pressing and guide the process by working with State and local3267leaders who know their communities best. Interior will identify3268locations that can support homes while carefully considering3269environmental impacts and land-use restrictions. Working together, our3270agencies will take inventory of underused Federal properties, transfer3271or lease them to States or localities to address housing needs, and3272support the infrastructure required to make development viable--all3273while ensuring affordability remains at the core of the mission.3274    Reforming the Department. Interior is focused on streamlining our3275core business operations, which will result in improved efficiencies3276and lower costs for American taxpayers. The Department has already3277taken steps to unify many of the Department's business functions within3278the Office of the Secretary. This unification includes human resources,3279information resources and technology management, training and3280development, civil rights and equal employment opportunity,3281procurement, Federal financial assistance (grants and cooperative3282agreements), communications, personnel security, finance, and other3283similar functions. Further unifying our organization will create3284significant efficiencies across the Department by optimizing processes,3285eliminating redundant efforts, and helping streamline technology3286adoption.3287    Interior will advance innovation, collaboration and solutions that3288address the pressing challenges of our time. In closing, this Budget is3289about putting America first and doing the best for the American3290taxpayer. As Interior moves forward, these initiatives set the3291foundation for a renewed focus on responsible resource management, and3292economic growth. By advancing policies that honor America's heritage3293while fostering innovation, the Department remains committed to serving3294the National interests of the American people.3295    Theodore Roosevelt once said that ``far and away the best prize3296that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' The3297work we do at Interior makes America more prosperous, beautiful, safe,3298and strong. Therefore, it is certainly work worth doing!3299    I appreciate that this subcommittee has strongly supported the3300Department's mission, and I look forward to working closely with you to3301advance the President's priorities.33023303                            WORKING TOGETHER33043305    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will begin3306with a round of questions, five minutes apiece, and recognizing3307members in the order within which they have arrived.3308    I want to start, Mr. Secretary, just where you left off3309there, which is the extension of an offer to work with members3310on this committee. I was reminded last week when we had3311Secretary--excuse me--Administrator Zeldin here that many of us3312have the bat line, we can call the administrator, we can call3313the secretary, and I have appreciated that engagement. But I3314think we also recognize that our teams need to be able to have3315this level of direct communication as well.3316    And so in the effort to make sure that we are following the3317commitment of transparency, partnership, and responsiveness, I3318would like just your commitment, on behalf of your staff, that3319we are able to set up at least quarterly meetings with your3320senior team, our senior approps folks here, to just go through3321many of the knits, and recognizing that quite often we are3322going to need more than just that, but just this regular3323communication, particularly at a time when there is so much3324that is going on right now with a reprogramming, with3325restructuring, for us to better be able to help you, we just3326need that kind of commitment.3327    So it is worth a minute of my time at the top here to just3328ask for that public commitment to working with all of us here?3329    Secretary Burgum. You have that commitment. And again, for3330those of you that are part of the confirmation process, thank3331you for continuing to move leaders forward. We are excited3332about having Kate MacGregor start on the Tuesday after Memorial3333Day. This will be the first of 16 Senate-nominated positions3334joining Interior. We have got some great candidates, and as we3335get those onboarded, we are going to make sure to be working3336closely with all of you.33373338                            ALASKA RESOURCES33393340    Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that, and we look forward to3341that. I mentioned how refreshing it is to have an3342administration that recognizes the extraordinary potential that3343we have in Alaska, viewing our resource assets as an asset3344rather than a liability that needs to be protected against. I3345have mentioned the executive order unleashing Alaska's3346extraordinary resource potential. You also had a corresponding3347secretary's order. I am hoping that you can share with me an3348update on the plans to meet implementation goals of this EO,3349and what Alaskans can expect to see in the works for this3350summer season.3351    And I also have mentioned in my opening statements my3352concern that as we are seeing this significant transition3353within the Department and workforce reduction initiatives, that3354we are not going to see any of this that happens back here3355undercutting both the President's and your stated policy goals3356as they relate to Alaska here.33573358                         WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES33593360    Secretary Burgum. Well, I think the place I would like to3361start, which would be helpful I think for all the members of3362this committee, is to understand that when I came on board, one3363of the first things that I wanted to understand as an executive3364was how many people worked in each bureau, what roles they had,3365and where they were located. Of course, we had remote work in3366place when I entered the building after my confirmation. That3367headquarters could hold as many as 3,500 people, but there was3368nobody there.3369    There were the appointees that had come on, there were3370custodial staff, and I said, ``where is everybody''? We have3371got a back-to-work order that is, you know, coming up. The3372back-to-work order occurred later in February, and then we3373started to have some people trickle into the building. We still3374have a building that maybe is one-third full. I said, well, I3375will just go to the systems and find out.3376    It turns out there was no way for me to even send an email3377to the 65,000 team members across all the bureaus. There was3378not a way to find out how many people worked in each of these3379bureau agencies. The IT systems are so incredibly outdated. And3380so then I said, well, let us just start with parks, because3381that is obviously important to everybody. How many people work3382in the parks, and how many are permanent, how many are3383permanent-temporary, and how many are summer help? Just trying3384to find that out was difficult.3385    And then we got a number of about 26,500 people work in the3386park system. And my next question was, well, how many of them3387actually physically work in a park? And that answer took almost3388eight weeks, because we had to have a group of people pull from3389all these heterogeneous information systems, because we had a3390home address where maybe their payroll check is being sent. We3391did not, in many cases, even have duty stations for where3392people reported to.3393    And then when the number came back, I know everyone is just3394like hair on fire like: Oh, if we cut anybody, we are not going3395to be able to keep the parks open. The first number I got--3396slightly less than 50 percent of the permanent employees3397actually work in a park. They are working at a regional3398headquarters, they are working in some other location, they are3399working here in headquarters. And so then it was like, well,3400how many of them work by different functions?3401    Because we always talk about park rangers and wildland3402firefighters, which we had put as a protected class on all of3403the orders when I got there, which is, don't get rid of any3404wildland firefighters, don't get rid of any law enforcement, we3405don't want any of that. So then it comes back and of the 65,0003406people in Interior, 2,000 of them are listed as being in HR. I3407did not hear anybody mention please protect the HR positions.3408We have got several thousand people working in IT, and I don't3409know what they do.3410    I am trying to find out, but I know we have got gobs and3411gobs of contractors chewing up the budget, and I think that3412people in IT are hiring contractors to do their work. And so my3413thesis right up front is for all the mischaracterization and3414hyperbole that somehow taking a hard look at our--at how we3415actually operate an agency of this scope and scale, that we3416can't have a substantial amount of savings, both in personnel3417cost and in dollars, and then actually end up with what all of3418us want, what all of you want, and what I want.3419    I want more; I want more people in the parks, whether they3420are driving a snow plow in the wintertime, or whether they are3421working with an interpreter in the summertime, or whether they3422are doing trail work. If they are firefighting, I want more of3423that. I want less overhead. Because when I talked to these park3424superintendents and I said: ``How can I make your life more3425productive?'' It is not just about ``Oh. I need more people.''3426Some of these parks, like Yellowstone, they have got more3427people working this summer than they ever had in the history of3428the park, or certainly more than they have had.3429    Senator Murkowski. So Mr. Secretary.3430    Secretary Burgum. So I mean, so we are up from where we3431were two or 3 years ago. But I am saying: ``What can I do to3432help your life be more productive?'' And they say: ``Get rid of3433the red tape above me.'' And so that is one of the things we3434are working on. And I think we are listening to the people that3435are actually on the job doing operations. And this is just3436common sense.3437    So I think we can accomplish the goals that were raised by3438Senator Merkley and others, which is we can get more people3439actually doing the work and have the savings. Then if I can3440produce the savings, if I can reinvest those, you know, into3441the things that matter to people like deferred maintenance.3442    Senator Murkowski. So I let you go two minutes over my3443time, and I don't want to set that as the standard for the rest3444of my colleagues, because I understand we have a vote here, I3445think, at 11:30. And I want folks to be able to have multiple3446rounds. I do think it was kind of important to just lay the--3447set the table here for what we are seeing. So I appreciate3448that.3449    And now I am now going to turn to Senator Merkley.34503451                          NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM34523453    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Mr. Secretary,3454as you know, we have 63 crown jewels in our national park3455system. Where some people say: I want to visit every national3456park; they are normally talking about those crown jewels. But3457there are 370 other national park sites in the system. And3458those include, in Oregon, places like the Oregon Caves, the3459John Day Fossil Beds, the Lewis and Clark National Historic3460Park, places of significance certainly to the people of Oregon,3461but people of the nation.3462    You have proposed slashing $900 million from the national3463park system by offloading some of those 370 national park sites3464that are not part of the crown jewels. And you calculated you3465could save this $900 million with lower maintenance because3466there would be fewer sites. Do you have the list of sites that3467you plan to offload, for us?3468    Secretary Burgum. I do not. This is a proposed idea, and3469the whole $900 million is not related specifically. But thank3470you for clarifying for everyone that this does not touch any3471of, as you have described, ``the crown jewel parks''. But3472certainly, in places like North Dakota with Knife River Indian3473Villages, we have got places that were designated as Federal3474locations that have almost no visitors, they are cost centers.3475We have to staff them. We have to maintain them. And I know, as3476a governor that----3477    Senator Merkley. So are you going to send us a list of the3478proposed sites?3479    Secretary Burgum. This is a proposal for the fiscal year34802026 budget, so we will be working through, and I think this is3481going to be a case-by-case, state-by-state, to see, but yes, we3482will send you it when we have the plan.3483    Senator Merkley. So it is almost I will try to keep moving3484quickly because of the limited time. But certainly, most of3485these, there are a small number that were not established3486through law, but almost all of the 370 were established by law.3487Is it your understanding that we would have to change the law3488in order for you to be able to put these sites up for transfer?3489    Secretary Burgum. Yes.3490    Senator Merkley. Okay, I appreciate that, because we were3491very concerned that this would be a form of an executive3492action, and then we would all go to court and fight it out3493because the law established them, and we believe that the law3494has to be changed in order to send them off. And if you have3495some in your home state that you are comfortable sending off,3496you could request the governors to say what they want to do.3497But I have a feeling the Governor of Oregon would say these3498sites, these three sites in Oregon and others, are of great3499value to our national system for all Americans.35003501                        FISCAL YEAR 2025 FUNDING35023503    I want to turn to the challenge of getting answers from3504your Department. We have had repeated requests dating back to3505January 23rd about funding--whether you want to use the term3506``frozen'' or the term ``impounded'' or ``delayed'' and we have3507not gotten answers. How do we get answers from your staff?3508    Secretary Burgum. Well, let us start with any specific ones3509you may not have. I mean, we are following the executive orders3510to review. There was an enormous amount of money that went out3511the door between November 6th and January 20th. I think3512everyone would say that it would be responsible for us to make3513sure that those funds were going to the recipients that it was3514intended.3515    Senator Merkley. Just getting any kind of an answer would3516at least have us know that your team is actually paying3517attention to our requests for information. Can I call you when3518we can't get information?3519    Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely.3520    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Our national partners who are3521fighting poaching and trafficking of elephants and rhinos, have3522not been able to access their legally obligated funds since3523January 20th. Are these funds blocked? Are they delayed? Are3524they frozen? That is an example, you may not have the answer,3525but it is affecting studies that have been in motion, that many3526Americans passionately support our effort to be part of the3527international effort for these amazing animals.3528    Secretary Burgum. And I am sorry, the question was.3529    Senator Merkley. Yes, the question is, if you do know the3530answer, you can tell me now. But otherwise, can you commit to3531getting us an answer?3532    Secretary Burgum. Yeah, we can commit to getting you an3533answer.35343535                      GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT35363537    Senator Merkley. Thank you. The law requires that we get a3538list for the Great American Outdoors Act and the Land and Water3539Conservation Fund projects by April 29th. Obviously, we are3540past that. We have not gotten that list. Can you assure us we3541will get it shortly?3542    Secretary Burgum. Yes. We will be working on that.3543    Senator Merkley. Working on it like, can we get it within3544the next couple of weeks?3545    Secretary Burgum. We have got lots of irons in the fire3546right now, as we are trying to build up staff, but yes, we will3547be working on it.3548    Senator Merkley. Well, let me just note that the number of3549days left in fiscal year 2025 are evaporating. So there is less3550and less time to actually have the funding that was passed by3551law transmitted in an effective way. We hope that when we see3552those lists, the funds will get out by the end of the fiscal3553year and that they will be fairly distributed across the3554country. What many are concerned about is we will see funding3555from the Great American Outdoors Act turn into a political3556tool. Can you commit that that will not happen?3557    Secretary Burgum. We will follow the law related to the3558Great American Outdoors Act.3559    Senator Merkley. Well, that is not an answer, because the3560law gives you some flexibility. I am asking that this not3561become a fund to reward Blue or Red House districts in a3562discriminatory fashion?3563    Secretary Burgum. I am smiling because that practice was so3564widely used by the prior administration. It is one of the3565things we are reviewing. But certainly, we will be trying to3566allocate the dollars based on the merit and based on following3567the law and within----3568    Senator Merkley. Actually, I think your statement was very3569inaccurate about the previous administration, but we will leave3570it to others to determine that situation. Because my time has3571evaporated, we will turn to Madam Chair.3572    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.3573    Secretary Burgum. I just want to say, on the last thing,3574grants went up by over 100 percent in the last part of the last3575administration, if we cut them by 50 percent, we would be back3576to the level of spending we were at in 2021, at the beginning3577of the Biden administration. And so the idea that taking a look3578at any cut is some, you know, dangerous, destabilizing thing is3579just not true. This thing operated--all these agencies operated3580with far less spending for decades and decades compared to3581where they have been at the last year.3582    Senator Merkley. Madam Chair, let me just point out that is3583not a point that I made. So I don't appreciate you trying to3584pretend that I did.3585    Senator Murkowski. Let us go to Senator Hoeven, please.35863587                         WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES35883589    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.3590    Thanks for being here, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate it,3591appreciate your service. Have you ever started any businesses3592and run any businesses?3593    Secretary Burgum. Yes.3594    Senator Hoeven. Have you served as a governor at any point3595in your career?3596    Secretary Burgum. Yes.3597    Senator Hoeven. In any of those positions, did you go in3598and work to find savings, and also then put people and systems3599in place that actually, while saving money, enabled you to3600provide better services to your customers?3601    Secretary Burgum. Yes. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. When I3602came into North Dakota, we had a $6 billion general fund, and3603we cut it by $1.7 billion, 27 percent the first 4 months I was3604in office. All the trains left and still ran on time, and we3605created more meaningful, more purposeful jobs for the people3606that worked there.3607    Senator Hoeven. In fact, not only do you have a great love3608of the outdoors, you are a rancher, you like to hunt, but one3609of your specialties is finding and putting in place systems3610that actually improve the productivity of the workforce so you3611deliver better service at lower cost. That is one of the things3612you specialize in, isn't it?3613    Secretary Burgum. Well, I spent two and a half decades in3614the private sector developing software systems to do exactly3615that.3616    Senator Hoeven. Yes. And so the other thing that would3617actually help you accomplish that and make sure there are more3618people in the parks, and that the American citizens are better3619served, is if you could actually get your management team in3620place, right? Instead of having it held up for no good reason.3621So you just said what: You have got one of sixteen people that3622have to be confirmed, and we sit here voting in the middle of3623the night because nobody will let you get your team on board so3624you can do the very things that some here want to criticize you3625for. Would you say that is accurate?3626    Secretary Burgum. Yes, we have the first member starting3627next week within the executive leadership team.3628    Senator Hoeven. So if somebody really wanted to help you3629get your team in place and make sure that service is getting3630done, seems like they would want to help you get that team in3631place rather than hold it up, wouldn't you think? Would that3632make sense to you?3633    Secretary Burgum. Yes.36343635                         TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT36363637    Senator Hoeven. Okay. I know you are aware of the Advanced3638Training Center that we have at Camp Grafton, which is our3639National Guard facility in North Dakota, and that you have3640worked with it. And you are probably aware of the recent3641statistics of more than 5,400 law enforcement BIA law3642enforcement officers trained--3,000 of them got training at3643that facility. And so it supports Artesia in terms of getting3644BIA law enforcement officers trained up and on the job.3645    And we only have, in the Northern Plains, about 50 percent3646of those staff positions filled, meaning almost a 50 percent3647vacancy rate. So my question to you is: Will you work with us?3648And we have got the senator here from New Mexico, so he knows3649Artesia, he knows how important this issue is, but particularly3650for the Northern Plains and folks that live up there and want3651to stay up there, we have got to enhance this training and3652expand the course offerings. Are you willing to work in support3653of that?3654    Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.36553656                              WILD HORSES36573658    Senator Hoeven. Okay. The next question I have is, we have3659wild horses in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I have got3660a bill in with Senator Kaine, bipartisan, he has some3661experience with the horses out, you know, on the East Coast in3662the parks there. It would make sure that--require maintenance3663of a genetically diverse herd, in no event less than 1503664horses; are you in support of that legislation?3665    Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely.36663667                              PUBLIC LANDS36683669    Senator Hoeven. Talk to me about the public lands rule,3670under the Biden administration, they sought to essentially put3671more than 245 million acres off limits, of public land off3672limits for any kind of energy development. For example, just in3673our state, that is 45 percent of the Federal oil and gas3674acreage, and that is 99 percent of the Federal coal acreage.3675That is just our state. Okay.3676    So talk to me about the importance of addressing that rule,3677overhauling that rule, and making sure that we have access on3678behalf of--you know, you can talk about the balance sheet here3679a little bit if you want, in terms of our Federal assets, for3680energy production on behalf of this country, and you know, one3681of your key roles in terms of energy development?3682    Secretary Burgum. Well, yes, Senator Hoeven. Striking3683hundreds of millions of acres off of America's balance sheet3684was basically like stealing from our children and our3685children's children, because all of those represent the3686opportunity to sustainably develop, whether it is grazing,3687whether it is forestry, whether it is critical minerals, which3688are essential for national security, whether it is just energy3689development to help win the AI arms race with China.3690    All of those things are essential, and public lands were3691meant for the benefit and the use of the American people. They3692were not meant to be all--certainly, some areas are wilderness3693areas and need to be protected completely, like National Parks3694and Wilderness areas, but that represents a small fraction of3695the total amount.3696    So I am with you completely, and it is completely3697irresponsible that we would cheer when we are hurting ourselves3698financially, because when we shut down the multiple-use3699doctrine for public lands, we are actually hurting America, and3700we are helping our adversaries.37013702                              PRODUCTIVITY37033704    Senator Hoeven. Yeah. And Madam Chair, just a final3705question quickly, but it is just to once again reaffirm Your3706whole career, in every capacity you have had, has been to3707provide better service to the people that you are working for,3708whether it is in a business, or whether it is for the state.3709And given the opportunity, you believe you can do that here as3710well, in other words, better service in the national parks,3711better resource management, if you are given the chance to do3712it, right?3713    Secretary Burgum. Yes. I have never entered an organization3714that has this much redundant overhead and outdated systems, I3715have never seen anything like it. It is worse than when I3716walked in North Dakota 9 years ago and the opportunities for3717creating better, more meaningful jobs for our dedicated team3718members, and to deliver better service is enormous.3719    Senator Hoeven. And I have known you for over 30 years, and3720you have done it in every role, and I would just encourage3721people to work with you, and they will be very pleased, I3722believe, with the outcome.3723    Secretary Burgum. Thank you, sir.3724    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.3725    Senator Murray.37263727                            HURRICANE RIDGE37283729    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chair Murkowski.3730    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to start by touching briefly on3731Hurricane Ridge. That is a place, as you know, that is very3732special to people in my home state of Washington, and visitors3733come to it from all over the world. I know that you visited3734Olympic National Park last week, and you saw how scenic it was,3735and a hint of how brutal the weather can be, it is called3736Hurricane Ridge for a reason.3737    The Hurricane Ridge Day Lodge burned down in a tragic fire37382 years ago, and Congress delivered the emergency funding3739necessary to rebuild it last year. In the execution report that3740you delivered to the committee in February, the disaster3741funding spend plan, you included the money for the Olympic3742National Park, I understand, it is for Hurricane Ridge. Do you3743have any updates for us on the next steps for that project?3744    Secretary Burgum. No. But I did have an opportunity with3745the park superintendent and some of the lead people to actually3746get to Hurricane Ridge, and thankfully, there were not 70-mile-3747an-hour winds, it was beautiful, sunny, calm gorgeous. But I3748got to see the site where the fire had happened and was able to3749meet with them regarding the plans that they have, and it looks3750like a great, great project.3751    Senator Murray. Good. And can you just keep my staff and me3752updated on that project as it moves forward; it is really3753important to all of us.3754    Secretary Burgum. Okay. Thank you.37553756                    PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL PARKS37573758    Senator Murray. Thank you. As you saw, Washington State is3759home to a number of pristine public lands. People travel from3760all over the world to experience my state--and and Oregon.3761Secretary Burgum, our public lands aren't for sale. Protecting3762our wilderness, living up to our tribal obligations, keeping3763our communities safe, that it is just not negotiable, and it is3764actually a core reason that your Department does exist. And3765these have been places with strong bipartisan support.3766    So I am really concerned that one of the first things you3767did was make deep, painful cuts at our parks and start talking3768about our public lands kind of like they are a piggy bank. I do3769not want to tell future generations that: You see that river of3770sludge, it used to be clear, it used to have salmon. Or, you3771see that charred mountainside, it used to be a forest with3772campgrounds and trails. Or that smokestack used to be a3773national park.3774    I worry because it feels to me like your vision could lead3775to that, with your budget cuts and mass firings and3776reorganization. And I am deeply concerned about the proposed3777cuts to programs and funding that our tribes rely on, the mass3778firing of park rangers. They are the people who help our3779visitors. They clear the trails. They clean the bathrooms. They3780respond to emergencies. And it just, as I watch this, and hear3781from folks, and see what is happening on top of getting some3782bedrock environmental protections, I just don't see how your3783Department can execute the law without staff in place.3784    So just let me ask you. In your short tenure, you have3785overseen significant staffing reductions, over 10 percent, and3786reorganization efforts across the Department of Interior, with3787I understand, more firings to come. The National Park Service3788has lost 18 percent of its staff. You managed to actually fire3789the only plumber at Mount Rainier National Park. There is just3790nothing efficient about that kind of management. You have also3791decided that what few staff remain at our national parks will3792focus solely on visitor services.3793    That really abandons the conservation mission, which, no3794doubt will lead to the degradation of our natural resources and3795our parks. Actually, on May 8th, five former NPS directors,3796Republican and Democratic administrations alike, raised really3797grave concerns about these decisions, and they wrote that the3798National Park Service's founding statute requires conservation3799at our parks so they will, quote, ``be unimpaired for the3800enjoyment of future generations''.3801    You know, we need trail guides, and biologists, we need3802EMTs and geologists, we need snowplow drivers, and we need3803historians. Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that you do have3804a statutory obligation to conserve our national parks? And that3805is really a simple yes or no.3806    Secretary Burgum. Yes.38073808                         WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES38093810    Senator Murray. Well, it just feels to me, watching this,3811that you are abandoning that obligation with the staffing cuts.3812And your job is to carry out the laws that Congress has passed,3813not as you wish were written. So let me ask you, how many3814people do you plan to fire from the National Park Service?3815    Secretary Burgum. Let me respond by saying, I am going to3816repeat myself, that there is an opportunity to have more people3817working in our parks, in all the positions that you have3818described, Senator, and have less people working for the3819National Park Service. We just have to accept this math, that3820if you have a situation where slightly less than 50 percent of3821the people actually work in a park, I can increase the number3822of people in the park, but still decrease the number of people3823on payroll at the National Park Service, because we are3824eliminating overhead, back office, IT, and HR roles.3825    And so I can agree with everything that you are saying, but3826then to have a mischaracterization that if we cut anybody, that3827somehow I am cutting into the conservation mission.3828    Senator Murray. Well, it is huge cuts, and the people you3829are talking about are actually the support staff. And when you3830cut support staff that is not efficient. You know, how does3831someone drive a snowplow if you don't have a staffer that makes3832sure that the government gets the best deal to buy that3833snowplow? I mean, there is many, many detailed people that you3834are talking about that actually make sure that the spending is3835efficient, that the people are efficient, that we all know how3836important staff is. I mean, you can't survive without that.3837Those are the people that you are letting go. We can't be3838efficient if they are not there.3839    Secretary Burgum. Well, are you suggesting that the3840National Park Service today is operating at peak efficiency and3841that there aren't any changes that I could make?3842    Senator Murray. I would suggest that, I welcome any3843suggestions to us about how to be efficient. But just mass,3844across-the-board cuts and firing is really going to increase--3845not increase efficiency at our parks. And that, I think, we all3846should be very concerned about.3847    Secretary Burgum. But if the goal is for us to have more3848people working in the parks, you are comfortable if I can get3849to a spot where we have more people working in the park?3850    Senator Murray. You show me what employees you are leaving3851behind that don't support someone, that makes sure that they3852have the equipment that they need, that is up to date, that is3853running, those kinds of things, you can't just cut those people3854and expect people to be out in the national parks without3855somebody who is making sure that their equipment is safe, that3856their hours are maintained--all the things that it takes to, to3857run a place. Our national parks are huge. They take a lot of3858people to run.3859    Secretary Burgum. The state is huge. I have run a DOT. I3860understand the role of support personnel across fish and3861wildlife, parks and rec, DOT, all of these aspects of a3862national park are part of running a state. And I am confident3863that with our team, that we can achieve your objectives and3864still have a reduction.38653866                             WILDLAND FIRE38673868    Senator Murray. Well, one thing I am really concerned3869about, and everybody should be, is our national wildland3870firefighting efforts, and countless staff who provide the3871necessary support there. For example, firefighters put their3872lives at risk without support they need in many different3873roles. It just gets more dangerous. So those are the kinds of3874people that I am extremely concerned about that without thought3875or, you know, really smart moves, that we are going to be3876putting our parks at risk.3877    Secretary Burgum. Well, agree on the wildland firefighters.3878That is why Secretary Rollins and I yesterday held a joint3879event reaffirming our commitment to work together between the3880Forest Service and Interior, and our commitment to have full3881staffing for wildland firefighters this summer. And we are3882close to approaching that goal, and so we are fully committed.38833884                             INDIAN AFFAIRS38853886    Senator Murray. Okay. I appreciate it. And just one really3887quick question regarding our tribes, you have a role in3888fulfilling the Federal Government's Trust and Treaty3889responsibilities to our tribes. I see numerous cuts across the3890budget that defunds tribal police, putting the Bureau of Indian3891Affairs. I just want to ask you, how many tribes have you3892personally consulted with on your budget request?3893    Secretary Burgum. I have been meeting with tribes every3894week since I have been here. I have got a deep understanding of3895our challenges and shortage in law enforcement.3896    Senator Murray. There is 574 tribes, which ones have you3897met with; have you consulted or met with?3898    Secretary Burgum. I am happy to provide you a list. But I3899just recently had the Interior Secretary Tribal Advisory3900Committee. We had 24 representatives from tribes from across3901the country actually meeting in my office just a couple weeks3902ago. Law enforcement was a key part of that. We had an3903opportunity to meet with the family of Emily Pike, I brought3904Kash Patel over. Of course, it is not just the BIA, it is also3905the FBI when these cases get escalated. We have over six3906outlets.3907    Senator Murray. Well, I would just remind all of us that3908Kash Patel is cutting a $0.5 billion from his budget on this,3909so.3910    Secretary Burgum. And he is providing 60 people to Indian3911Country right now to help with the 6,000 unsolved cases of3912missing and murdered Indigenous women, which is a priority for3913us.3914    Senator Murray. All of us. And I just want to say that my3915tribes in Washington State are deeply concerned, they are3916telling us that these layoffs will eliminate natural resource3917management, basic social services, and they are horrified. So I3918hope that in your list that you will provide me, that I see3919some of their names.3920    Secretary Burgum. Thank you.3921    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Murray.3922    I will turn to Senator Rounds.3923    And Mr. Secretary, just so you know our votes have started,3924so you are going to see us popping in and out here.3925    Secretary Burgum. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.3926    Senator Murkowski. Don't take that as lack of interest.3927    Secretary Burgum. Yes, thank you.3928    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Secretary Burgum. I want to3929follow up a little bit on the Native American tribes as well,3930and I just, first of all, I have appreciated the working3931relationship that you have had with tribes in the North and3932South Dakota region. And one area in particular that they have3933expressed concern, and you have heard about it before, and that3934is that most Great Plains tribal law enforcement agencies are3935understaffed, and with as few as two officers responsible for3936patrolling millions of acres during a single shift.3937    They have come up with a recommendation. They would like to3938be able to hire more law enforcement officers, but part of the3939challenge is that, in order to get them set up, they have3940literally got to travel to New Mexico to get trained. And3941tribal law enforcement leaders often point to that as being one3942reason why there is a shortage, because most of these young3943people coming into that profession don't want to go that far3944away for 6 months at a time.3945    So one of the suggestions was, could we also put in or work3946with--they have the option of doing--work with local law3947enforcement as well, and being trained such as the South Dakota3948Law Enforcement Training Center, and so forth, but we would3949like to have more room for them, perhaps locally. And they may3950have talked to you about this already. But would you consider3951working with them in a cooperative effort to perhaps find a way3952to fund some additional spots in the Northern Great Plains for3953those law enforcement officers, so they would not have to3954travel for 6 months down to New Mexico?3955    Secretary Burgum. Yes. This is an idea I know that you and3956Senator Hoeven and others have worked on. We have had great3957collaboration on advanced training at Camp Grafton, North3958Dakota. Adding basic training there I think would be helpful3959for recruiting for Northern Plains Tribes, and I would be fully3960supportive of that.3961    Senator Rounds. And I think it would save some money as3962well, just in terms of travel costs.3963    Secretary Burgum. Yes.3964    Senator Rounds. Let me also just suggest, the relationship3965with our tribal leaders is critical, and they really appreciate3966the consultation that in some kinds is lacking, and we would3967like to rebuild that again. Over the last several years, some3968Great Plains tribes have experienced violent crime rates of up3969to five times higher than the national average. Tribal leaders3970have indicated that despite their efforts, these rates remain3971alarmingly high. Several have proposed establishing a cross-3972jurisdictional commission to directly address violent crime.3973    This proposed body could include relevant officials from3974the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice.3975So not just such as you as--and another secretary, but to have3976a built-in program where your folks could meet with their folks3977on a regular basis. As the tribal nations continue to deal with3978threats of public safety, would you consider working with the3979tribal leaders on this initiative?3980    Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.3981    Senator Rounds. I think it would really add a lot, and I3982think we would get a lot of stuff done in a short period of3983time with that type of a joint commission-type approach. Thank3984you.39853986                        FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT39873988    And then finally, I want to hit an item with regard to3989minor fence line disputes. We just went through this with the3990Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service. So the3991Department of the Interior land management agencies oversee3992hundreds of millions of acres of land throughout the United3993States, laws such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act3994authorize a multiple-use approach for public lands, allowing3995producers to utilize Federal grazing leases.3996    Concerned landowners in Western South Dakota have3997approached my office regarding minor fence line disputes3998between producers and Federal officials, specifically after we3999had that type of a situation come up with the Department of4000Ag--with the Department of Forestry. My understanding is that4001such disagreements are relatively common in areas with a high4002concentration of Federal land. I am just curious. Do agencies4003within the Department of the Interior follow a standard4004mediation process for resolving these issues, or is this4005something that we need to look at?4006    Secretary Burgum. I am not aware, but I would be happy to4007look at it. I am familiar we have got lots of U.S. grasslands4008from the U.S. Forest Service in Western North Dakota. I own4009ranch land there, and I know that when you have got topography4010in the Badlands that sometimes the fence line--it is impossible4011to put the fence line on the property line. And so, you know,4012having these be mediated locally versus escalating into legal4013action would just be common sense.4014    Senator Rounds. And I think that is the approach we would4015like to take. These farmers and ranchers have been on that for4016years. It has been back and forth. And most recently, with the4017ability to do fence lines more accurately, now we are finding4018pros and cons in terms of acres that may be on one side of a4019fence or on the other side of the fence either way. And rather4020than ending up in court, it seems to me that a mediation4021process would be a lot better way to approach these. And I4022would just appreciate your assistance if we can put that4023together for the Department of the Interior if it does not4024already exist.4025    Secretary Burgum. That would be great.4026    Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you.4027    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4028    Senator Mullin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen,4029you are next.4030    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.40314032                             CHESAPEAKE BAY40334034    Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I do want to associate myself with4035the comments that Senators Merkley and Murray have made,4036expressing concerns about the budget or the lack of budget to4037date when it comes to the spend plan for fiscal year 2025. You4038and I have never met. You come from the beautiful State of4039North Dakota. I want to tell you a little bit about my State of4040Maryland and the very important role the Department of the4041Interior plays in the State of Maryland and seek your4042assurances on a couple of things.4043    So one of the world's natural treasures, and one of our4044country's national treasures, is the Chesapeake Bay, and we4045need to make sure we preserve the Bay and maintain a healthy4046Bay, not just because it is a natural wonder, but because big4047parts of the Maryland economy depend on a healthy Bay. We have4048the watermen who make their livelihood off the bounty of the4049Bay. We have a tourism industry that depends on a healthy Bay,4050sports water--sports fishermen as well as the boating industry,4051and a whole economic ecosystem around a healthy Bay.4052    And so the challenge, of course, is how to make it--how to4053protect it, right, because the Bay watershed encompasses six4054states and the District of Columbia, you can put something in a4055stream in parts of New York State and they end up in the4056Chesapeake Bay. It has a 14:1 land-to-water ratio, which is the4057largest such ratio of any coastal water body in the world. So4058you can see that what happens on the land has a direct impact4059on the health of the Chesapeake Bay.4060    And the Department of the Interior has a number of very4061important programs in place to help protect the Bay, its4062health, and the economy, the health of the economy. One is the4063Wild Grants program. This is a program that has been bipartisan4064in origin. Senator Shelley Moore Capito and I launched it. It4065helps restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat from brook4066trout in West Virginia, to ruffed grouse in Pennsylvania4067forests, to oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.4068    Another very important DOI program is the U.S. Geological4069Survey. It provides very important science that all of the4070states use to help develop their strategies to protect the4071health of the Bay and guide the restoration efforts. We also4072have in Maryland a number of national wildlife refuges, seven4073altogether, that number one, help provide critical habitat4074around the Bay and prevent more pollution from running off the4075land into the Bay. They also help provide outdoor opportunities4076for people who visit the state of Maryland and the Bay.4077    And then there is the National Park Service, which through4078the Chesapeake Gateways Partnership provides more public access4079to the Bay. And then we have a number of important national4080heritage areas, and the National Park Service plays a very4081important role in our state, including Antietam National4082Battlefield, including the Harriet Tubman National Underground4083Railroad Historic Park, including Fort McHenry National4084Monument and Historic Shrine.4085    So that is a quick overview of all of the important4086interaction and investments the Department of the Energy--or4087Interior has with the State of Maryland.4088    And so my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is will you work4089with me, the committee, the Maryland delegation to, number one,4090maintain that strong partnership, but also to maintain the4091resources that are necessary to support that partnership?4092    Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely, Senator.4093    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. And the reason I ask4094is, as we look at the skinny budget, a number of the categories4095that are deeply cut would impact almost all of the programs4096that I just mentioned. I mentioned the WILD Program, for4097example. If you look at the category of funding and the cuts4098there, they are very significant. If you look at the National4099Geological Survey cuts that are being proposed, it appears,4100although it is hard to determine, that the entire program that4101supports that scientific work might be wiped out.4102    I don't know for sure. But this is why we are expressing so4103many concerns, because this partnership has been very important4104to our State of Maryland, to the Chesapeake Bay. And so I4105appreciate, Mr. Secretary, your assurances both in terms of4106working together and the resources to match that effort. And I4107look forward to continuing our conversation.4108    Secretary Burgum. Great. Thank you.4109    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.41104111                         WORKFORCE EFFICIENCIES41124113    Senator Mullin. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.4114    Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I am the last one up4115here, so we are going to take some time and answer questions to4116give people the opportunity to come back.4117    I wanted to point out, have the duties for the Interior4118increased by 50 percent over the last 4 years?4119    Secretary Burgum. They have not.4120    Senator Mullin. If I am not mistaken here, your budget from41212021 to 2024 grew by almost 50 percent.4122    Secretary Burgum. That is correct.4123    Senator Mullin. So there is probably a lot of room to make4124changes, right?4125    Secretary Burgum. Yes. And I think there are ways to make4126changes where we don't touch programs, but we actually just4127focus on reducing overhead, because the overhead burden across4128the Department and the Bureau is staggering.41294130                           CRITICAL MINERALS41314132    Senator Mullin. Let us talk a little bit more about that.4133What is your vision of seeing Interior? I mean, because we have4134a wealth of resources, right, right in front of us, underneath4135our feet. We are heavily, heavily dependent on, even, I would4136consider adversaries like China for rare earth minerals. And4137yet we find that throughout public lands, all over the place.4138We find that we have an opportunity that we could even use4139resources not just to allow us to be less dependent or4140completely independent of other countries, but where we could4141also use it to pay down a significant amount of debt; is that4142correct?4143    Secretary Burgum. Absolutely. That is true. And you4144mentioned critical minerals. I think this is something that may4145have not broken through to the public because there has been a4146lot going on the last month. But on April 4th, China put on4147export controls relative to critical minerals. These are things4148that are essential for American automobiles, for American4149technology, for American defense. And we have literally--4150because they control 85 percent of the refining and we do not4151have strategic mineral reserves like we have a strategic4152petroleum reserve, and we were literally within 1 month in this4153country facing the possibility that we were going to run out of4154minerals, which could have led to shutdowns of factories in the4155U.S.4156    I think the general public does not realize the precarious4157situation we are in. So part of the task that we have is to4158make sure that we are, for national security purposes and for4159economic purposes, not put in that position of vulnerability.4160And it is one of the things that we are working on across the4161whole-of-government.4162    But you are absolutely right, Senator, that those critical4163minerals, many exist in the public lands. But we have killed4164mining in this country the same way we have killed timber4165harvesting, the way we have attacked ranching and farming, and4166certainly the way we have attacked energy development.4167    Senator Mullin. And it has become quite a national security4168risk?4169    Secretary Burgum. Yes, it is huge. It is one of our largest4170national security risks--the fact that we are in a great power4171battle with a country that controls the supply chains for what4172we need to actually build our defense.4173    Senator Mullin. What is the biggest barrier for us to be4174able to actually retrieve those rare earth minerals?4175    Secretary Burgum. Well, I think that this has been a long-4176term strategy on behalf of China, where they have not just4177cornered markets, but when U.S. companies, innovators,4178entrepreneurs, job creators, have said: Hey, I am going to open4179up a mine, we bury those companies with red tape.4180    Senator Mullin. ``We'' as in the United States?4181    Secretary Burgum. Those few that have persevered and become4182we, the United States, have done that through layers and layers4183of permitting delays, passing laws that create extra costs,4184that discourage them from being able to get the capital they4185need to develop those kinds of either extraction or refining4186processes. And then, when they finally do, a few of them break4187through and get successful, and then they are producing a4188mineral here, then China just dumps and floods the market with4189the supply that they have, collapsing the price, and then the4190companies can't exist.4191    And so they are using their power and state capitalism to4192actually affect the outcome of companies here. And so between4193our red tape and their dumping materials, we literally have no4194critical minerals industry left. And we have got to get back in4195that game. I mean, it is just incredible, the risk we have put4196ourselves in.4197    Senator Mullin. And I know you are working with the4198Department of Energy and plus with the President on correcting4199this, because as I can't overstate, it is a huge national4200security risk we run. And we literally have it under our feet.4201And a lot of this is found in tribal land, and tribes that are4202in reservations that are struggling today, struggling4203financially. You go to some of these reservations and they4204literally look like a third-world country.4205    They don't have the ability to bring gaming in because they4206are in very rural areas. Their hospitals are in bad shape.4207Their schools are in bad shape. There is almost no future for4208those that live there. And yet we could bring that future and4209that wealth to those tribes if we could get out of our way.4210    Secretary Burgum. Yeah, absolutely. And we have been in4211discussion with one of the tribes in Arizona. I mean, they have4212got tremendous uranium deposits. And here we are--even though4213the war in Ukraine has been going on, we are importing enriched4214uranium from Russia to run our 93 remaining nuclear plants. I4215mean, some of these things are just absurd, that we have4216created dependencies around the world on the adversaries that4217we are actually in, if not in power battles with, or trade4218battles, we are in proxy wars with them. And it is just insane4219that we would be dependent on them for, in this case, almost 204220percent of our electricity in this country.42214222                        OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT42234224    Senator Mullin. Right. I want to turn my attention to4225McGirt, a decision that was made by the Supreme Court that has4226really put law enforcement and law and order at a heavy strain,4227and it is unique to Oklahoma. We are doing better with it, but4228I have asked the justice to come in and just brief Oklahoma to4229kind of see what his envision was. Unfortunately, I met a less4230than welcome response from the justice, and I am trying to4231leave his name out of it because I don't want to bring4232attention to it.4233    But it has caused a lot of problems. We are greatly under-4234resourced. I would compare some areas to literally the Wild4235West. We have law enforcement that cannot pull over individuals4236with tribal tags. We have tribes that are literally suing the4237municipalities which they govern in, and it has been a--we4238could use some help.4239    There are not enough FBI agents to be able to prosecute, as4240I met with the FBI in the region, they said we only have time4241to deal with the most heinous crimes, heinous. And so I know4242you have been in the same briefings that I have been in, and4243those heinous crimes are heinous, but there are a lot of crimes4244behind that are pretty heinous too. And we could use a lot of4245assistance in that.4246    And so I would look forward to working with you. And even4247if the time for us to be able to come in and brief you on it,4248or get you to Oklahoma at some point, and really do a deep4249dive, because it has become quite a mess.4250    Secretary Burgum. I would welcome the opportunity to get a4251deeper briefing on how McGirt is playing out. But I do4252understand that this is one of the most--tribal law enforcement4253is challenging anyway when you have got states, counties,4254tribes, overlapping jurisdictions, lack of MOUs, you know, lack4255of agreements around pursuit and chase, there are all kinds of4256challenges that I am familiar with. But the McGirt ruling takes4257it to a whole other level.4258    Senator Mullin. Yes.4259    Secretary Burgum. And it is literally the most complex law4260enforcement environment. And that is the kind of environment4261that law enforcement personnel themselves are saying: Hey, I4262can't do this. If I can't figure out, when I see an action4263happening, but I can't do something about it, and I am in law4264enforcement, because I may not have the jurisdiction.4265    Senator Mullin. Right.4266    Secretary Burgum. We have created a super complex4267situation. And I appreciate you, Senator, being so engaged with4268it, because it is going to take a full effort to try to get4269this sorted out.4270    Senator Mullin. Thank you so much.4271    I have stalled long enough. I will yield back.4272    Senator Murkowski. I appreciate the tap dancing. Thank you,4273Senator Mullin.4274    Let us go to Senator Heinrich.42754276                             NATIONAL PARKS42774278    Senator Heinrich. Just in time. Thank you, Madam Chair.4279    Secretary, I appreciate our conversations and your4280responsiveness. I want to bring up what is in the skinny budget4281and just quote from it real quick: ``The National Park Service4282responsibilities include a large number of sites that are not4283'national parks' in the traditionally understood sense, many of4284which receive small numbers of mostly local visitors and are4285better categorized and managed as state-level parks.''4286    I just want to strike a note of caution with that sort of4287approach. I love our big ``P'' national parks. Behind me is a4288picture of a non-big-P national park. It is a national4289preserve. It is the Valles Caldera National Preserve. We have4290been talking in New Mexico for a hundred years about this being4291a national park, and we finally settled on the approach of a4292preserve, in part because we wanted the natural resource4293management of a national park with the ability to also have4294world-class hunting and fishing and the visitors that come with4295all of those things.4296    So I would just urge you to look, as you develop this list,4297and many of these units have been created in statute--many of4298them that are not necessarily a big ``P'' national park are4299incredibly important parts of our national park system, our4300history, and our culture. And I just hope you will approach4301that with caution.4302    Secretary Burgum. Absolutely, and with consultation. And4303thanks for bringing the beautiful photo behind you.4304    Senator Heinrich. Yes, if you get a chance to visit, I4305highly recommend it. And bring your fly rod.4306    Secretary Burgum. Is that you in the photo?4307    Senator Heinrich. Actually, it is. Yeah.4308    Secretary Burgum. I thought it might be.4309    Senator Heinrich. Yes.4310    Secretary Burgum. You can tell by the angle of the wrist.4311    Senator Heinrich. Have you discussed with any particular4312states this approach yet, or is it still in the formation4313stage?4314    Secretary Burgum. This is completely in the idea formation4315stage.43164317                   BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS43184319    Senator Heinrich. BIE school construction costs. I am not4320going to question your effectiveness at finding ways to reduce4321overhead and push forward on-the-ground deployment for better4322resource management. But this particular account, and I was4323talking to the Chair about this on the way over, really4324concerns me. The President's budget calls for a 79 percent, or4325$187 million reduction in the BIE school construction account.4326This is a place where we have a $4 billion construction4327backlog. It is not overhead. I mean, this is money to actually4328build schools. It is not money to pay administrators.4329    And so, you and I have talked about the incredibly poor4330condition of some of these BIE schools. How are you going to4331move the needle on BIE school construction with this budget4332line item?4333    Secretary Burgum. It is interesting that we have got in BIE4334about 125,000 kids, which is about exactly what we had in North4335Dakota in our K-12 system. But of course, these are spread4336across the nation. Not every state has got a BIE school. And we4337have got a complicated situation that in some places you have4338got a BIE school next to a tribal school, next to a public4339school. That is a scenario I have seen. And I think that part4340of this is we have got to take a look at this system-wide, in4341terms of dollars coming in. In states like my own state of4342North Dakota, we put more dollars into BIE than we do into4343tribal and into public schools. And yet the outcomes are the4344worst.4345    When I am wearing my education hat, I am not seeing a4346correlation. I think the school construction and deferred4347maintenance is an issue across parks, across refuges. I mean,4348it is just across all of government, the Federal Government; we4349have got a deferred maintenance issue. The construction thing I4350would just set aside, but where I would start my focus on BIE4351is: How do we improve outcomes for those kids? And then, are4352there opportunities for us from a school construction4353standpoint to look for any opportunities with tribes or with4354public schools to not just fix the problems, but can we do it?4355I mean, I know there is a case in our state where they are less4356than a mile apart.4357    Senator Heinrich. I think we can both agree we have got to4358do better for these kids.4359    Secretary Burgum. Yes.43604361                           NATIONAL MONUMENTS43624363    Senator Heinrich. The President's budget proposes an almost4364$200 million cut to the Bureau of Land Management conservation4365programs. In your confirmation hearing, you told me that you4366would not make any wholesale changes to monument designations4367in New Mexico without first meeting with local elected leaders4368and citizen groups in the state. Do I still have your4369commitment on that?4370    Secretary Burgum. Yes, absolutely.4371    Senator Heinrich. Great. I appreciate that.4372    Secretary Burgum. I think you do know there have been4373concerns, people have come to me about the buffer zone related4374to that and how it infringes on tribal allottee rights, so we4375are--yeah, we are listening to all sides of this thing.4376    Senator Heinrich. Yes.4377    Secretary Burgum. But we will keep in close consultation.4378    Senator Heinrich. And that, I think you are talking about a4379particular mineral withdrawal, and my question was related4380directly to the monuments which is a separate issue.4381    Secretary Burgum. Yes.4382    Senator Heinrich. But I will be happy to engage with you on4383both.4384    Secretary Burgum. Okay.4385    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.4386    Senator Baldwin.43874388                             ICE AGE TRAIL43894390    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Burgum,4391I am proud to represent a state with two national scenic4392trails, the North Country and the Ice Age. And I have been4393hearing from Wisconsinites about some of the workforce cuts and4394frozen funds under this administration. They have really left4395the trails critically understaffed and underfunded. And so I4396would like to ask for you to provide an update on the current4397funding for maintenance and staffing, particularly for the Ice4398Age Trail in Wisconsin. I don't know if you are prepared to do4399that today. If not, I would ask that you do that within the4400next couple of days?4401    Secretary Burgum. I am not prepared to do it right now, but4402happy to have my team take a look at the trail.4403    Senator Baldwin. Okay. And that, you know, the staffing and4404the maintenance funds?4405    Secretary Burgum. Yes.4406    Senator Baldwin. We have had a lot of discussion, and my4407colleagues have asked a lot of questions about the way in which4408some of the staffing cuts have been handled, even before your4409confirmation and the frozen funds. I know this is a hearing to4410look at the 2026 fiscal year, but I do want to call your4411attention to some of the impacts that we are seeing. Under your4412leadership at the Department of Interior, staff have been4413fired, and funds in some cases have been clawed back that were4414supporting research into foundational science, for freshwater4415ecosystem, health, and fisheries, wildlife disease prevention,4416and agriculture and economic sustainability.44174418                     UNITED STATED GEOGOCIAL SURVEY44194420    While the President asserts that his administration--well,4421he distanced himself from Project 2025, as you are well4422familiar, nonetheless, it is following through with the4423playbook's vision by attempting to abolish the Biological4424Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey. So4425can you share with me the mission of the Biological Resources4426Division?4427    Secretary Burgum. Well, I think I will just talk in general4428about the evolution of USGS over time, because this was----4429    Senator Baldwin. Well, I am particularly interested in this4430division.4431    Secretary Burgum. Yes. Well, this division was one that was4432not part of the original scope of USGS. It was added. And the4433review that we are taking on this division is because one of4434the original scopes was actually mapping, and it seems that4435there are a number of things that, as you referred to in4436biological, that might be better suited to be in the U.S. Fish4437and Wildlife service versus in USGS.4438    Senator Baldwin. Okay. Well, I want to share some of the4439concerns I have been hearing regularly about the biological4440services funding and staffing cuts. Roughly a 100 people are or4441were employed in Madison and 80 more at a location in La4442Crosse, Wisconsin, until they began to be fired in March. In La4443Crosse, these scientists have dedicated their professional4444lives to studying invasive--studying and tracking invasive4445carp, which decimate ecosystems and commercial fishing4446operations.4447    They have been focused on restoring habitats along the4448Mississippi River, which improves surface water quality for4449farms and navigation for the shipping industry. They are4450studying PFAS to understand the impacts of those chemicals on4451wildlife. In the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in4452Madison, it is by the way, the only center dedicated to4453wildlife disease detection, control, and prevention in the4454United States.4455    And in Madison, they have been making progress on4456monitoring the avian flu pandemic through their work at the4457Wildlife Health Center. So I would like your commitment to4458reverse the budget's intent to abolish the Biological Resources4459Division. And instead, we need to really invest in our nation's4460ability to respond to threats to our natural resources and4461wildlife health by funding these centers and their staffs in4462Wisconsin. Can I have your commitment on that?4463    Secretary Burgum. I will not provide that commitment right4464now. Obviously these are important priorities. We have4465important priorities everywhere. But of course, one of the4466things that we also think is an important priority is as a4467nation, when we have a trillion-dollar interest cost, and we4468spent last year 2,000 billion dollars more than we brought in,4469I think that every Department in this administration feels a4470responsibility to try to find a way, that even though the work4471is important, how do we prioritize to spend less money to help4472bring our overall budget in balance.4473    Senator Baldwin. I think you would find the economic4474impacts of funding these missions are enormous. On the invasive4475carp, for example, were they to ever get into the Great Lakes4476system, the ecological damage is almost unimaginable. I want4477to--actually, I notice I have run out of time.4478    I do have some questions that I will submit for the record4479relating to the rights protection implementation line in the4480Interior and Environment Appropriation Bills that helps fulfill4481the Federal treaty, trust, and contract obligations to tribes.4482And I do have some specific questions that I will submit for4483the record. I hope you will get back to me quickly.4484    Secretary Burgum. Thank you, Senator.4485    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.4486    Senator Ossoff?4487    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Madam Chair.4488    Mr. Secretary, welcome. How are you?4489    Secretary Burgum. I am great.44904491                  OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE44924493    Senator Ossoff. Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with the4494Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia?4495    Secretary Burgum. I am not familiar. No.4496    Senator Ossoff. I would love to get you down to visit. Can4497you do that?4498    Secretary Burgum. I would love to get to Georgia.4499    Senator Ossoff. We would love to welcome you to visit the4500Okefenokee. It is one of our state's great treasures, one of4501the most beautiful, biodiverse wildlife refuges in North4502America, the largest blackwater swamp of its kind in North4503America. There is an effort with bipartisan support that the4504previous administration supported to secure UNESCO World4505Heritage Site designation for the Okefenokee. This has strong4506bipartisan support among local officials, state officials in4507Georgia, former Governor Sonny Perdue, Lieutenant Governor Burt4508Jones among them.4509    Will you continue to support our efforts to secure UNESCO4510World Heritage Site designation for the Okefenokee, which is4511now in your purview as part of a national wildlife refuge4512system?4513    Secretary Burgum. Well, I am certainly interested in4514learning more about it. But I know that is a lengthy process so4515I would love to understand all the implications of supporting,4516and if there are budget implications for Interior. But I am4517certainly happy to take a look at it.4518    Senator Ossoff. Well, we need your support. We need to get4519you down there as well to spend some time at the refuge. I know4520there has been some public discussion about the sale of public4521lands. Can you give an unequivocal guarantee that you will not4522pursue any sale of any part of the Okefenokee National Wildlife4523Refuge?4524    Secretary Burgum. Yes.45254526                   NORCROSS, GA WATER SCIENCE CENTER45274528    Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much for that. Mr. Secretary,4529I wrote you a letter on April 10th about an apparent effort by4530DOGE to close the U.S. Geological Survey Office in Norcross,4531Georgia. This is the Water Science Center in Norcross. It plays4532a critical role in ensuring water quality for folks in Metro4533Atlanta. Did you receive that letter?4534    Secretary Burgum. I am certain that our team did.4535    Senator Ossoff. I have not received a response. It has been4536about six weeks, any reason for that?4537    Secretary Burgum. No specific reason other than how4538incredibly short-staffed we are as we are trying to ramp up.4539    Senator Ossoff. Can you get back more promptly in the4540future?4541    Secretary Burgum. Yes. As we just said earlier, we have4542zero of our 16 Senate-confirmed leaders on board. The first one4543is coming on Tuesday after Memorial Day. And so as we get our4544leadership team in place, I am sure our operations will----4545    Senator Ossoff. We need timely responses to those kinds of4546inquiries, Mr. Secretary. And the staff at this office test4547water quality to ensure that Georgians don't drink contaminated4548water. Senator Warnock and I have asked you not to close this4549office. No justification for such closure was offered. There is4550significant public concern in Georgia about the potential4551impact on water quality. Am I correct that you have abandoned4552those plans or overruled the DOGE effort to close that office4553in Norcross?4554    Secretary Burgum. I am not familiar with the--when you are4555saying ``closure'', I know that there was an effort to take a4556look at all the real estate we had, particularly the fact that4557virtually every employee in Interior was working remotely, and4558yet we were paying hundreds of millions of dollars in real4559estate bills. And so I think it was reasonable that we took a4560look to say, do we need the real estate? But I am not sure when4561you are saying closing the office if you are talking about the4562positions, or about an office lease, because I know some office4563leases were being considered removed and some have been4564supposed to----4565    Senator Ossoff. Yes, but DOGE expressed its intent to close4566the U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in Norcross,4567Georgia. You have heard from me and Senator Warnock our4568opposition, as I mentioned, there is tremendous public concern.4569Are you still planning to close that office?4570    Secretary Burgum. Well, we will certainly take this4571particular request under consultation, and our team will be in4572discussion with you and your team about that.4573    Senator Ossoff. Okay. Well, with respect, Mr. Secretary,4574this is an issue that I raised about a month and a half ago4575with you.4576    Secretary Burgum. Yes, I understand that.4577    Senator Ossoff. So when can I expect a response?4578    Secretary Burgum. Soon.45794580                   OCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK INITIATIVE45814582    Senator Ossoff. Okay. Let me raise with you the ongoing4583bipartisan effort to establish Georgia's first ever national4584park. This is the Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve4585Initiative. Congressman Austin Scott, Republican in the House,4586and I are leading a bipartisan, bicameral group of the Georgia4587delegation in order to establish this national park and4588preserve. For the first time, made major progress in the U.S.4589Senate last Congress on this effort, overwhelming local support4590in the Macon area for getting this done. We have been grateful4591for the Department's past support providing technical4592assistance to help us move that forward. Will you continue to4593provide that support?4594    Secretary Burgum. We are happy to engage with you and take4595a look at this proposal and this project.4596    Senator Ossoff. Okay. Mr. Secretary, my time has expired. I4597know you are getting up to speed and staffing up. Would4598appreciate more intensity of engagement on some of these4599Georgia concerns, and look forward to sitting down with you,4600and welcoming you to the state to work with you in Georgia's4601interest. Thank you so much.4602    Secretary Burgum. Thank you.4603    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.46044605                             DOI EFFICIENCY46064607    Well, as you can tell, Mr. Secretary, everyone wants a4608piece of what goes on in the Department, because the role and4609the responsibilities there are very, very key. We are going to4610have an opportunity for a second round here, and rather than4611going into some of the particulars and the details, I am4612probably going to stick to more generic.4613    But you and I have had a conversation about really4614understanding and being able to value the assets that we have4615when it comes to our public lands. As I am looking at the4616skinny budget, and I look at USGS and see close to a 40 percent4617reduction from current levels, 38.9, I worry about things like4618what happens with mapping, USGS's Earth MRI, the three DEP4619programs, just to understand where our mineral reserves are.4620    So I am hoping that as you are going forward, you are4621looking at the level of cuts, and you are looking outward to4622say: All right, what is it, where are we going to create4623additional value when we have better understanding? And I think4624we would both agree that being able to identify that is going4625to be really critical for the mission going forward.4626    So I don't necessarily need your comment to that other than4627you are nodding and you are giving me a yes there.4628    Secretary Burgum. Yes.46294630                             NATIONAL PARKS46314632    Senator Murkowski. So I am good with that. I also4633understand from the discussion here today, a lot of interest4634with what may be forthcoming with regards to the Park Service4635and what it may mean for states to be managing some of these4636assets. I certainly have a lot of questions. I am not quite4637sure which national parks are actually considered crown jewel4638parks. I know what I consider them to be. I just don't know if4639there is a category that says ``crown jewel parks'', and if so,4640where Alaska's parks kind of stack up on this.4641    So what I am hearing from you is this is very much in the4642preliminary stages of discussion. As things advance, not only4643the Chair and the Ranking will be brought in, but the many of4644us who have questions in these areas will be read into, to more4645of the details?4646    Secretary Burgum. Yes. And quick clarification, the4647national parks with a capital ``N'' capital ``P'', the 634648National Parks, none of those are under consideration for4649transfer. That would include all the national parks in Alaska.4650Most of these are historic sites, cultural sites that, as you4651said, have got low visitation that is primarily local, that4652might better fit into a state historic society site, or some4653other designation.4654    Senator Murkowski. Yeah. Well, it is good to hear that on4655the Alaska side specifically, because, as you know, many of4656these areas are so remote and so very difficult to access that4657if you are just using the metric of how many people have4658visited, you would say: All right, well, yeah, these come off4659the books. But that is not the case. And I appreciate that4660recognition.46614662                           DOI REPROGRAMMING46634664    And we have received an official reprogramming request from4665the Department to consolidate, to unify, to optimize a lot of4666the administrative functions. We are still trying to get4667additional details to make an informed decision on the4668reprogramming. So again, as I mentioned at the outset, just the4669opportunity for staffs to be able to sit down and go through4670that level of detail. I don't want to take your valuable time4671on a phone call. This is something that I think both of our4672teams could benefit from, from just a real considered analysis4673of that.46744675                            INSULAR AFFAIRS46764677    I want to raise an issue that has not been raised here yet4678today, and this is that section of your portfolio that relates4679to insular affairs. I know that you have got perhaps a special4680and a personal interest in the region, given your father's4681history, but looking at the skinny budget, it really doesn't4682give any insight as to what may happen within the Office of4683Insular Affairs.4684    I have had, over the years, built some good relationships4685with folks out there, and I hear their concerns. I met just4686recently with Congresswoman King-Hinds from the Commonwealth of4687Northern Marianas, just talking about their disastrous economic4688conditions out there. I was in Palau in October and talking to4689them about making sure that, again, when we have made4690commitments, as a country, for Federal assistance under certain4691compacts that were there.4692    So I don't know if you have any comments, if you have any4693updates in terms of persons that you have identified to head up4694the office. But I just want you to know that while we might not4695talk about it a lot at the committee, we do recognize that this4696is an aspect of Interior that oftentimes is kind of out of4697sight out of mind, and we don't regard that as such.4698    Secretary Burgum. I think it was maybe my first week or my4699second week after confirmation, we held a meeting that included4700all the governors and representatives from the countries and4701the islands that we were involved with in insular affairs. We4702also invited Puerto Rico to join that discussion.4703    Senator Murkowski. That is right.4704    Secretary Burgum. Several of those governors, including4705from Guam, I have had a relationship with through the Western4706Governors Association, and know some of them personally. We4707just, in the last two weeks, got a leader on board, and an4708assistant. One of those folks on that team is from the Mariana4709Islands. That is the first time that we have had someone from4710there. So he has received some press locally back home. I was4711also able to recruit a seasoned, long-time executive from the4712cellular industry, who I have known personally for a long time,4713who helped bring cellular service across all these islands.4714    Interestingly, when he came out of law school, he4715interviewed in-person for a Federal judgeship on Palau. And so4716he is familiar with islands, islands' economies, island4717infrastructure, and he is en route right now for his first4718trip. He started two weeks ago, got up to speed, and he is out4719visiting them. And I know that we are going to have a lot of4720intel coming back from that trip.4721    This is all very tied into defense. Yes, we have economic4722issues, but China has been working in the oceans on three sides4723of American Samoa. Just this week we announced for the first4724time that we are going to be offering a potential lease sale4725offshore in American Samoa for critical mineral development on4726the seafloor. Again, if we can bring economic activity back to4727support their economy but also assert our rights relative to4728those being U.S. waters versus the activity that China has4729done.4730    So I think we are going to be working very closely with the4731Department of Defense. Of course, Guam, as you know, has got a4732huge defense presence for us. But we have neglected some of4733these areas, both economically and strategically, and our4734intention is to make sure that we are--they are all, they are4735all essential for both those reasons, both strategic and4736economic. And we have responsibility, but we take it very4737seriously, and I am excited about the team we are putting in4738place.4739    Senator Murkowski. I appreciate you sharing that.4740    I will defer to my colleague now, Senator Merkley.47414742                     FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS47434744    Senator Merkley. So here on the committee, when we put into4745law the strategy, we specify several things that are specific4746activities locked into law, but many, many others are in report4747language. And that report language is designed to give the4748administration flexibility. And that creates kind of a dialogue4749about the administration saying: Well, we would like to not do4750that, and do a little more over here, and so on and so forth.4751But it also means that there is a desire for Congress be the--4752to have the thinking behind the report language honored and4753discussed.4754    So a spending plan is due to us, and you all provided one,4755and a normal spending plan, and I am just going to show one for4756the Geological Service. This is six pages. And if you want to4757know what we are going to spend on harmful algae blooms, it is4758in here. If you want to know what we are going to do for4759ShakeAlert, which is a tsunami warning system, very, very4760important to us on the West Coast, and so forth, it is all4761here.4762    So the spending plan is very, very detailed, giving us4763information both on the things we put into law but also on the4764plan as related to the things we put into report language. When4765we received your spending plan, and I am just using Geological4766Service as an example, it has three lines. It has a total4767amount, which would be found in a normal six-page spending4768plan, and two subaccounts that constitute 12 percent of the4769spending for the Department, which means 88 percent of this4770spending plan, we have no idea what you are going to do now.4771    Now let me take ShakeAlert as that example, in Oregon, the4772effort has been extensive, we have earthquakes every year,4773someday we will have a massive one. We had a harbor virtually4774destroyed in Southern Oregon near the boundary of Oregon and4775California from an earthquake that happened in Japan. Because4776of the formation of the underwater mountains it channeled that4777energy right towards that spot across the entire Pacific Ocean.4778So you can imagine if there is a nearby earthquake or a really4779big one, we are in big trouble.4780    So our work is kind of at a loss, and all these folks out4781there in all these individual programs are in these six pages.4782They don't know if they are getting funding or not, and yet we4783are nearing the end of the fiscal year. So how do we get from4784what--the two subaccounts that you sent us were ones we had4785locked into law. So technically, you have met the letter of the4786law, but certainly not the spirit of having this dialogue over4787these various programs. And yet we are trying to prepare our4788strategy for next year.4789    We always kind of realized if there wasn't a good-faith4790effort to honor the reporting language, we could put every one4791of these sub-lines locked into law. But that takes away the4792flexibility. So it has been a mutually beneficial arrangement.4793When can we get a spending plan that isn't just the two4794subaccounts that constitute only 12 percent of the--and that4795was just the USGS as an example?4796    I mean, massive amount of every other part of Interior, it4797is the same story. So if the entire, you know, massive spending4798plan with details versus just--this is the entire Department4799spending plan right here. How do we address this? And what is4800the holdup for getting a vision for all these individual pieces4801that were laid out in what we put into the report language?4802    Secretary Burgum. Well, if you talk about the vision, the4803one thing coming in, having spent all those decades in tech and4804specifically around financial and accounting systems, with this4805Federal budgeting process and the tools, it would be very easy4806for us to give you that six-page sheet and just take what is in4807there, increase the number a little bit, hand it to you,4808everybody is familiar with it, and go. But it is the systems4809themselves and the information and how they flow that needs an4810entire overhaul.4811    And I know we cannot get it done now, but certainly we are4812taking a look at that as we bring in a new team, a new IT team,4813and because we want to have a collaborative process, we want to4814work with you. We want to do that. But we also want to figure4815out a way to make sure that we are spending dollars and getting4816good return on them. It is not how much we spend it is also the4817results that we get.4818    Senator Merkley. So here is the challenge: the spending4819plan is about fiscal year 2025, which started last October 1st.4820So I take the point about as you produce a strategy for a4821detailed budget for fiscal year 2026, for us to have a starting4822point for discussion. But for fiscal year 2025, all of these4823individual programs are going, we cannot be efficient. We are4824suspending our design work. We are suspending our contractors.4825It is all going up in price, all because we can't--we don't4826know if our funds are going to be obliterated because they are4827in the report language. So you could move them from place to4828place.4829    And so it is massively inefficient. And what I have heard4830is a theme of your desire is to be efficient. But you have got4831all of these subprograms all operating inefficiently right now4832because you have got people standing around going: We don't4833know what we are doing because we don't have the money, and we4834don't know if we are ever going to get it. How is that a good4835strategy?4836    Secretary Burgum. Well, it is a necessary effort that we4837are going through right now. Because you mentioned contractors,4838the explosion in the number of contractors working for4839Interior, go way beyond the 65,000 estimated headcount. And in4840some cases, it appears that we may have team members whose job4841is to manage contractors. And so then it leads us back to, you4842know, is that work that we should be doing ourselves versus4843outsourcing to others? And why the huge increase in contractors4844in the last couple of years? Did we suddenly find that we are4845unable to do this work ourselves?4846    So there are a lot of questions that I think would be4847reasonable to ask, because those answers that we will get from4848looking at 2025 help inform what we should put in the budget4849for 2026. You know, what is working, what is not, what is4850efficient, what are we doing internally versus outsourcing. So4851anyway, and with a small staff, we are asking a lot, and I4852think the----4853    Senator Merkley. I would take your point looking forward.4854When I ran nonprofits, I tried to do things in-house, not use4855subcontractors at all, because I could do it much more4856efficiently, get much more work done, I had complete control.4857But this is about work that is underway right now being4858interrupted with no idea what is happening, we have no idea how4859many canceled contracts. So that work, that is very4860inefficient. I mean, looking forward to what you want to fund4861next year, I take your point about this analysis.4862    But for this fiscal year 2025, what contracts are there4863with all of these to execute the construction work on new4864ShakeAlert, or the new algae research, or what biologists are4865standing by waiting to know if they are going to complete that4866work? And to me, it is horrifically inefficient to interrupt4867all of that work, nobody knowing what is happening. They don't4868know.4869    And I understand that technically it is a pause, but it is4870a pause leading to an obliteration of that program, even for4871the things that were in there for fiscal year '25, or so forth.4872Anyway, I want to make that point, that looking to the future,4873huge control by the executive. Looking to fiscal year 2025, I4874am sure there are individual items you are like: Well, we want4875to adjust what we did in fiscal year 2025. And that is why we4876put them into report language rather than locking them into4877law.4878    But this is the worst outcome, where we have no idea, and4879all these programs have no idea if they are getting the money.4880So I have heard that OMB has locked this up, preventing you4881from being able to actually give us a spending plan; is that4882correct?4883    Secretary Burgum. We are waiting for some of the4884apportionments from OMB, yes.4885    Senator Merkley. Can you connect with Mr. Vought and tell4886him this is horrifically inefficient for fiscal year 2025 and4887you need to be able to let these programs operate or not4888operate, be canceled, or get their funding, and not be standing4889around waiting for words and expertise.4890    Secretary Burgum. Well, we are in regular communication4891with OMB. And again, I think perhaps when both of you were out4892of the room, at the administration level, last year we spent48932,000 billion dollars as a government, more than we brought in.4894I mean, that is what two trillion is.4895    And so while these numbers may seem small, each of us as a4896department has been asked to do something to help rein in4897spending to get that number. Interest now passes $1 trillion,4898we can get that number down, we can fund everything we have4899talked about here today.4900    Senator Merkley. I will say that your spending plan has the4901same amount, for example, for the Geological Service, as we put4902in. So you are not saving a damn dime. What you are doing is4903interrupting every subaccount and every team that is working on4904these different projects. So again, looking forward, I take4905your point. Looking at fiscal year 2025, I do not.4906    Secretary Burgum. Well, respectfully, they are connected,4907because understanding, for me to decide whether they should be4908in the budget for 2026, I need to know what they are actually4909doing in 2025, and whether we are doing it ourselves or doing4910it with a contractor. So while you are saying they are not4911connected, I think they are completely connected in terms of us4912having information about how we--what would we fund going4913forward based on what we learn about this year's4914appropriations.4915    Senator Merkley. Well, it is hard to learn much about this4916year if you don't ever get a spending plan implemented, and the4917year is over or half gone. It ends on September 30th. For4918example, the Whitewater Conservation----4919    Secretary Burgum. But you are not saying that this is not4920intentional. I mean, this is like we came in during the middle4921of the fiscal year. I mean, this is a transition year. This4922must happen in the Government every 4 years.4923    Senator Merkley. Actually, we get a much more detailed4924spending plan from other administrations in transition. This is4925a rare exception. I will just give----4926    Secretary Burgum. Oh. This is the first administration that4927is actually trying to reduce spending instead of increase it.4928So maybe that is the difference.4929    Senator Merkley. Well, you are not the first administration4930that has looked for efficiencies, but my point is you are4931creating vast inefficiencies while you are bragging about doing4932efficiencies. And therefore, you really need to be honest with4933the American public about the damage you are doing to the4934institutional knowledge and the fact that people are standing4935around waiting for their funding, not knowing that projects are4936interrupted and they are going up in cost.4937    All of these are not factors you should be bragging about4938to the American people, because they are inefficiencies. They4939are wasting our American money. Look to fiscal year 2026, see4940your changes that you want, but don't come here and tell us4941that by interrupting programs and running up costs that you are4942doing something efficient.4943    Senator Murkowski. I think that telling.4944    Secretary Burgum. Well, and I just want to be clear, I am4945not bragging about anything. There is no bragging going on. I4946mean, we all share this. We are all Americans, and we are all4947facing the same overspending problem.4948    Senator Merkley. I just heard you say that you are the only4949folks in the history of the country that have looked to create4950lower costs. That is just not true. And so you are bragging4951about that, but you are disrupting programs and making them4952less efficient.4953    I am going to turn this back to the Chair.4954    Senator Murkowski. Yes. I think the point that needs to be4955made here is when we are dealing with a full-year CR, which in4956my view was an awful alternative, it was the one that helped us4957avoid a Government shutdown, which was a worse alternative, but4958you are stuck with the proposal. We are stuck with not knowing4959how you are going to implement it. And it goes back to what I4960have asked for, and I think the ranking member is suggesting4961that we have all got to have more detail to it.4962    And I would agree, you need to be clearly focused on what4963is happening with fiscal year 2026, but we cannot ignore where4964we are with fiscal year 2025. And our job as appropriators here4965is not insignificant. We are still the ones that, ultimately,4966we have made that determination at the executive. Your role is4967to implement it. And so how we get through this fiscal year4968225, I think, is the frustration that my colleague has pointed4969to. I share it. This is why we have asked about the4970reprogramming.4971    What we need is to have just more openness, more detail.4972And I get the fact that it is really hard to be able to provide4973that when you don't have your folks. So we are in an awful4974spot. The best way that we can remedy things is just for4975everybody to recognize this is not a place where anybody wants4976to be. It is a challenge and a transition. I don't think most4977transitions from one administration to another are quite as4978rocky, because typically we don't leave you with a long-term4979CR. You are able to walk in and know what the game plan is. And4980there may be minor reprogramming, but nothing to the extent4981that we are seeing now.49824983                       PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE49844985    So our second vote has started, and I think we are well4986into that. I had more things that I wanted to raise on the4987public safety and justice side. I worry about tribal4988governments competing for grants within DOJ or Homeland. As you4989well know, coming from your states, you have certain tribes4990that just have greater capacity to compete for such funds. And4991so we don't want this to be a situation where it is only the4992most sophisticated and the wealthy tribes that are able to gain4993access to this.49944995                             ALASKA ISSUES49964997    I am also worried about whether the reduction in the safety4998and justice line assumes a reduction in funding for PL2804999states, which is Alaska's situation. So I would love to have5000more conversations with you on that. I think we have raised the5001issue of BIA probate enough so that you know how much of a5002priority that is and making sure that we can really help to5003expedite that.5004    I am going to end my comments with just again, I think5005there is an excitement from folks in my state that not only you5006are coming to the state in a couple weeks, but Secretary5007Wright, as well as Administrator Zeldin. I kind of gave you a5008pass on what can we expect when you come up. You can deliver5009that at the time. But I think that there is a lot of5010anticipation about what the executive order is actually going5011to translate to in terms of forward momentum that we can5012actually see. What is it going to mean in terms of jobs, in5013terms of projects moving forward?5014    And I know that you are working aggressively to that, and5015believe me, it is appreciated. There are so many things within5016this budget, and I think as a governor who gets budgets, and a5017businessman who gets budgets, you recognize this is a massive5018undertaking. I think that is why the President asked you to5019take it on, because he knew of the expertise that you bring to5020the table. But regardless of how good you are, you need folks5021to help you make it happen.5022    So view us as partners here, helping to facilitate what you5023are trying to do. We can help you on the appropriations end,5024and that is certainly my desire.5025    And with that, Senator Merkley, have you had any finals, we5026are ready to close out.50275028                          WILDAND FIRE BUDGET50295030    Senator Merkley. A closing question. The President's budget5031proposes to jettison parts of the Forest Service and put it5032into the Department of the Interior related to a different5033structure for fighting fires. And the question I have is5034whether that is a proposal for us to consider legislatively, or5035if you believe you can make that reorganization without us5036acting legislatively?5037    Secretary Burgum. I don't think we have a conclusive answer5038yet on that. If we find that it is something that we think has5039got deep merit that requires legislative action, we will5040certainly be working with you on that. If it is something that5041we think deserves merit and we can execute it between Brooke5042Rollins and I moving forward, we will do it the way that we can5043get the most efficiency. You know, we do have some good5044collaboration going on at the National Interagency Coordination5045Incident Center in Idaho.5046    I mean, that is a good thing. But we have got four5047different wildland firefighting units in Interior. We have got5048one inside the Forest Service. We don't even have the same pay5049scales. You know, the Forest Service people have a casualty5050thing if they are killed in action, or if they are seriously5051injured. That doesn't exist for BIA firefighters.5052    So we have got to figure out a way to get some unification.5053It doesn't mean moving people around, but we have got to get5054some things where we have a national force that is nationally5055coordinated. You know, last year we had a 124,000-acre fire in5056North Dakota. Sadly, two people died. And we were calling for5057Federal air support on Saturday morning, and the planes arrived5058on Tuesday. And there were planes available, but it was the--5059you know, the bureaucracy of decisionmaking and the layers that5060are there. And so I think that there are places where we can5061absolutely streamline.5062    Brooke Rollins and I held a joint event yesterday. We did a5063fire incident briefing together at the U.S. Forest Service.5064That has never happened before. And so whether it is making5065sure that we are providing support to those critical people,5066the frontline firefighters, all the way up through the top of5067both agencies, and both Departments. We are going to make sure5068that we have got the best wildland firefighting coordination5069than ever before.5070    And when we put that all together, then we may come back5071and go: Man, we are short. We need more aircraft. We need more5072places. We need more people. But one thing for sure we need is5073more fire load management, because we are spending way too much5074money on the back end. I know this as being Vice Chair and5075Chair of Western Governors, we talked about fire every year for50768 years, and when the fuel load is building, the fires are5077getting bigger, we have got to figure out a way to get more.50785079                             REORGANIZATION50805081    Senator Merkley. Let me say thank you for that detail. And5082here is the point, is that we are all for coordination, we are5083all for efficiency. But I think it is the opinion of Members of5084Congress that when you have an organization established in law,5085changing that organization requires a change in law. We have5086seen a number of agencies affected profoundly in ways that were5087not consistent with law. So do the planning. Send us a5088proposal. I think we should wrestle with it. We want the fire5089service to be as effective as possible. It is so critical to5090certainly both of our states and the entire West.5091    But what we don't want is something done without due5092consideration that creates more problems than it solves. And we5093don't want to do something that breaks the Constitutional5094separation of powers. I guarantee you that will end up in5095court, and there will be pieces of that that result in more5096difficulty than a two-day delay on planes, which is a big issue5097for sure. But what if we produce a seven-day delay as a result5098of a poorly crafted, poorly considered reorganization? So bring5099us the reorganization plan. Let us do this the right way.5100    Secretary Burgum. Well, we look forward to working with5101you.51025103                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS51045105    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but5106were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the5107hearing:]5108               Questions Submitted to Hon. Douglas Burgum5109              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley5110    Question. Given the severe and ongoing staffing reductions within5111the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--including a reduction of over 40%5112at the Columbia River Gorge Hatchery Complex--and the May 2, 20255113``Personnel Actions Freeze'' memorandum prohibiting new hires,5114reassignments, and changes in duty stations, how does the Department5115specifically plan to meet its legal and trust obligations under5116congressional mandates, Federal court orders--such as the 2018-20275117United States v. Oregon Consent Decree--and Treaty commitments to5118Columbia Basin Tribes?5119    Specifically, how will the Department ensure continued operation of5120critical fish hatcheries that support endangered salmon and steelhead5121recovery efforts and fulfill the Treaty-reserved fishing rights of the5122Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Community of Oregon,5123Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Yakama Indian5124Reservation, and Nez Perce Tribes?5125    Answer. Working together with the affected Tribes, FWS is5126undertaking a multi-phased effort to ensure continuity of operations at5127the Columbia River Gorge Complex, in accordance with the US v. Oregon5128Consent Decree. We are maintaining fish welfare and meeting salmon5129production targets with current FWS staffing. When activities, such as5130spawning, require additional staff, FWS is working with the US v.5131Oregon Parties to solicit additional help from States and Tribes. FWS5132continues to hire seasonal employees to implement its mission as it5133embraces new opportunities for optimization and innovation in workforce5134management.5135    Question. The Tribes have indicated that current staffing levels5136are insufficient to maintain operations, and Tribal governments are5137being forced to compensate for Federal shortfalls at their own expense.5138How does the Federal Government plan to reimburse the Tribes for the5139staff and other resources that they are using to cover the Federal5140Government's shortfall?5141    Answer. FWS is undertaking a multi-phased effort to ensure5142continuity of operations at the Columbia River Gorge Complex. We are5143maintaining fish welfare and meeting salmon production targets with5144current FWS staffing. FWS continues to hire seasonal employees to5145assist with peak spawning season. FWS has not requested nor received5146funding from Tribes for our hatchery operations. Questions about5147compensation to Tribes are best addressed by NOAA, which has the lead5148for distribution of mitigation funds under the US v. Oregon Consent5149Decree.5150    Question. I am aware that the Department prematurely opened a5151Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Deferred Resignation5152Program (DRP) portal for Bureau of Indian Affairs staff from May 9-16,51532025, before the scheduled Tribal consultations on ``Workforce5154Optimization'' had even begun. This occurred amidst growing concern5155that these actions are prelude to a significant Reduction in Force5156(RIF), which has not been shared with Congress.5157    What explanation can you provide for taking action to reduce the5158BIA workforce before engaging in Tribal consultation?5159    Answer. The Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program (DRP) and5160Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) are voluntary and effective5161tools to allow Indian Affairs to implement workforce efficiency5162strategies. We conducted the DRP/VERA as many Indian Affairs employees5163expressed interest in this voluntary opportunity. Once consultation is5164complete and the written comment period has ended, Indian Affairs will5165develop a consultation summary before developing a reorganization plan5166for workforce efficiency. It is important to note the DRP/VERA5167implementation is distinct from a Reduction in Force.5168    Question. How does the Department reconcile this legal and moral5169obligation to engage in meaningful government-to-government5170consultation with Tribes, particularly when these workforce reductions5171will directly undermine the already under-resourced BIA's ability to5172meet treaty and trust responsibilities?5173    Answer. The Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program (DRP) and5174Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) are voluntary and effective5175tools and are distinct from broader reorganizations or workforce5176efficiency strategies. Critical occupations in areas including public5177safety which includes law enforcement, social services, and engineering5178positions for infrastructure, were exempted from participation in the5179DRP. Other areas like realty functions related to permitting were also5180excluded. As Indian Affairs moves forward with workforce efficiency5181planning following consultation, we will continue to evaluate5182appropriate program staffing levels.5183    Question. Given the Department of the Interior's solemn obligation5184to uphold the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities to5185Tribes--including the duty to conduct early, meaningful, and robust5186government-to-government consultation--why has the Department failed to5187schedule an in-person Tribal consultation in the Pacific Northwest, a5188region home to many federally recognized Tribes likely to be5189significantly impacted by the proposed restructuring of Indian Affairs?5190    Answer. The Department has conducted nine total consultations,5191seven in-person and two virtual. All the in-person consultations5192(except Bismarck, ND) supported a virtual participation capability so5193that Tribal leaders could provide input at any of the consultations.5194Northwest Tribal leaders participated in multiple sessions both in5195person and virtually.5196    Question. Further, will Tribes be provided a genuine and fully5197informed opportunity to engage in additional consultation once a5198detailed restructuring plan is available, rather than being asked to5199respond to sweeping changes they have not seen, through an expedited5200and seemingly procedural process that risks undermining the trust5201relationship and the Department's legal obligations?5202    Answer. Tribal consultation will be conducted consistent with5203standards required by law and as needed to uphold the Department's5204trust responsibility. The Department will continue fulfilling its5205longstanding commitment to consult with Tribes as we work through5206designing and implementing program improvements and efficiencies.5207    Question. Tribal law enforcement programs under the Bureau of5208Indian Affairs (BIA) are critically underfunded and understaffed,5209especially in Public Law 83-280 States like Oregon where jurisdictional5210challenges complicate public safety efforts. The Department's proposed5211``skinny budget'' recommends cutting $107 million from BIA Public5212Safety and Justice programs to ``reduce redundancies'' and ``improve5213accountability,'' a move that risks undermining the safety of Tribal5214communities and the Federal trust responsibility.5215    Given and that the FBI proposed a similar reduction in funding for5216any program that could support this effort, how does the Department5217plan to ensure that the BIA Office of Justice Services can deliver5218meaningful improvements in accountability and service to Tribal5219communities facing chronic resource shortages?5220    Answer. Reducing redundancies in management to make the service5221more efficient will allow available resources to be shifted to needed5222``Boots on the Ground'' and prioritize the critical frontline vacancies5223across Indian Country. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice5224Services evaluating Central Office functions such as the Division of5225Drug Enforcement, Missing and Murdered Unit, and Internal Affairs to5226more respond to Tribal needs and emergency situations.5227    Question. Will you commit to working with Tribes to fully assess5228and address Tribal law enforcement's true funding needs before5229implementing cuts that could further jeopardize public safety?5230    Answer. The Department will continue to fulfill our longstanding5231commitment to consult regularly with Tribes as we work through5232designing and implementing program improvements and efficiencies.5233    Question. Given that the Department's proposed Reduction in Force5234may disproportionately impact key personnel at the Bureau of5235Reclamation's (BOR's) Umatilla Field Office in Hermiston--which manages5236critical infrastructure such as McKay and Cold Springs Reservoirs,5237diversion dams, and pumping plants essential to the congressionally5238authorized Umatilla Basin Project, a unique collaborative effort5239involving the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,5240the State of Oregon, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bonneville Power5241Administration, BOR, and local irrigation districts that supports both5242irrigated agriculture and fisheries restoration--what steps is the5243Department taking to ensure this office retains adequate staffing and5244resources to maintain reliable water delivery to farmers, support5245fisheries restoration efforts, and protect the economic health of the5246Umatilla Basin without disruption to irrigators, Tribal partners, and5247environmental restoration?5248    Will the Department commit to consulting closely with the5249Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, local5250irrigation districts, and other stakeholders to assess and address5251current and future staffing or resource gaps at the Umatilla Field5252Office before implementing any additional reductions, to ensure the5253continued success of this vital collaborative project and prevent5254negative impacts on both agricultural and environmental priorities in5255the basin?5256    Answer. The Department of the Interior recognizes the importance of5257managing infrastructure critical to the Umatilla Basin Project, which5258supports irrigated agriculture, Tribal partnerships, and fisheries5259restoration. The Department is committed to meeting its trust and5260treaty responsibilities and to working closely with Tribal, State and5261local partners and stakeholders as we move forward on implementing5262efficiencies as we meet our mission requirements.5263    We note that the Umatilla Project sees an increase in the5264President's FY 2026 Budget compared to FY 2025 ($85K).5265    Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, it is essential that our5266public lands remain in public hands, so they are accessible to all5267Americans, both now and in the future. Will you state your position on5268whether the Department has the authority for the disposal or sale of5269public lands without an opportunity for public input or without5270following the Federal land use planning processes required by the5271Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Federal Land Transaction5272Facilitation Act, and other statutory authorities?5273    Answer. Quite simply, any sale or disposal of Federal lands under5274the current jurisdiction of the Department will be done in accordance5275with law.5276    Question. I want to ascertain the Department's readiness for the52772025 fire season:5278    On May 21, 2025, what was the total number of wildland firefighters5279by bureau? What was the number of employees holding ``red cards''?5280Please include employees that have accepted employment offers as of5281that date, even if the first day of employment had not yet occurred.5282    Answer. The Department is ready for the 2025 fire season. As of May528321, 2025, Interior had a total 4,571 wildland fire personnel, including5284firefighters and support personnel who are critical to incident5285response and other important wildland fire management.5286    The total number of employees qualified to respond to wildfires5287(i.e., those who hold ``red cards'') as of May 21, 2025, was 7,109.5288This number includes Interior's public safety personnel (e.g., law5289enforcement officers), as well as wildland firefighters and support5290personnel. It also includes personnel who support wildfire incident5291response as a collateral duty when called upon.5292    Between January 20 and May 21, 2025, 2,504 people accepted offers5293of employment from Interior's wildland fire management program.5294    Question. On May 21, 2024, what was the total number of wildland5295firefighters by bureau? What was the number of employees holding ``red5296cards''? Please include employees that have accepted employment offers5297as of that date, even if the first day of employment had not yet5298occurred.5299    Answer. As of May 21, 2024, Interior had a total 4,839 wildland5300fire personnel, including firefighters and support personnel who are5301critical to incident response and other important wildland fire5302management.5303    The total number of employees qualified to respond to wildfires5304(i.e., those who hold ``red cards'') as of May 21, 2024, was 6,454.5305This number includes Interior's public safety personnel (e.g., law5306enforcement officers), as well as wildland firefighters and support5307personnel. It also includes personnel who support wildfire incident5308response as a collateral duty when called upon.5309    Between January 20 and May 21, 2024, 3,045 people accepted offers5310of employment from Interior's wildland fire management program.53115312                                 ______53135314             Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich5315    Question. In order to have robust waterfowl populations in the5316United States that can be sustainably hunted, waterfowl need intact5317stopover and breeding habitat across the continent. The North American5318Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) supports this effort. When will the5319Department release frozen NAWCA funding?5320    Answer. The Department is currently reviewing grant funding to5321ensure alignment with Administration priorities.5322    Question. The President's proposed budget cuts include steep5323reductions in funding for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). How will5324the Bird Banding Lab continue to function amidst these cuts and the5325plan to fire approximately 1,000 USGS staff?5326    Answer. The 2026 Budget does not request funding for the Bird5327Banding Lab in order for the bureau to focus on core mission5328activities.5329    Question. The USGS partners with the Department of Agriculture to5330study Chronic Wasting Disease's (CWD) transmission and distribution.5331Given the drastic cuts to the USGS budget, how will the Department5332continue to manage the spread of CWD so that sportsmen know their local5333deer and elk populations are not at risk?5334    Answer. The 2026 Budget does not request funding for the Ecosystems5335Mission Area in order for USGS to focus on core mission activities. The5336Department recognizes Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a significant5337concern to sportsmen and wildlife managers. The Department is committed5338to working with State and Federal agencies, and other partners to5339facilitate consensus-based actions to address CWD.5340    Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stopped all5341international law enforcement activity that combats wildlife5342trafficking and poaching. What analysis did the Fish and Wildlife5343Service do before deciding to abandon all monitoring and prevention of5344zoonotic disease spillover caused by illegal wildlife trafficking and5345poaching?5346    Answer. The FWS has not stopped law enforcement activity that5347protects wildlife and plan resources in accordance with the laws of the5348United States and international treaties. The FWS continues to5349implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species5350of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which addresses issues related to the5351illegal trade of wildlife and plants within the CITES framework, and to5352participate in various CITES committees and working groups. At U.S.5353borders and points of entry, the FWS's Office of Law Enforcement5354(OLE)'s wildlife inspectors and K9 teams actively monitor and interdict5355illegal wildlife trade and zoonotic pathogens shipments, including5356those in transit. FWS wildlife inspectors ensure that shipments comply5357with Federal laws related to humane transport and conduct proactive5358enforcement operations with FWS special agents and interagency5359partners. OLE special agents and attaches continue to play a pivotal5360role in enforcing Federal wildlife statutes, protecting native species5361from exploitation, and training law enforcement officials at various5362levels, all while working to prevent zoonotic disease spillover from5363the illegal wildlife trade.5364    Question. The Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge5365contributes $17 million to the local economy and welcomed over 300,0005366visitors in a year--in large part due to the Festival of the Cranes.5367And every fall, the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge hosts the5368Dragonfly festival. Yet, neither of them has enough staff to operate5369the refuges, let alone host the festival, which brings visitors from5370all over the world. These refuges are crucial for habitat, wildlife,5371and local economies.5372    Please provide a list of all terminated Fish and Wildlife Service5373Refuge System positions and locations, and a list of all remaining5374Refuge System positions and locations.5375    Answer. The Administration's goal is to make the Federal Government5376more efficient and accountable. As I have previously noted, Department5377employees have not been terminated. Employees who have elected to5378participate in the Deferred Resignation/Retirement Program or Voluntary5379Early Retirement Authority have done so voluntarily. The Department5380looks forward to continuing to meet our mission while implementing5381workforce efficiency strategies.5382    Question. Will you commit to working with my office to ensure that5383these refuges are appropriately funded and staffed to benefit local5384economies, promote tourism, and create jobs?5385    Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring the National5386Wildlife Refuge System is appropriately funded and staffed to carry out5387its core mission. We would be happy to work with you to that end.53885389                                 ______53905391              Question Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin5392    Question. The Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) line item in5393the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill helps fulfill Federal5394treaty, trust, and contract obligations to Tribes. In the Great Lakes5395region, the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission implements5396comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law5397enforcement programs.5398    The Continuing Resolution did not allow the RPI line item to keep5399up with inflation and cost-of living increases. Shortfalls in funding5400have impacted the commission's conservation law enforcement division,5401which has led to a 45% warden vacancy rate within the Great Lakes5402Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission and has made it impossible to compete5403with State and Federal counterparts.5404    Will your budget include funding for the Rights Protection5405Implementation to cover the current cost of full implementation?5406    Answer. While future funding levels remain to be determined, it is5407notable that the Rights Protection Implementation line item has5408increased in funding by 22.2% (+$8.9M) during the most recent 5-year5409timeframe from FY 2019 through FY 2024.54105411                                 ______54125413           Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand5414    Question. Mr. Secretary, 2 months ago Congress passed and President5415Trump signed into law the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2025.5416That bill included important funding for State and Tribal historic5417preservation offices (SHPOs and THPOs) through the Historic5418Preservation Fund. This funding enables these offices to fulfill their5419federally mandated duties, including supporting the listing of sites on5420the National Register, facilitating Historic Tax Credit projects and5421helping Federal agencies meet their obligations under the National5422Historic Preservation Act.5423    However, the Department has yet to release a notice of funding5424opportunity (NOFO) for State and Tribal historic preservation offices5425to apply for these funds. For SHPOs, this situation has become dire:5426with many States' fiscal years ending in June, some State offices5427already have had to lay staff off. Important preservation projects are5428being delayed. As a result, States and Tribes face the possibility of5429losing parts of their history.5430    I understand that the NOFO is currently awaiting approval at OMB5431and OPM. What steps will you take to make sure that the NOFO is5432approved immediately so that State and Tribal preservation offices can5433continue performing their critical--and federally required--work to5434preserve and protect our heritage? And can you commit to a date when5435our Nation's SHPOs and THPOs will see this year's NOFO?5436    Answer. As I mentioned in my hearing with the Appropriations5437Committees, we are in regular communication with OMB on executing the5438funding provided in the FY 2025 appropriations act.5439    Question. As you are aware, 2026 will be the 250th anniversary of5440the American Revolution and our Nation's founding. This event, the5441semiquincentennial, is a momentous occasion to celebrate our Nation's5442founding and the historic sites-like those in New York-that memorialize5443those events.5444    For the last several years in preparation for this event, this5445subcommittee has appropriated funding within the National Park5446Service's Historic Preservation Fund specifically set aside for grants5447to sites associated with the Nation's 250th anniversary. The5448Semiquincentennial Grant Program has funded important preservation5449projects in New York like rehabilitation of Old Fort Niagara and5450restoration of the original meeting house of the New York Senate. The5451administration's ``skinny'' budget would essentially gut the Historic5452Preservation Fund, and if enacted presumably take with it this vital5453program.5454    What do you envision as the Department of the Interior and National5455Park Service's role in facilitating the commemoration of the 250th5456anniversary of the Nation's founding? How does the Historic5457Preservation Fund-as the Nation's main source investment in5458preservation of historic places-figure into that vision?5459    Answer. As the proud steward of America's treasured historical5460places, the National Park Service joins the Nation in celebrating the5461250th anniversary of American independence in 2026. From Independence5462Hall in Philadelphia to the Statue of Liberty in New York, at5463Revolutionary War battlefields from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown,5464and at monuments and memorials honoring our Nation's founders, national5465parks across the country will serve the American people by embracing5466our mission to provide opportunities for the enjoyment, education, and5467inspiration of this and future generations.5468    As you noted, the Semiquincentennial grant program was created by5469Congress in 2020 to support the preservation of sites and structures5470listed on the National Register of Historic Places that commemorate the5471founding of the Nation. Appropriated funds support the physical5472preservation of a broad variety of cultural resources associated with5473the country's 250th anniversary. To date, $27 million has been awarded5474for 56 projects in 18 States, with another $7 million in awards to be5475distributed this year.5476    The legislation establishing the America250 Commission emphasizes5477engagement in four cities with a significant NPS presence. The NPS is5478planning programs and events in these cities. A Community Volunteer5479Ambassador in each city will work with parks and communities to enrich5480efforts to educate and inspire. The NPS is also supporting and planning5481activities on the National Mall and in the Washington, D.C. area and at5482Mount Rushmore National Memorial. Many of the Signature Cities are also5483host sites for the World Cup, including places like Liberty State Park5484in New York City, adjacent to the Statue of Liberty.54855486    Senator Merkley. Thank you.5487    Senator Murkowski. We all want to get fire right because we5488are all impacted.5489    Senator Merkley. Thank you.54905491                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS54925493    Senator Murkowski. With that, the committee stands5494adjourned. And thank you, Mr. Secretary.5495    [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, the5496subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of5497the Chair.]54985499     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES5500                   APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 202655015502                              ----------55035504                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 202555055506                                       U.S. Senate,5507           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,5508                                                    Washington, DC.5509    The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen5510Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairwoman)5511presiding.5512    Present: Senators Murkowski, Hoeven, Rounds, Merkley,5513Murray, Van Hollen, and Heinrich.55145515                      UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE55165517STATEMENT OF MR. TOM SCHULTZ, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST5518            SERVICE55195520              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI55215522    Senator Murkowski. Good morning. We call to order this5523meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,5524Environment, and Related Agencies.5525    Chief, it is good to have you here before the committee5526today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2026 Budget5527Request for the United States Forest Service. We appreciate you5528joining us. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to visit5529with you earlier about, not only the important work that the5530Forest Service does around the country, but what it means to us5531in Alaska.5532    But it is a clearly an important role when we think about5533supporting our nation's timber and mineral industry, providing5534recreational opportunities to tens of millions of Americans,5535generating billions of dollars in economic output. So again,5536thank you for the chance to talk to you about many of these5537things, everything from wildfire, to timber, to recreation,5538workforce. It was good. It was a good conversation.5539    The President's budget request proposes a drastic5540reorganization of our nation's wildfire capabilities. It5541transfers the bulk of the wildfire personnel and activities5542from the Forest Service to a newly created U.S. Wildland Fire5543Service located within the Department of Interior.5544    So this subcommittee has always, always paid a great deal5545of attention to wildfire preparedness and suppression, we do it5546on a very bipartisan basis. This is one of those things that we5547all come to the table to talk about. And yet our forests5548continue to struggle. The costs keep escalating. And so I agree5549the problem calls out for new ideas, for greater efficiency,5550but I am concerned about the proposal that we have because it5551upends your agency and its relationship to fire and forest5552management.5553    And for all I know, it may be a good thing. This may be5554exactly the right approach, but I would like to hear from you5555today about how the administration envisions this whole5556restructuring working, and really what it means to the Forest5557Service as an agency.5558    At the same time that we are having this hearing, Secretary5559Burgum, Secretary of the Interior, is over at the Energy5560Committee in a Full Committee Hearing, and these are the same5561kinds of questions that he is getting. So I am going to have a5562chance--I think both of us are going to be popping in and out5563of various committees here this morning, but that is one of the5564things that I want to ask the Secretary about.5565    The President has also set out an ambitious agenda on5566natural resources development, including focusing on increased5567timber production and mineral development from our nation's5568forests. Now, I am supportive of the endeavor. We want to be a5569partner in achieving many of these goals, but it is not you and5570I that are going to make that happen. It is going to be5571workforce capacity, and that is something that I continue to5572have concerns about.5573    Turning to Alaska and resource development, I want to thank5574President Trump and you for recognizing Alaska's amazing5575natural resource potential. We have got our Alaska-Specific5576Executive Order. There are other EOs nationally that we can5577benefit from, including the one on timber.5578    You know we have had this conversation, Alaska hosts two5579national forests, they just happen to be the largest in our5580country, and yet, the Chugach doesn't even have an allowable5581sale quantity for timber. The Tongass's is so dismal it5582probably ranks last in the nation. So whatever we can do to5583bolster our nation's timber production would be important to my5584home state.5585    We have also got major mineral potential, but without some5586level of flexibility within the Roadless Rule, it is almost5587impossible to realize that. So we fight this view or this5588perspective that some have, that our state is just some giant5589national park, some wilderness area that needs to be viewed5590from afar and not to touched. So we want to work with you on5591some of these things.5592    The Forest Service National Forest System also plays a very5593key role in recreation and tourism, of course. Record5594visitation levels to our public lands, we want to encourage5595that, but it is imperative that we not discount the economic5596impacts that this can have on the economies of our local rural5597communities. I think it is critical that the Forest Service5598assets, like trails and public-use cabins, visitors' center,5599have the staffing that they need to do right by these public5600facilities.5601    We have really got to have a better understanding of the5602role that the Tongass plays in all of this. Forest Service5603really holds the key to the entire region's economy, as I5604shared with you, this is in part of the state where I was born,5605I spent my early years, right up until high school living in5606this southeastern area. It is all--every community is in the5607Tongass National Forest. We are surrounded by our national5608forest. I was born in the Tongass National Forest. Just 15609percent of this part of the state is in private hands.5610    National forest, and everything from local tour guide5611permits, subsistence activities, issuance of and maintaining of5612utility right-of-ways, economic development, these are all5613contingent on us having a Federal partner who is willing to5614work with the people and the industries who live and work in5615the region.5616    A failure by the Service to maintain routine business5617operations, whether through inadequate staffing or budget, I5618think is an abdication of responsibility. And it doesn't do5619anything except punish the communities and the citizens who5620live in or near our national forests, and restrict their5621economic opportunities.5622    I have shared the story with you of Mendenhall Glacier.5623This is managed by our National Forest Service. It is one of5624our most popular tourist attractions in Southeast Alaska,5625receiving over a million visitors in 2023 and more than 25,0005626visitors daily during the summer period. This is so critical to5627the City and Borough of Juneau. We have got a great working5628relationship with the Tlingit & Haida Tribes, they are there at5629Mendenhall with a co-stewardship agreement with the Forest5630Service. That is really important.5631    I was there just a few weeks ago out at the visitors center5632and talked with one of your great Forest Service employees, and5633I have to tell you the morale is shot. People are trying to5634figure it out, and they are doing good work, and they are proud5635of the work that they are doing, but it is hard on them right5636now.5637    I am also concerned about other aspects of the budget5638proposal, the proposed elimination of the State, Private, and5639Local Forestry as well as Forest Rangeland Research accounts. I5640get the fact that we have got to make some hard budgetary5641decisions as we are dealing with deficits, but I think that5642there are many members of this committee who feel strongly5643about some of the programs within those accounts. I for one5644don't understand the cuts to State and Volunteer Fire Capacity5645grants.5646    This helps bolster the fire response in so many rural areas5647of the country. I think oftentimes the beneficiaries of these5648funds are the initial responders to fires that occur on Federal5649lands. So it seems to me that cuts like this actually run5650counter to the committee's continued push to increase our5651wildfire resilience and response.5652    I am also concerned the budget proposes to reduce the5653Service's capacity to work cooperatively with states, tribes,5654and local governments on the issue of invasive species. And5655that is something again we talk a lot about on a bipartisan5656basis here, because invasive species don't recognize property5657boundaries. They don't care whether you are a red state or a5658blue state. We are seeing the threat of these invasive insects5659and pests threaten the health of our Nation's forests and5660grasslands.5661    I think the Forest Service has been a great partner to many5662of the states and our local communities that face these5663threats, and the elimination of these programs in the Forest5664Service proposed budget has left the same states and5665communities struggling to understand how they are going to be5666able to do this alone.5667    I don't want to just be all about complaining. I am noting5668the challenges that we have within the budget. I know you know5669it. And that is why I am pleased that you are here with the5670Forest Service. I am looking forward to just kind of having a5671shift in attitude about what is going on in Alaska. I want5672people back home to view the Forest Service as a willing5673partner, a partner with us in so many of these endeavors that5674are so important to our extraordinary public lands.5675    I look forward to your comments here this morning, and5676again your continued partnership.5677    And with that, I turn to my colleague from Oregon, the5678Ranking Member Senator Merkley.56795680                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY56815682    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.5683    And thank you, Chief Schultz. The Forest Service manages a5684lot of land, 193 million acres of national forests and5685grasslands, and we certainly have a lot of those forests in my5686home state. People say: Well, how did you get so many forests?5687Well, this is where God planted the trees, in my state of5688Oregon. And so we grow up hiking, camping, being in the forest5689every second we can, and so they are very near and dear to our5690heart.5691    You have a responsibility to work with states and5692stakeholders to lead the research and develop the tools that5693improve the health of trees from the backcountry to the urban5694landscape, and to meet the challenges of invasive pests and new5695diseases, urban heat domes, and wildfires. Many of these5696challenges, they don't respect state boundaries; sudden oak5697death, bark beetles, wildfires, they are not local problems,5698they are national, and we need a national strategy.5699    Now, the Chief of the Forest Service, it is an appointed5700position, not a nomination, so it is not confirmed by the5701Senate, and is typically filled by a person who has served in5702the Forest Service and who understands the motto of the Forest5703Service, Caring for the Land and Serving the People, which I5704believe you do.5705    However, this administration is making it exceedingly5706difficult to achieve these worthy goals. There are folks in5707this administration who want the American people to believe5708that public lands are mismanaged, to cut personnel and funding5709so they will be mismanaged, and to sell them off to the highest5710bidder. That is hardly caring for the land and serving the5711people. That is more like serving the powerful and selling off5712the lands. That is certainly not the motto of the Forest5713Service.5714    So here we have a budget that proposes to decimate a5715dedicated workforce, to slash established environmental5716standards, protect profits of oil and gas companies instead of5717protecting habitats and watersheds. This budget cancels funds5718to develop techniques to neutralize invasive species that5719threaten our forests. Cancels funds to help Federal officials,5720states, and private landowners partner together across a5721patchwork of jurisdictions to improve forest health. Cancels5722funds for removing decades-old unused logging roads that harm5723salmon runs, degrade watersheds, and cause landslides. Cancels5724funds for supporting collaboration between environmentalists5725and timber companies to ensure that logging and fuels projects5726meet all of a communities' needs.5727    These are just a few of the many program cancellations and5728deep cuts in this budget. And I am certainly alarmed by the5729cuts to the wildfire programs. The administration has already5730frozen funds and threatened to impound funds for wildfire fuels5731reduction and Community Wildfire Defense Grants and this5732administration terminated probationary employees who held red5733cards, meaning that they had firefighting expertise.5734    This administration forced voluntary separation on senior5735wildland fire staff, only to recognize they needed to scramble5736to hire some of them back with financial incentives just in5737time for fire season.5738    I was briefed by Federal, state, and local officials on the5739upcoming wildfire season in Oregon, on May 30th, and the basic5740bottom line: this year is going to be hotter, and it is going5741to be drier than last year, if the forecast is right. Last year5742we had a record number of acres burn in my state. Those acres,5743the bad fires, came earlier. We were fortunate, therefore,5744because we had folks come from other states to help us out, and5745then later in the season we were able to send folks to help out5746in other states.5747    But what happens if those fires are all happening all at5748once? And what happens if that longer, hotter, drier summer5749produces more fires than last year? Instead of investing more5750in wildfire prevention and firefighting, this budget slashes5751those investments. No funds for research on climate chaos to5752understand how to reduce wildfire risk. No funds to help5753volunteers in rural fire departments with training and5754equipment.5755    Instead of slashing these programs, we should be investing,5756investing in good science, investing in good neighbor5757cooperation, investing in good management of our forests and5758watersheds. To reach these goals, one of the most effective5759programs we have is the Collaborative Forest Landscape5760Restoration Program. It brings together public officials,5761environmental advocates, timber industry, and local5762stakeholders to encourage effective forest management that5763reduces wildfire risk while delivering sawlogs to the mill.5764    Now, this particular program is an example of solving a5765problem. One problem was very hard to get stakeholders who had5766opposing views into the room to work together. And another5767problem is that timber sales were all ending up in the courts.5768    Well, this program has brought people together across the5769stakeholder community to work together, to work out what they5770refer to as prescriptions for the forest. The result has been5771more forest health and more sawlogs to the mill. It has been a5772win-win. And your budget kills the program. A major solution to5773two significant problems, and your budget kills the program.5774    It is bipartisan. Senator Risch, Senator Daines, Senator5775Crapo, all Republicans, Idaho and Montana. Senator Wyden,5776myself, Senator Bennet, Colorado and Oregon. Bipartisan,5777``Blue'' and ``Red'' working together to solve these problems,5778and your budget kills the program.5779    That is disturbing, to say the least. What would we do if5780this budget actually became law. If we just implemented it the5781way it is, it would be massive damage to our forests. We have5782to do better. We have to continue important research, we have5783to continue meaningful collaboration with states and5784stakeholders. We have to have real investment in forest5785management. We have to have the right staff, the experienced5786staff who know what they are doing to deliver the right5787results.5788    And everything I have done in life said: My success will be5789much better if I have a good team. When you fire the good team,5790as you have done with so many employees, you really head in the5791wrong direction.5792    And the administration undermines the Land and Water5793Conservation Fund, the hallmark promise we made to future5794generations to save natural places. This budget seems designed5795not to augment the work of the Forest Service and its motto,5796but to undermine the work of the Forest Service.5797    Let us get back to the vision of caring for the land and5798serving the people.5799    Thank you, Madam Chair.5800    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Merkley, thank you.5801    And we will now turn to Chief Schultz. Again, welcome to5802the committee. Please provide us your thoughts for the next5803five minutes. Know that your full written statement will be5804incorporated as part of the record.58055806                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. TOM SCHULTZ58075808    Mr. Schultz. Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and5809other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to5810testify today.5811    Established in 1905, the Forest Service is the Nation's5812foremost Federal forestry organization. The Forest Service5813manages 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands covering5814193 million acres in 43 states and Puerto Rico. The Forest5815Service also works with communities, state, local, and tribal5816governments, forest industries, and private forest landowners,5817managing for multiple uses.5818    Big picture, America's forests provide timber, clean air5819and water, forage, and energy production. They support local5820economies through employment, trade, recreation, tourism, jobs,5821and livestock grazing. Alongside our partners, the Forest5822Service will continue to conserve and sustainably manage the5823nation's forests and grasslands.5824    Recent analysis shows that in fiscal year 2023, the Forest5825Service programs contributed approximately 390,000 jobs and $455826billion in GDP. This includes recreational visitor use,5827hunting, fishing, energy and minerals development, forest5828products, and livestock grazing.5829    I am grateful to serve as the 21st Chief of the Forest5830Service. I recognize that I am the first chief who did not come5831from or work previously within the Agency, but I hope you will5832see, as I do, that that is a strength; I have more than 275833years of land management experience, and I am a lifelong user5834of public lands.5835    Working for state agencies in Montana and Idaho has given5836me a perspective on the role of the states in managing public5837trust lands and how that differs from goals and objectives in5838managing Federal lands. My experience in the private sector at5839Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets and5840the role that raw material availability, quality, and price5841play in being able to support a profitable forest products5842industry.5843    The fiscal year 2026 President's Budget refocuses Forest5844Service efforts on active forest management, critical minerals5845permitting, recreation, and energy development. In addition,5846the budget request emphasizes efficient and effective fire5847management by consolidating the Federal suppression response5848apparatus into the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service under the5849Department of Interior.5850    The Forest Service was founded on and understands the5851utility of our national forests. The production of timber,5852lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood products is vital for5853our country's well-being. The President's executive order on5854the expansion of timber production emphasizes the importance of5855timber production and how forest management can support5856American lives and communities.5857    The fiscal year 2026 Budget Request supports this executive5858order by maintaining our ability to support the forest products5859industry and shifting the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program5860to the National Forest System. This shift will better align the5861practical data needs for both public and private forest5862management.5863    Our public lands offer some of the best recreational5864opportunities in the world, and many are on Forest Service5865lands. Recreational access is a cornerstone of our public5866lands, and I want to increase opportunities for people and5867communities to benefit from them.5868    However, the Federal Government and the Forest Service5869cannot support this alone. We need additional support from5870partners and our communities to fund this ever-increasing use5871of public lands. This is an all-hands opportunity that must be5872supported to ensure continued availabilities of lands. We have587382,000 volunteers that support the Forest Service in clearing5874trails and maintaining recreation sites.5875    Livestock grazing on Federal lands is integral to ranchers5876across the United States, especially in the West. Grazing is5877permitted on nearly 40 percent of the 193 million acres of5878National Forest System lands across 27 states. We administer5879permits for approximately 5,500 permittees, with 1.3 million5880acres authorized for cattle, and 800,000 AUMs for sheep.5881    Access to critical minerals is essential to contribute to a5882stable supply of energy for current and future generations,5883while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and5884productivity. National forests are a bountiful resource for5885minerals, and work hard along with the BLM, to manage leasable5886minerals from the National Forest System.5887    We carry a fiduciary responsibility to the American public.5888We must steward tax dollars wisely, so we are examining how to5889best optimize our workforce and our expenditures to ensure that5890we are focused on field-based operations that are essential for5891meeting our high-priority objectives.5892    To this point, the 2026 Budget Request reduces or5893eliminates some aspects of the Federal funding from the Forest5894Service budget to ensure stewardship of American taxpayer5895dollars and to better balance the appropriate roles of Federal5896and State governments. It is not our intention to degrade the5897services of states and local governments, but we must change5898the reliance on the Federal Government to fund or deliver these5899services.5900    In alignment with restoring Federalism, we encourage5901increasing state authority to fund management of state and5902privately owned forests, community preparedness, and public5903risk mitigation activities. Communities across the country5904depend on national forests and grasslands, and I will work5905tirelessly to support those communities by partnering to5906actively manage the National Forest System for multiple uses.5907    We maintain our commitment to strengthening relationships5908with the industries, the ranching families, the mining5909industry, communities, and conservation groups to deliver on5910our multiple-use mission as we have for the last 100 years.5911    Thank you for inviting me to be here today, and thank you5912for your ongoing support. I will be glad to answer your5913questions.5914    [The statement follows:]5915                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Schultz5916    Chair Murkowski, Ranking Merkley, and members of the subcommittee,5917thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the President's FY59182026 Budget request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),5919Forest Service.5920    The fiscal year 2026 President's Budget for the USDA Forest Service5921requests $2.1 billion in discretionary appropriations for base5922programs. The 2026 Forest Service Budget is focused and strategic,5923making trade-offs for efficiency and alignment around the highest5924priorities for National Forest System lands. The Budget proposes the5925elimination of multiple programs and significant funding reductions in5926programs that remain, with the objective of better allocating Federal5927resources and addressing the Federal deficit and debt while delivering5928on our core mission to sustain the health and productivity of our5929Nation's forests and grasslands. These critical changes will put the5930agency on a sustainable path while ensuring our National Forests and5931Grasslands provide the goods and services expected by the American5932people.5933    The FY 2026 budget request focuses on crucial investments that will5934help the Forest Service conserve and manage national forests and5935grasslands sustainably. It will also support local economies through5936jobs, trade, timber production, recreation access, energy development,5937and livestock grazing.5938    The production of various forest products, such as timber, lumber,5939paper, bioenergy, and other wood products (timber production) is vital5940for the country's well-being. Executive Order 14225, Immediate5941Expansion of American Timber Production, emphasizes the importance of5942timber production and how forest management and wildfire risk reduction5943projects can protect American lives and communities. The FY 2026 budget5944request supports Executive Order 14225 by sustaining the forest5945products program at FY 2025 levels.5946    To ensure domestic production of critical minerals and to5947contribute to a stable supply of energy for current and future5948generations while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and5949productivity, the Forest Service works together with the DOI's Bureau5950of Land Management to manage leasable minerals on National Forest5951System lands. The FY 2026 budget continues to support the Forest5952Service Minerals and Geology Management program.5953    Livestock grazing on Federal lands is crucial for ranchers across5954the United States, especially in the West. This practice has been part5955of land management for generations, providing food for the American5956public, and preserving working landscapes, conserving natural5957resources, and the communities that depend on them. The FY 2026 budget5958ensures that livestock grazing continues to meet many of the Forest5959Service's multiple-use objectives.5960    To improve efficiency and Federal response, the FY 2026 budget5961removes duplicate efforts in Federal Wildland Fire Management by5962consolidating the Federal suppression response apparatus into a new DOI5963bureau. The new U.S. Wildland Fire Service will unify logistical and5964support functions such as dispatching, training, information5965technology, reporting, financial management, and contracting. This5966organization will provide initial attack, large fire response, and5967facilitate hazardous fuels mitigation operations (both mechanical and5968prescribed fire) for all Federal land management agencies enhancing the5969efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal wildfire response capacity.5970     the president's fy 2026 budget request for specific priorities5971    The following investments align with and enhance the agency's5972efforts to modernize the wildland fire management system:59735974  --Forest Service Operations: Requested amount reduces support5975        services salaries and facility leases to streamline Agency's5976        management structure and right size the real property5977        footprint. Some funding and associated capacity will shift to5978        the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service in DOI to meet business5979        support requirements associated with the combined fire5980        organization.59815982  --Forest and Rangeland Research: The account was eliminated, except5983        for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) which was moved to the5984        National Forest System account and the Joint Fire Science5985        program which would be moved to the DOI as part of the new U.S.5986        Wildland Fire Service. The shift of the FIA program will ensure5987        that it is aligned with the practical needs of forest5988        management for timber production, continuing to sustain its5989        longstanding census of forest resources and conditions to the5990        National Forest System.59915992  --State, Private, and Tribal Forestry: The discretionary account was5993        eliminated to ensure fiscal responsibility with American5994        taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate roles of5995        Federal and State governments. In alignment with restoring5996        federalism, we encourage increasing State authority to fund the5997        management of State and privately- owned forests, community5998        preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities.59996000  --National Forest System: The 2026 Budget proposes $1.297 billion to6001        fund the National Forest System focusing support on field-based6002        operations, which are essential for meeting high-priority6003        agency objectives. With this level of funding the Forest6004        Service will prioritize activities related to timber sales,6005        recreation, environmental analyses, law enforcement, critical6006        minerals permitting, and grazing allotment management. This6007        prioritization will ensure public safety on National Forest6008        System (NFS) lands, timber production and range management6009        activities critical for rural economic development and6010        restoration of NFS lands and increased domestic production of6011        critical minerals to support national defense and6012        electrification needs. The $175 million previously within the6013        NFS account for hazardous fuels mitigation will be requested by6014        DOI in support of the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service to perform6015        and or facilitate mechanical and prescribed fire operations on6016        NFS lands.60176018  --Capital Improvement and Maintenance: The 2026 request necessitates6019        a significant rightsizing of Forest Service facilities (both6020        administrative and recreation), roads, and trails.6021        Prioritization will be made in alignment with the6022        Administration's priorities, with funding going towards6023        infrastructure that facilitates timber production, hazardous6024        fuels removal, mineral extraction, and emergency response.60256026  --Wildland Fire Management: The 2026 request will transfer the Forest6027        Service Wildland Fire Management appropriations to DOI for the6028        creation of the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. This new DOI6029        bureau will absorb the Forest Service Wildland Fire Management6030        response program, including over 11,000 firefighters, 3,0006031        operational fire support personnel and leadership, and over 4006032        business support personnel.60336034    Through Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) (Public Law 116-152)6035funding, the Forest Service continues to repair and upgrade vital6036infrastructure and facilities in the National forests and grasslands6037through the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and6038the FY 2026 budget requests it's reauthorization for another 5 years.6039    The GAOA also permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation6040Fund (LWCF), with which the Forest Service invests in conservation and6041recreation opportunities in public and private lands through the Forest6042Legacy Program and Federal Land Acquisition. The FY 2026 request6043proposes an amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act6044expanding it to include a new Priority Deferred Maintenance program to6045address priority deferred maintenance projects at DOI bureaus and the6046Forest Service. For the Forest Service, this LWCF Priority Deferred6047Maintenance program will prioritize deferred maintenance projects that6048support and facilitate high-priority objectives associated with timber6049production, emergency response, and recreation activities. The funding6050would be spent predominantly on roads, bridges, and facilities,6051including those critical to housing employees and ensuring visitor6052safety.6053    In closing, the President's FY 2026 Budget request proposes a6054landmark restructuring in Federal wildland fire to ensure an efficient6055and effective combined response apparatus managed by the DOI for all6056Federal lands. The FY 2026 Budget request underscores our commitment to6057focusing on investments that prioritize the products from and access to6058the American public wants from their national forests. We are getting6059back to the basics of managing our National forests for their intended6060purposes of producing timber, clean water, recreation, and other6061necessities for the American taxpayers.6062    We look forward to working with this subcommittee to fulfill the6063President's economic goals and our key responsibilities for the long-6064term benefit of the Nation's forests and grasslands, and for all6065Americans. I will be glad to answer your questions.60666067    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chief. Let me begin. You have6068noted that you are the first chief who hasn't kind of come up6069through the ranks, but I would agree with you, your observation6070that there can be great value with that. I think you have an6071awareness of what some may describe as a finicky relationship6072between the Forest Service and many of the states.6073    In some areas of the country Forest Service is a great6074partner. Others, they are viewed as this absentee landlord that6075is just kind of a pain. You have taken it upon yourself to6076visit many of our national forests, to meet the people, to look6077at the forests themselves, but to really gain a better6078understanding of the state, of the agency that you are charged6079with leading right now.6080    So I mentioned in my opening that some of the folks that I6081am coming in contact with are concerned. They are telling me6082morale is down. They are worried about how they are going to be6083able to provide for that--not only continued public service6084when it is something like the Mendenhall Visitors Center, or6085just making sure that we have trails that are maintained so6086that that visitor experience is there.6087    Or as I am talking with folks in the timber industry6088saying, you know: Are we really going to see anything different6089coming forward with this administration? So this is a pretty6090broad question, but can you give me your sense as to how the6091Forest Service is viewed overall right now, and if there are6092any common themes that you are picking up on that you are6093saying: All right, this has got to be my job number one coming6094into this position?6095    Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. So job number one for6096me is to lead the Agency. There are a lot of competing6097objectives, a lot of demands from the public, whether it is6098timber, whether it is minerals, whether it is recreation----6099    Senator Murkowski. That is because we are multiple-use.6100    Mr. Schultz. That is right.6101    Senator Murkowski. If it was just timber, it would be an6102easy job, but it is not.6103    Mr. Schultz. That is right. Absolutely. My job in leading6104the Agency, though, is to be connected with both the Agency and6105the decision-makers, right, so that is where I have focused.6106And I have been out to Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. So I have6107been in this role about 13 weeks, and I have been out--every6108other week, I go out to the field to visit with people.6109    So your question about morale, it varies. And what I find6110is that in many cases, the more information people have, the6111better they feel. So there has been an increase in information6112flow from myself and others, and as we have provided additional6113information, we have seen morale has increased. But it is not6114perfect, I mean, for sure, it is not. We have patches where I6115think the more information people have, the better they feel.6116    And I can tell you, on the districts that I have visited,6117where we have employee engagements, typically the feedback post6118those engagements is positive. But I have not been--we have,6119you know, 154 forests, and I have probably been on, in the last61203 months, maybe I have been on 14, or you know, 12 to 146121forests.6122    So it is a slow process to get out and meet with people.6123But I can tell you, the more those engagements that are direct6124and I can share my thoughts and ideas with people, that things6125are improving, and people see there is some hope in terms of6126what the future looks like. I think some people are excited in6127terms of where we can go and how we can better deliver service6128to the public, and how we can align and do things differently.6129I mean, that is a big focus right now.6130    A lot of the reductions that have been discussed in the6131Forest Service and how we are looking to restructure, and this6132was initiated, you know, over a year ago. And that was6133initiated because of some of the hole that we had in our6134budget. We had about a $750 million hole based on some6135decisions that were made on hiring. We hired a bunch of6136permanent employees with one-time money. So the Forest Service6137has known for quite some time that there was some reckoning6138that was coming in terms of a restructuring effort.6139    So regardless of broader issues across government, the6140Forest Service has a necessity to restructure the Agency to6141better align with the budgets that we do have, even current6142budgets, let alone the 2026 budget.6143    Senator Murkowski. So let me, let me ask on that. And you6144have given me your commitment in private, but I am just going6145to ask you to reaffirm it here. You have said you have been out6146to multiple regions, we need your commitment that you are going6147to be coming North to visit both of Alaska's key national6148forests?6149    Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am, this summer.6150    Senator Murkowski. Very good. We will welcome you there.6151And so then when you are talking about budgets and6152realignments, and you know, I have mentioned some of the6153reductions in force, and what we have seen, we have got a very6154strong executive order that I referenced in my opening6155comments, to be told by an administration that they want to6156unleash one state's resource opportunity, we are excited about6157that, but we also understand that again, in order to do so, it6158requires people to execute that.6159    So can you give me the assurance that what we are seeing6160with the workforce reduction initiatives that are underway in6161the Forest Service are not going to delay, or impede, or6162obstruct the implementation of the President's executive order?6163    Mr. Schultz. Madam Chair, what I can tell you is I can't6164guarantee there won't ever be any impacts, but I can tell you6165if we do have impacts, we will correct those as we learn6166information. We have a focus on maintaining all of our rec6167sites and our administrative sites, keeping them open to the6168public. It may not be 100 percent of the time if we have some6169reduced hours, but we are currently laddering people around the6170Agency to make sure we fill critical vacancies.6171    So to your point, we have had some people in the field at a6172district, at a forest level leave, and we have identified those6173critical vacancies to fill. We are actually moving people6174around to fill those critical positions. So where we do have6175impacts, which there are impacts when people leave, we are6176trying to fill those as quickly as we can. So we are doing that6177in an ongoing basis right now.6178    Senator Murkowski. Well, and I appreciate that, but I also6179recognize that all employees within the Forest Service are not6180necessarily fungible. In other words, if you are losing an6181individual in the Mendenhall area who is trained in dealing6182with bear avoidance with the public that is coming in off of6183the buses, and I take somebody from a headquarter in, I don't6184know, I am making up a town, Indianapolis, and put them out6185there, I don't want that situation.6186    And I am hoping that, again, we are looking at this and6187recognizing that it is not just moving bodies, but it is6188ensuring that we have that level of expertise.6189    Mr. Schultz. Yes.6190    Senator Murkowski. Let me turn to Senator Heinrich.6191    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.6192    And I am glad to hear, Chief, that you are going to be6193visiting several forests in Alaska this summer. I want to ask a6194similar question but start from the point of view of, you know,6195the Santa Fe National Forest manages the vast majority of the6196headwaters of the Pecos Watershed, which is one of the most6197important watersheds in the State of New Mexico.6198    And for decades, this is a community that has really worked6199very hard with very few resources to try to recover from6200historic pollution and protect that resource from future6201pollution. This is a river that supports traditional farming,6202recreation, fishing, fisheries, and many other--many other uses6203that are economically critical to that community. But we still6204have legacy pollution from a pretty disastrous mine spill some620530 years ago. And I know I communicated with you recently. I6206sent you a letter inviting you to visit this community, and6207meet with my constituents. Is that something that you can6208commit to doing?6209    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So my6210staff is looking at that request, and we are trying to figure6211out if we can make that work. That is something we are actively6212working on right now.6213    Senator Heinrich. I hope you can make that a priority. I6214think it is really helpful to get that community perspective.6215And you know, there are, there are vast differences between6216communities that call our national forest home, gateway6217communities in our different states. And so I would very much6218welcome you to join us in New Mexico for that. And I will make6219any logistics that you need help with a priority.6220    I am all for making government more efficient, but one of6221the things I am concerned about is that there are some things6222that DOGE seems to be making less efficient. And one of those6223has been contract approvals and that seems to be having real6224consequences in the Service, trash piling up at recreation6225sites, bathroom challenges, equipment not getting replaced in a6226timely way.6227    I sent you and Secretary Rollins a letter on this6228yesterday, but can you give me a sense, why is it taking so6229long to get simple things, like a contract extension for6230custodial services authorized?6231    Mr. Schultz. So Madam Chair, and Senator Heinrich, so what6232I will tell you is initially when we first started looking at6233some of the existing contracts that we had for prior6234obligations, there was a process we had to get in place. And I6235think we have worked through all of the existing obligations.6236There shouldn't be anything that is hung up there. When it6237comes to new obligations, we as the Forest Service instituted6238our own policies and procedures in addition to review from the6239Department and from the efficiency folks.6240    So we have put a process in place to make sure that it is6241thorough and responsive. When it comes to certain things like6242toilets and cleaning up toilets, which has been a huge issue6243that I have weighed in on in numerous cases, we have figured6244out that process, and some of that is on the Forest Service for6245the process that we put in place has kind of slowed some things6246down. But it is something that we have addressed, and there6247should not be toilets that are not being cleaned at this point6248in time. So if you are hearing about that, please let me know6249because we have really jumped on this issue.6250    And in contracting in general, I think there is a review in6251place for contracts, grants, and agreements; it is not just6252contracts, it is all three of those. And that is something we6253are looking at how we make that process more efficient. But6254there is a very thorough review. You are, you are absolutely6255right.6256    And is it different than it has been historically? Yes, it6257is, because there is more attention to detail in those6258contracts. But we are looking to make that process more6259effective and more timely than it has been over the last month.6260But it is something that we have a new process we just6261instituted about a month ago, and we are working on making that6262better.6263    Senator Heinrich. I understand the need for analysis and6264review. I just want to make sure that we are not, you know,6265adding layers of bureaucracy in the name of efficiency.6266    The Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes in New6267Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona these are institutes that offer6268unique opportunities for dedicated research in forest science6269and watershed health. They represent the future of science for6270our forest management. Yet, this plan cuts the Institute's6271budget by more than 50 percent, and that is just not a number6272that they can swallow in a single year. Why did you decide to6273reduce the funding for the institutes this year, and what is6274your plan for them in fiscal year 2026?6275    Mr. Schultz. Okay. So I think, first of all, the fiscal6276year 2025 Budget is what your question is, I think, on the6277first one. So we did cut $3 million for fiscal year 2025. So6278for the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERI)6279budget, they currently have $23 million on hand in prior6280appropriation dollars. So that was part of the consideration.6281    So we are trying to align the 2025 Budget as we move toward6282the 2026 President's Budget. So we are moving in that6283direction. So the why is, we are trying to align this year's62842025 Budget with where we are going in 2026. In 2026, it does6285not include resources to provide funding for SWERI, so there6286are resources this year, they are reduced, but next year in the62872026 Budget there are none. That is correct. And that is tied6288to R&D's overall look?6289    And the reason that R&D is treated differently in the 20266290budget, there is going to be a greater reliance on the states6291and the universities. So a lot of the land grant universities,6292and as a member of the Advisory Board at the university.6293    Senator Heinrich. That institute is at Highlands6294University?6295    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, I understand. Yes, sir. My point is,6296though, that the funding in the future is going to have to come6297more from those universities themselves and other grant6298opportunities. The Forest Service is going to be shifting its6299funding away from R&D, in general, in the budget.6300    Senator Heinrich. I think that is a mistake. And I think6301these institutes have really provided the Forest Service an6302enormous amount of science at a time when management has needed6303to change because conditions have been changing. And so I hope6304that as we approach the appropriations process that we consider6305this President's budget as it should be considered, advisory.6306    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.6307    Senator Rounds.6308    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.6309    Chief Schultz, it is good to see you here today. In recent6310years, timber sales in the Black Hills National Forest have6311steadily declined, placing significant strain on timber product6312manufacturers. The U.S. Forest Service has been unable to6313justify these harvesting shortfalls in the Black Hills, and as6314a result, local timber businesses have been forced to absorb6315additional shipping costs to source timber from more distant6316locations.6317    To address this issue, I have introduced the Timber6318Harvesting Restoration Act, which would require superintendents6319of National Forest System units to submit harvesting6320improvement reports to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture if6321they have consistently fallen well below the annual allowable6322sale quantity outlined in their forest plans. Sawmills in the6323Black Hills have borne the brunt of these shortfalls. In6324response to the reduced timber supply, some producers have been6325forced to scale back operations or close sawmills altogether.6326    My question today, sir, is I have been encouraged by the6327administration's plans to increase the speed and scale of6328timber production on federally managed lands. Can you highlight6329any specific actions or plans the Forest Service has to improve6330the situation in the Black Hills National Forest?6331    Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Senator. Yes, so this has been a6332high priority. I have been familiar with the Black Hills issues6333for years. And I have actually been involved with shutting down6334a sawmill that was tied to lack of available solid timber, so I6335understand the issues firsthand.6336    In particular, at the Black Hills, there was a meeting6337probably six weeks ago with industry, with conservation6338entities, with the Forest Service to develop a plan, a short-6339term plan and a long-term plan. And my understanding is that6340within the next two weeks that short-term plan should be coming6341forward that will lay out a strategy for the next 12 months,6342what that plan is going to look like. And then beyond that,6343there is a longer-term plan being developed looking at the6344opportunity for stewardship contracts, Good Neighbor Agreement6345contracts.6346    We have also detailed a person from a forest in Region 6 to6347the Black Hills to assist, that has been very effective, and6348assist the timber staff there. So it is something that is front6349and center for us. I am familiar with the issues. I know the6350industry players as well as the entities that are working to6351help us.6352    Senator Rounds. Thank you for that. Let me talk about6353accountability a little bit. Are you planning on, in your new6354plan, to have accountability measures that the Forest Service6355would be able to use to review whether or not the regional6356staff are effectively following through on the timber6357harvesting improvement plans that would be put in place?6358    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, we are.6359    Senator Rounds. Okay. In response to the executive order6360titled, ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production,''6361the Forest Service has proposed a national timber strategy6362aimed at increasing domestic timber production by 25 percent6363over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, under the strategy,6364Region 2, which includes South Dakota, is projected to increase6365timber production by only 2 percent.6366    How are those regional percentages determined, and how will6367the strategy address the immediate need of the timber industry6368in the Black Hills, where timber availability put up for6369harvest by the Forest Service has declined drastically over the6370last 5 years, outside of what the Forest plan was in the first6371place?6372    Mr. Schultz. Senator, that initial analysis was based on6373having $200 million available to allocate across the country,6374and what they did was they looked at from 2020 through 2024 in6375terms of outputs, so they used that as a guide to allocate $2006376million across the National Forest System. So they are trying6377to allocate funding where there is a greater likelihood of6378outputs.6379    So that is not a drawn-in-the-sand line. That is only--that6380is based on those additional dollars being brought to the6381table. So we have an existing program that already exists6382today. That $200 million is in addition to our existing6383funding. So we are exploring other options. We are exploring6384options working with the State of Wyoming under a broader Good6385Neighbor Agreement, where they would actually manage some of6386the National Forest System lands in partnership with the Forest6387Service.6388    We are looking at a long-term stewardship agreement that6389could be administered and provide less cost to the Forest6390Service. So those numbers right there, that is additional6391outputs tied only to a preliminary thought on allocation of6392funds. It is not a constraint. It is saying that if we had this6393$200 million and we allocate it like this, based on our current6394cost structure, that is what the additional output would look6395like, but that is not drawn in the sand.6396    Senator Rounds. Okay. Thank you. And one last question.6397Chief Schultz, concerned landowners in Western South Dakota6398have contacted my office regarding minor fence line disputes6399between producers and Federal officials. My understanding is6400that such disagreements are relatively common in areas with a6401high concentration of Forest Service land. I believe landowners6402deserve a fair notice and a review process when disputes with6403the Federal government arise. How do you plan to address these6404concerns and make sure that landowners are treated fairly in6405such cases?6406    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I appreciate the question. So a6407couple things, one, when we are aware of specific issues, we6408will address those specific issues, but I have also reached out6409to some of the trade associations that work with the ranching6410community to better understand what some of their priorities6411are, and we are working with them to understand how we can,6412from a policy perspective, approach things more from a6413communication across the country, and then when there are6414specific issues, we will deal with those on a case-by-case6415basis.6416    Senator Rounds. Okay. Not necessarily turning it into a6417criminal action?6418    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.6419    Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.6420    Senator Merkley [presiding]. Well, thank you very much. We6421appreciate your questions, Senator Rounds.6422    My first question we submitted to you in advance so we6423could get a crisp answer because many people have been very6424concerned about the teams that we have ready to fight in the6425upcoming forest fire season. How many permanent firefighters do6426we have on board today, and how many seasonal firefighters do6427we have on board?6428    Mr. Schultz. So in terms of--Senator, in terms of the6429firefighters we have hired to date, we have just under 11,0006430that we have brought on board, and those are GS-9 and below, so6431that is our primary firefighting force. Our goal is to have6432about 11,300 at full capacity, so we are actually a little bit6433ahead of where we were last year at this time in terms of our6434overall hiring of our firefighting force.6435    Senator Merkley. It was pointed out to me back in Oregon6436that a lot of the folks who have signed up for the firefighter6437season are actually also accepting positions in other places6438because they are applying multiple places and getting multiple6439acceptances. Are we pretty confident that those 11,000 are6440going to show up?6441    Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes, we are confident.6442    Senator Merkley. Okay. And the other concern has been, not6443just the front line, but also the management teams, the complex6444incident management teams, how many teams do we believe we are6445going to be able to deploy, and how does that compare to a year6446ago?6447    Mr. Schultz. So currently we have 37 teams nationally, and6448those are not all Forest Service teams. About 50 percent of the6449personnel on those teams are staffed by Forest Service6450personnel. There are also Department of Interior personnel.6451There are also states that also support those teams. So we have645237 today, and approximately a year ago we probably had closer6453to 42 teams.6454    Senator Merkley. And are you working to get to that 426455number?6456    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. I think that the team discussion is6457a broader discussion. There has been a decline in team6458participation for years. And I think part of it is just--a lot6459of people do that as an additional duty. It is not a primary6460responsibility. So I think there are opportunities to talk6461about, on an ongoing basis, how we better structure teams, and6462does that become a more permanent role, or do we continue to do6463it with volunteers; because right now team participation is6464largely based on volunteers.6465    Senator Merkley. What we had heard back home was that we6466lost a lot of folks who participated in these teams due to the6467firings and the early retirements that were offered. And is6468that a piece of why we are at 37 instead of 42?6469    Mr. Schultz. Senator, so keep in mind, like, 50 percent of6470the personnel are just Forest Service. There are other6471personnel that are also contributing to this. I don't know the6472extent that that has had the impact, but what I can tell you is6473we have had about 1,400 people take DRP that had fire calls.6474    We recently reached out to ask them if they had an interest6475in coming back, and we just opened that up about a week ago.6476The Secretary has been very clear that she wants them to come6477back if they have an interest, and we are going to work through6478that process. So the numbers are still in flux. We will know6479more over the next week to two weeks.6480    Senator Merkley. Thank you. I am going to turn to a chart6481that I have had the team prepare, and this chart is really all6482about state, private, and tribal forestry grants. And the chart6483suggests a number of questions.6484    So what we are seeing here is that we had a continuing6485resolution for fiscal year 2025, but all of the items that are6486in red have been dramatically reduced in the numbers you6487submitted to us. They have been cut in half, and that amount of6488money, $43.25 million, has been moved down to program salaries.6489    Now, these are formula grants by and large, with one6490exception. That is the landscape scale restoration. The rest6491are formula grants. They are very easy to distribute. Of these6492three that are formula that have not been reduced, have those6493funds been provided to the states?6494    Mr. Schultz. Senator, they are in the process of being6495provided to the states. I don't think they have been fully6496provided to the states yet.6497    Senator Merkley. So they have not been. And I can assure6498you, because we are hearing from all the states, saying: Hey,6499we need these grants, where are they in order to keep the6500rhythm of our programs alive? But can you commit to me today6501that those funds for those three programs, will go out?6502    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. Our intention is to have all three6503of those grants go out here shortly.6504    Senator Merkley. Thank you. And then the ones that are in6505red that have been cut in half, why have they been cut in half?6506    Mr. Schultz. Senator, so as you look at the 2026 budget, I6507alluded to this earlier with the SWERI discussion, we are6508moving toward a budget that does not have funding for those, we6509shifted that funding to salaries and expenses, we have the6510Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), we have to pay for the DRP6511cost. So when people leave, there is that accrued leave that6512has to be paid out, so those funds are being shifted to pay for6513the DRP cost.6514    Senator Merkley. Can you explain to the public what a DRP6515is?6516    Mr. Schultz. So that is the Deferred Resignation Program.6517That is where people voluntarily leave the Agency and it is6518kind of like a severance package.6519    Senator Merkley. So the picture this is painting is $436520million is being shifted, $43.25 million is being shifted out6521of state grants, it is being shifted into program salaries6522because the plan, as you have laid out for fiscal year 2026, is6523to shut down all of these programs?6524    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.6525    Senator Merkley. Okay. I can tell you, vast disagreement6526with this strategy. First of all, I think it is a violation of6527the trust between Congress and the Forest Service, because6528Congress laid out a vision, a Continuing Resolution, and you6529are not continuing the programs. You are cutting them in half.6530And you are doing it and shifting funds saying: We know what is6531going to happen in fiscal year 2026, we are going to shut down6532these programs.6533    Well, the Executive Branch is about executing the programs,6534and I don't anticipate that Congress is going to shut down6535those programs. So isn't it kind of a betrayal of the6536relationship to be cutting programs in half in preparation for6537shutting them down completely, when the vision has not been6538laid out by Congress to do so?6539    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think what we recognize is that, in6540terms of the specific language in our appropriation, there is6541some flexibility in how we do this, and we do know that we have6542a need to cover the cost of the DRP payments. So we can't go6543into a deficit spending model, and so we thought that was the6544most prudent way to go about doing this.6545    Senator Merkley. I am over my time, so I am going to defer6546to Senator Murray. But I will just note the idea of shifting6547from real work on the ground to paying personnel expenses and6548doing a lot less work on the ground is absolutely not in6549concert with the vision laid out by Congress in the bill.6550    Senator Murray.6551    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley. And I6552agree with you 100 percent. Thank you for outlining that.6553    Let me go to this. As everyone knows, we are approaching6554wildfire season. In my home State of Washington, wildfires are6555a constant threat, as you well know. And when we invest in fire6556prevention, we save lives, we save entire communities. One of6557the most important investments we make is in the people who do6558that work. But President Trump is throwing all of that work6559into jeopardy right now. He has pushed out nearly 7,500 skilled6560employees across the Forest Service, either by firing them6561outright or pressuring them to leave under threat of losing6562their job later down the line.6563    That includes at least 500 Forest Service employees in the6564Pacific Northwest. But we hardly know the full scope of the6565damage because the administration won't share critical6566information with us. I have spoken with countless Forest6567Service workers from Washington State who loved their job. They6568played an important role in fighting those fires and are gone6569now. Thanks to Trump.6570    Setting aside the proposal for a consolidated firefighting6571agency, this budget proposes a $1.4 billion cut, that is 406572percent, to the Forest Service non-fire programs at a time when6573our nation's trees, from our backyards to the backcountry, are6574under stress, and we need to step up the pace of forest health6575and resiliency to withstand these catastrophic wildfires.6576    On top of all that, the Forest Service has illegally6577withheld Federal funds to help reduce wildfire risk and is6578currently not distributing $97 million to support state, rural,6579and volunteer fire departments. That is a huge threat to our6580communities I represent in Washington State, who have told me6581personally this administration is putting them in danger by6582gutting our ability to respond to wildfires.6583    So Chief Schultz, I do appreciate your service to our6584country. I realize you are not making all the decisions here,6585but I have a number of important questions today, and I hope6586you can provide this committee with the information that we do6587need.6588    Now, as I mentioned, I am profoundly concerned about this6589administration's reckless decision to mass fire and push out6590essential Forest Service employees across the country. The6591administration claimed that no firefighters have been fired,6592but the reality is, on the ground, we have lost workers whose6593jobs are absolutely essential. Nearly every single Forest6594Service worker supports fire operations in some capacity.6595    Trail maintenance crews, for instance, ensure access to6596routes remain clear for firefighting personnel and equipment.6597Biologists conduct essential environmental assessments that6598inform prescribed burns and fuel reduction strategies. Other6599support staff, ecologists, engineers, maintenance workers, camp6600managers receive firefighter training, and they are actually6601mobilized during peak fire season to bolster our frontline6602firefighting crews.6603    So Chief Schultz, was there any formal analysis conducted6604to determine the potential effect of the mass firings for6605wildfire preparedness?6606    Mr. Schultz. Senator Murray, thank you for the question. So6607I will try to just clarify a few things. So in terms of a mass6608firing, we didn't have a mass firing.6609    Senator Murray. I am talking about across the board,6610pushing people out, early retirement, doing all those things.6611    Mr. Schultz. All right. I just want to clarify. So we did6612have two rounds of that Deferred Resignation Program, and that6613was about 4,200 people that left voluntarily. And then we had6614another----6615    Senator Murray. Because they didn't know what was coming,6616right?6617    Mr. Schultz. Right. They didn't know what was--I don't6618disagree with you. And we had another 600 that took voluntary6619early retirement. So there was no--in terms of there were6620incentives for people to leave, now, in terms of--we did not6621know who was going to leave, obviously, it was a voluntary6622process.6623    So what we have done is, when they did leave, we have been6624moving people to, you know, we called that lateral movement.6625And we have been doing that across the Agency, and we have6626moved probably close to 600 or 700 people to fill those6627critical vacancies.6628    When it comes to the fire piece specifically, we had, I6629think I mentioned earlier, about 1,400 people that had fire6630quals that did leave. And we have reached out to those folks to6631secure their services this fire season to see if they want to6632come back on a voluntary basis to function on their team----6633    Senator Murray. This just seems really ridiculous that it6634was done this way, which was my question, actually. Was there6635an analysis done before this was all done, to realize the6636impacts of these people that you are now trying to find and6637bring back?6638    Mr. Schultz. Senator, so we could not do the analysis6639because we didn't know who was going to leave because it was6640voluntary., right, we didn't go handpick the----6641    Senator Murray. Well, I want to get on, but I will just say6642the stakes are life and death here, and this really raises6643serious alarms about this Agency being ready for this critical6644fire season.6645    Now, let me move on. Interior Secretary Burgum recently6646told this committee that on-the-ground wildfire operations6647would not be affected by the administration's staffing cuts6648across various agents. But we know that is not true. In the6649Mount Baker--Snoqualmie National Forest, one firefighter6650barracks recently and abruptly lost power. And it stayed6651without power not for a few hours, or a day, but for weeks.6652    Why? Because the maintenance workers in that forest had6653been pushed out the door, there was no ability to put even a6654small purchase on a credit card because the card limit was6655drastically decreased, and there was no one left to process a6656basic contract to get that repair done. This is what happens6657when administrative staff disappear, it is not just an6658inconvenience, it directly affects whether firefighters have a6659safe place to sleep, whether they have power, whether they can6660be deployed effectively.6661    Maybe Elon didn't care about the maintenance crew, but6662turns out they are pretty important. And this is not an6663isolated incident. I have heard so many stories: Administrative6664staff responsible for coordinating travel for crews when a fire6665breaks out, gone; people who made sure fire response teams had6666their fuel and supplies ready, they are gone. And all of this6667is happening as we now head straight into what is going to be a6668dangerous fire season in Washington State.6669    So Chief Schultz, tell us, do you believe the Forest6670Service is ready for wildfire season given this absence of6671critical administrative and support staff; do you believe they6672are ready?6673    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. Yes, I do6674believe they are ready. And then some of the credit card issues6675you are talking about, we have adjusted those. We have had6676increases in cards, and we have been moving people into lateral6677positions to ensure critical vacancies that we are clear that6678we can fill those.6679    Senator Murray. Well, I can just tell you from on the6680ground, it feels like we are not prepared for this wildfire6681season. You just said we were. We will see what happens, but I6682fear I am going to be right.6683    Do I have time for one additional question? Thank you.6684    Now, the President supposedly wants to increase timber6685output from Federal lands by 25 percent. But here is the6686problem: This same administration is simultaneously cutting6687budgets, delaying funding, freezing hiring, and reducing staff6688at the Forest Service, the very agency that is responsible for6689that work. So how exactly is that going to work? Who is going6690to consult with the tribes? Who is going to lay out the sale6691plans? Who is going to mark the timber? Who is going to manage6692compliance and issue contracts when field offices have been6693literally decimated?6694    Is the expectation--Chief Schultz, is it really the6695expectation that these fewer people with fewer resources, less6696support, can somehow deliver work at a faster pace and with6697greater complexity? How is that realistic?6698    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So I6699think it is an iterative process. We don't have all the answers6700today, but in terms of how we are going to get there, we are6701going to again fill critical vacancies. We are also going to6702have to lean on partners differently. So the states, in6703Washington they have a very aggressive Good Neighbor Programs6704for the----6705    Senator Murray. Yes, the states are being relied on for6706just about virtually everything. And I got to tell you,6707firefighters don't sit, as my partner from Oregon knows, they6708don't sit in one state.6709    Mr. Schultz. That is right. But to your point, though, we6710are going to be working with partners in a different way. We6711are going to have different kind of contracting terms, that we6712are going to have, looking at longer term contracts.6713    Senator Murray. Well, that begs the question. So do you6714have some kind of plan for this that is going to be executed6715over the next year? Because the wildfire season is here right6716now, and critical employees are not in place.6717    Mr. Schultz. So when it comes to the wildfire season, yes6718ma'am, we do have the critical folks in place. When it comes to6719administering the timber program that you are talking about we6720are building that right now.6721    Senator Murray. Yes.6722    Mr. Schultz. So that is part of what we are doing, is we6723are building that process, those interim operating plans. We6724are working on that right now. Yes ma'am.6725    Senator Murray. When will we see that?6726    Mr. Schultz. You know, I would suspect in the next couple6727months we will have that whole plan figured out, how we are6728going to execute that for the next 4 years. That is what we are6729working on right now.6730    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.6731    Senator Murkowski. Senator Van Hollen.6732    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.6733    And welcome, Mr. Schultz. I know you have got lots of6734experience in forestry and natural resource management in some6735of the Western states like Idaho and Montana, and my colleagues6736here on the dais all have large national forests in their6737states. But forest management looks a little different coming6738from a state like mine, of Maryland, and so I am going to spend6739a little time just describing how we do benefit from what you6740do at the Forest Service.6741    So in Maryland, the forest industry is our fourth-largest6742industry in the state. It is actually larger than the seafood6743industry. That surprises a lot of people. I hope you have had a6744chance to have some of our great Maryland crabs and Old Bay.6745Our forest industry contributes about $3.5 billion to the local6746economy. That is about 5,000 jobs involved. So compared to6747Idaho, where 40 percent of the state's land mass is federally6748owned national forest land, Maryland is almost 40 percent6749forested, with three-quarters of those forested lands under6750private ownership.6751    And the amount of privately owned forest land in the state6752means that forest management needs are different, and it means6753that the Forest Service has been a key partner in supporting6754those private landowners in the State of Maryland.6755    As Joe Hansen, who is the Board President of the Maryland6756Forest Association, said, and I quote, ``Private lands and6757their management are absolutely crucial to the forest industry6758in Maryland. Technical assistance to these landowners from the6759Forest Service's state and private forestry budget is passed6760through the Maryland Forest Service, allowing DNR, Department6761of Natural Resources, foresters to work with private landowners6762to help them understand their options and make wise decisions6763for the management of their forest lands.''6764    Mr. Schultz, this has been very important to our small6765forestry businesses that support our economy. The next6766generation of landowners needs to remain confident that markets6767for forest products will exist in the future for financial6768return to justify their management costs today. That is where6769wood product innovation comes in. In Western Maryland, a6770company called InventWood is in the process of setting up a6771factory that will mass-produce wood that is stronger than6772steel. This company was founded on research conducted at the6773University of Maryland with funding from the Forest Service.6774    The Forest Service wood innovations program and related6775research supports projects like InventWood and advances the6776onshoring of the next generation of Made in America building6777materials, which is critical to the supply chain here in6778Maryland and across the country.6779    I should say we have also seen benefits from the urban6780forestry initiatives in cities like Baltimore. A great example6781is the Stillmeadow Peace Park in West Baltimore. Through the6782Forest Service's urban forestry program, the Stillmeadow6783Community Fellowship, which is a local faith-based community,6784was able to restore 10 acres of urban forest land and create a6785workforce development program to train Baltimore youth to enter6786the forestry industry, and creating important opportunities as6787well as environmental benefits.6788    And finally, our forestry is key to our decades-long effort6789to protect the Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure and an6790important economic engine for our region. In 1988, this has6791been decades in practice and implementation, an MOU was signed6792between the USEPA and the U.S. Forest Service, committing the6793Forest Service, through its state and private forestry program,6794to support Chesapeake Bay's restoration effort.6795    So in very different ways, the work of the Forest Service6796is very important to the State of Maryland, which is why I am6797extremely concerned that these accounts that I am referencing6798were zeroed out in the President's budget. I can tell you I6799will be working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to6800make sure that we preserve and support these efforts.6801    But I understand the budget that you submitted, but I just6802want to ask you, if you will commit to working with me and my6803colleagues in the State of Maryland to make sure that the6804Forest Service remains an important partner in our efforts?6805    Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes sir. I think I want to point out,6806too, I think there is some confusion on the Wood Innovation6807Grants. That is a very popular program, and that will continue6808in this budget. That money would transfer to, basically, the6809Department of Interior under the component that we transfer the6810fuels program with. It is about $175 million. So about 306811million of that is the Wood Innovation Grant funds, so that6812program would continue on, it would just be administered6813through the Department of Interior, and we would coordinate6814with them to administer that program.6815    So the University of Maryland, which is a land-grant6816university, and they do a lot of great work there. Yes, sir.6817And that is something that would continue under this budget.6818    Senator Van Hollen. I will take a look at that. I also do6819just want to express my concerns, and I know Senator Heinrich,6820and maybe others, raised the issue about the Forest and6821Rangeland Research Account funding.6822    Mr. Schultz. Sure.6823    Senator Van Hollen. And I understand you mentioned that,6824you know, a lot of that work could be done at universities,6825like University of Maryland. As you know, a lot of the programs6826at University of Maryland, the one I referenced, was actually6827funded through the Forest Service, so if you cut out that6828account, they are not really in a position to do it, especially6829when, as I am sure you are aware, universities are seeing their6830budgets cut, and they are actually this administration is6831blocking a lot of research to our colleges and universities6832around the country.6833    Thank you, Madam Chair.6834    And thank you. But I look forward to working with you.6835    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.6836    So Chief, I mentioned in my opening comments the concerns6837about the shift of wildfire management operations by proposing6838to merge the BLM and Forest Service operations into this U.S.6839Wildland Fire Service based over in the Department of Interior.6840And again, I want to understand more about this. I do think it6841makes sense to be looking for efficiencies, how we battle our6842wildfires, how we deal with them in this country is6843exceptionally important to all of us.6844    And so as we are learning more, it is important for us,6845from the appropriations perspective, to understand how we can6846best make this thing work, because I don't want to be building6847an airplane literally and doing this reorganization when, to6848Senator Merkley's point, you have got horrible wildfires going6849across our country, and they don't care whether or not we are6850ready.6851    So just a little, almost generically, in terms of the goals6852of the consolidation--I am assuming this is about greater6853efficiencies. This is helping to be better stewards of our6854taxpayer dollars, but how do these goals really bolster the6855ability of our country to respond to the fires?6856    And I want to ask particularly about the National6857Interagency Fire Center. You are obviously very familiar with6858it. It has been beneficial to interagency coordination for6859wildland fire. How is this consolidation going to impact that6860center that is based there in Boise? Are we going to need to6861detail additional people there? Can you just speak to more6862granular level on what this proposal really will do?6863    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question. So the6864intent of this consolidation really is to improve efficiencies,6865as you alluded to. It is improved communication and6866coordination, even how we do training, even though we have6867interagency training standards, not all of the agencies train6868to the same degree and the same requirements to move up through6869the system.6870    So the intent really is to standardize things across the6871board and have a unified firefighting force that would do both6872initial attack and extended attack on these programs. The6873budget also proposes to move the fuels programs. There has been6874a lot of discussion here about mitigation of wildfire and the6875fuels work that needs to be done. That would also move as well6876in this process.6877    So currently, the fuels program is administered by the6878firefighting workforce that we have, so those folks would all6879move to this new agency. This agency would both do the fuels6880work as well as the firefighting work on initial attack and6881extended attack. We don't have the details all worked out yet.6882We are not talking about this summer, we are talking about in6883the future, in the next year. But this is something that we are6884committed to working through with the Department of Interior to6885work through this.6886    The other piece to keep in mind right now is you talked6887about National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). So NIFC has a6888representative from the Forest Service. There is a6889representative that is already there in Boise, so we don't need6890to move people there. We already have a representation there,6891but also you have four different bureaus within Department of6892Interior that are there. You also have the Association of State6893Foresters has a representative that represents the state6894interests.6895    So the intent is to really consolidate that so they are6896working under the same administrative structure, so that there6897is just greater coordination, communication as we administer6898the firefighting program.6899    Senator Murkowski. So when you have got--I am trying to6900understand kind of what is left with the Forest Service, if you6901move this out, and then when you have management decisions,6902say, for instance, with wildfire thinning, some of the6903resiliency activities, those stay within National Forest6904Service, right?6905    Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am.6906    Senator Murkowski. Okay. So would the Wildland Fire Service6907have any responsibility for making decisions in that area? And6908if so, what happens if you have got a disagreement over a6909proposed action, how do you mediate or manage this? Or maybe6910you don't have a conflict because it is clear lines? Or is that6911something that still has yet to be thought out?6912    Mr. Schultz. So Senator, it is what we do with the states6913today. We have agreements with the states. We have master6914agreements.6915    Senator Murkowski. Yes.6916    Mr. Schultz. We also have agreements with other local6917government cooperators, and in those agreements you lay out6918expectations in terms of how we are going to pay for fires, how6919we are going to communicate on fires. So ideally what you would6920have is the Forest Service would have some type of master6921agreement with this entity that would create the clarity of6922expectations so that when the fire season came you could6923anticipate that.6924    And if there are issues that come up, which there are6925issues that come up every year you would work towards fixing6926those over the next years in the future.6927    Senator Murkowski. Right.6928    Mr. Schultz. So we would do after-action reviews and those6929things to identify any issues that were not fully worked out in6930any particular year, and we do that every year. We review the6931fire season and identify what concerns or issues that we might6932have and work through them.6933    Senator Murkowski. But I guess I am thinking about it, so6934you have got the response, you have got that end of it, but if6935you are looking at a--if you are looking at an area where you6936know you need to do--you need to go in and do thinning, you6937want to go in and do some controlled burns within our national6938forest, that is not necessarily on the wildland fire side. That6939is kind of the management side.6940    And again, I am trying to understand: What is left of the6941Forest Service after we move this out? What are you managing?6942To me, when I am thinking about management of a forest, I am6943thinking about what it means to be able to reduce the threat6944from invasive species and disease, to reduce the threat by6945doing some thinning, because that is not kind of like your fire6946management plan for the season. How do you divide that up?6947    Mr. Schultz. So Senator, I think there are two questions6948there, and one is: What is left of the Forest Service?6949    Senator Murkowski. Right.6950    Mr. Schultz. So we would have still timber.6951    Senator Murkowski. Right.6952    Mr. Schultz. We would have recreation, we would have6953mining, we would have grazing, all those forestry.6954    Senator Murkowski. But in order to have healthy timber, you6955know you need to talk about thinning.6956    Mr. Schultz. That is right.6957    Senator Murkowski. You need to talk about invasive species6958and disease.6959    Mr. Schultz. Right. And we do that today. You think about,6960we have Good Neighbor Agreements with the states.6961    Senator Murkowski. Right.6962    Mr. Schultz. So it is not uncommon that a state will come6963in and do timber sale administration on Forest Service lands.6964So imagine a similar type of concept where we are working with6965this entity that has money for fuels, which they could do6966prescribed fires, they could do mechanical treatments, but they6967would be working for the Forest Service.6968    And to your point, the Forest Service would still be the6969one making those decisions, but we would be leveraging those6970resources in Interior to get that work done on the National6971Forest System. That is how I would envision that would work. It6972would have to be a coordinated.6973    Senator Murkowski. Yes. I always worry, though, when we are6974leveraging resources in another department and you have the6975potential for conflict. I am well over my time. But you can6976tell I am very interested in understanding more, I get what you6977are saying, that you are still working through some of these6978details.6979    Mr. Schultz. Right.6980    Senator Murkowski. But know that we want to be part of6981these discussions in fully understanding the direction.6982    Let me turn to Senator Merkley.6983    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. So I am going to ask6984the team to put the chart back up. One line in this is Forest6985Health Management, which you told me a few minutes ago that,6986yes, you are going to be distributing those grants to states. I6987am glad to hear that. But also, the chart shows that you are6988planning to zero out the program in fiscal year 2026, assuming6989this is what you are proposing. We will see what Congress does.6990    But in that regard to Forest Health Management, I must say6991that we have challenges like sudden oak death, which there is a6992variety that could threaten Douglas fir trees; are you familiar6993with that particular disease?6994    Mr. Schultz. I am not, sir. No.6995    Senator Merkley. Well, I know that Douglas trees also6996continue on into parts of Idaho and parts of Montana, but a6997huge concentration in Oregon. That is why we have programs like6998Forest Health Management, it is to detect risks to our forests,6999to do the research, and to deploy the resources to try to take7000on those challenges. Why would you propose zeroing that out?7001    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think, again, part of this whole7002budget is to try to figure out what we can afford to maintain,7003and what makes sense to either have another entity do it. And7004for instance, on the forest health discussion, a lot of states7005have their own forest health programs above and beyond funding7006that comes from the Federal Government. And I know the industry7007does a lot of their own forest health monitoring as well. So if7008there is an opportunity for others to step into that space, I7009think that is what we would try to coordinate with that on.7010    Senator Merkley. Do you have any studies that have shown7011that that work being done in other venues is sufficient to7012address the risk to our massive Federal forests?7013    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I am aware there is a lot of private7014companies that do this work in the United States and elsewhere,7015that they use satellite technology to address, to identify7016forest health issues. So outside of what the Forest Service7017does or funds, I can tell you there is a lot of work going on7018in the private sector that could facilitate some of this being7019done.7020    Senator Merkley. So let me just note that what I am hearing7021is that there is a lot of key work done in this line, very7022relevant to our Federal forests that cannot be obtained from7023other sources. I think we need to take a very close look at7024that. But if you have any studies which show that work that is7025being replicated elsewhere, we would certainly be interested in7026seeing it.7027    I want to turn to the next line, which is State Fire7028Capacity Grants, and the one after it: Volunteer Fire Capacity.7029And these are also being--you have said you are going to7030distribute these funds this year, great. But these funds, the7031first one, the State Fire Capacity Grants goes to the state7032level and helps them with the programs they have, some of those7033programs are going to be shut down if they don't have the7034grants to continue them.7035    The second one, the Volunteer Fire Capacity, this is very7036much about small rural fire stations. And when we have7037lightning storms, we have the possibility of a hundred fires7038being lit at once. And getting our rural teams out fast, and7039they are normally volunteer teams to put those out before they7040become a larger fire, particularly a fire that might be whipped7041up by the wind and grow very rapidly, is extremely important.7042So in what world does it make sense to devastate the ability of7043rural fire stations to tackle fires early?7044    Mr. Schultz. Senator, so I think in terms of the strategy,7045you are talking about is a relevant strategy, and Oregon has7046actually been a leader in rangeland fire protection7047associations. As you are fully aware, Eastern Oregon, they use7048that model to put out a lot of wildfires, and a lot of that7049funding, in many cases, is provided by other entities, states,7050and even, like in Idaho, we have rangeland fire protection7051associations. Some of those costs are borne by the lessees and7052permittees themselves that do that work.7053    So what we are trying to suggest in this budget is that7054there needs to be a shift in how these programs are funded in7055the future, and there is going to be a shift again in the7056budget to put greater reliance on the states and local7057government to cover those costs on their own without that7058direct Federal support.7059    Senator Merkley. Well, I think I hear in that a lot of: We7060hope somebody else will do this work when we quit doing it,7061because it is very important work. I think you are well7062familiar with the state budgets in Idaho and Montana, and I7063think your wish that somehow they are going to come up with7064funds to do things, is unrealistic in the context of many other7065challenges those State governments are facing.7066    So there has been a Federal-local partnership, and7067certainly it is very relevant because the local areas help us7068fight the fires on Federal forest land. And I appreciate the7069rangeland associations you are speaking to, but not all of our7070forests are rangelands. Many of them depend on crews in highly7071forested areas that are local fire stations, and those crews7072are actually having more and more difficulty recruiting7073volunteers because many of those volunteers are, essentially,7074to put it bluntly, getting old, and we are having a much harder7075time recruiting younger folks.7076    It is a tougher economy, often both parents working, so on,7077and so forth. So I think it may actually be an area that is7078going to need more support rather than less.7079    I do have more questions, but I know my time is up, so I7080will be submitting them for the record. But these are very7081important issues for us to wrestle with as a committee.7082    And let us turn to my colleague.7083    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.7084    Chief, glad you will be in North Dakota in August to meet7085with some of our grazers. Very important on the national7086grasslands, and that the Forest Service is in the process of7087updating the Little Missouri National Grasslands Travel7088Management Plan, that will affect, in North Dakota, Billings7089County, Golden Valley County, Slope County, McKenzie County.7090    So we appreciate that work and look forward to working with7091you closely on it. Will you commit to not only consult with the7092State of North Dakota, but specifically our Ag Commissioner,7093Doug Goehring, who is very knowledgeable, is a farmer himself,7094and rancher, and works very closely with the grazers? Would you7095be sure to include him in your consultation?7096    Mr. Schultz. Senator, yes, we will. You bet.7097    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chief. And then also, are you7098committed to making sure that travel management plan works for7099our grazers and for our energy industry?7100    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.7101    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chief. Another area actually7102that the Agency has been doing some really good work is in7103noxious weed control. The Deputy Chief, Chris French, has been7104outstanding. He has been out to North Dakota a number of times,7105he has been very responsive, and has done an excellent job of7106helping us with noxious weed control, which is something that7107has historically not been the case.7108    And so I really want to commend him, the Agency, and ask if7109you will continue that commitment to that very important work.7110    Mr. Schultz. Senator, if I look correctly, I think there is7111about $1.3 million that is going to be allocated for this year7112that will be forthcoming soon, and we will continue that work.7113Yes, sir.7114    Senator Hoeven. I really want to commend you on that, it is7115incredibly important and it doesn't matter whether it is7116tourism, or agriculture, you name it, for the health of the7117grasslands. And historically, we have had to just fight tooth7118and nail to get it, and you all have been good. And I just7119encourage you to continue that. And again want to express my7120appreciation.7121    Another issue is the prairie dogs. And you know, we7122understand in the park, you know, they want prairie dogs, and7123folks like to have them around, all that kind of thing, but7124they still have to be managed so that they don't completely7125encroach on the grazers' allotments. And I have been out to7126some of those, I guess you could call them pastures, but it7127looks like the moon.7128    I mean, they dug--and there is not a blade of grass left.7129It is just a bunch of holes. It is dangerous to, you know, if7130livestock goes over it. It is terrible. And the idea that we7131can allow these prairie dog counts to grow and create that kind7132of situation that actually is detrimental to the environment.7133And so are you committed to helping us control, or manage, I7134should say, the prairie dog population in a common-sense way?7135    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir. I think I have looked at. And it7136looks to me that over the last 5 years we have allocated about7137$500,000 to help with some of the management of the prairie7138dogs. You are right, they can be devastating to the range7139productivity. It is a threat for livestock, you know, like you7140said, stepping in a hole or something. So it is something we7141definitely need to work with.7142    Senator Hoeven. Yeah, and just reasonable buffers, I mean,7143just reasonable buffers between what is ranched and all that7144kind of thing, and then where you want the prairie dogs for7145tourism or whatever, right?7146    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.7147    Senator Hoeven. That is a common sense. And then the last7148thing I would bring up to you is access. The grazers have got7149to have access on those section lines to get out, in order to7150move their cattle and do all those things. And so would you7151work with us on section lines in making sure that, whether it7152is the energy industry, grazers, or even folks that are out7153there for tourism, all that kind of stuff, have reasonable7154access in the grasslands on the section lines?7155    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.7156    Senator Hoeven. All right. Again, thank you. Look forward7157to working with you. Appreciate it very much.7158    Mr. Schultz. You bet.7159    Senator Hoeven. Okay.7160    Mr. Schultz. Thank you.71617162                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS71637164    Senator Hoeven. If there is no further testimony, or7165questions at this point, questions can still be submitted for7166the record, and then we would ask that those are due by June716718th. And then we would like a response, if possible, within7168two weeks, if that is something you could do.7169    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.7170    Senator Hoeven. All right. Thank you very much.7171                Questions Submitted to Hon. Tom Schultz7172              Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley7173    Question. The Forest Service has a statutory responsibility to7174assist and support healthy ecosystems across jurisdictional lines, not7175just within the 193 million acres of the National Forest System.7176However, it is clear that the Administration sees no value in State,7177Private, and Tribal Forestry grants because the President's FY20267178Budget proposes to fully eliminate them. States and landowners put7179these resources into forest stewardship, fuels reduction, and forest7180health, which are important due to the interconnected nature of the7181checkerboard landscape.7182    Did you speak directly to any state foresters about this funding7183elimination?7184    Answer. The discretionary account was eliminated to ensure fiscal7185responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the7186appropriate roles of Federal and State governments. In alignment with7187restoring federalism, we encourage increasing State authority to fund7188the management of State and privately-owned forests, community7189preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities.7190    Question. Without Federal support, how will States have the7191resources to partner with each other and the Federal Government on7192forest health and risk reduction that crosses jurisdictional lines?7193    Answer. The Budget request anchors to a return to federalism and7194encourages increasing state authority to fund the management of State7195and privately-owned forests.7196    Question. What is your plan for confronting a new pest or disease7197we haven't dealt with before without research or funding the Federal7198Government can provide to States for containment, particularly issues7199that cross jurisdictional lines?7200    Answer. Secretary Rollins made an Emergency Situation Determination7201on over 112 million acres of National Forest System Lands using7202authorities provided through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs7203Act. In designated areas, the Secretary authorized emergency actions7204including removal of hazardous fuels, harvest of trees to control7205insects or disease, replanting in fire impacted areas and several other7206actions. In response to the Secretary's direction, the agency is7207increasing our forest management efforts that will result in more7208timber and hazardous fuels mitigated from the National Forests,7209improving forest health and providing the ability to address emerging7210issues on National Forest System lands through existing programs and7211authorities.7212    Question. For State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance,7213where do you expect communities and volunteer fire departments to find7214funding overnight to replace these grants?7215    Answer. The FY 2026 President's Budget eliminates funding for the7216State, Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal7217responsibility with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the7218appropriate roles of Federal and State governments. The Administration7219seeks to restore federalism by encouraging States and local partners to7220fund their wildfire preparedness activities in alignment with local7221priorities.7222    Question. The President's FY2026 Budget proposes to completely7223eliminate Federal funding for forest research. Even if the private7224sector or universities fill in some gaps, the findings won't be fully7225open and freely available to anyone to pick up a good idea and turn it7226into tomorrow's innovations or improve silviculture practices on their7227property.7228    How will the United States be able to meet the challenges of future7229stressors and changing conditions on our forests without Federal7230science?7231    Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland7232Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars7233and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest Service's7234responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest System lands.7235    We recognize that sound decision-making must be informed by7236science. We will continue to support research aligned to the Agency's7237land management focus through the Forest Inventory and Analysis7238program. In addition, per the FY 2026 Budget proposal, the Joint Fire7239Science Program would continue to be supported in the proposed7240Department of the Interior Wildland Fire Service.7241    Question. The 81 Experimental Forests in the Forest and Rangeland7242Research program produces invaluable science and tools necessary to7243manage forests across all ownerships. The President's FY2026 Budget7244proposal to eliminate funding for Forest and Rangeland Research will7245shut down long-term observations and studies at these experimental7246forests, putting at risk decades and decades of data and investigation7247for understanding the forest ecosystem and forest contributions to our7248communities, and to predict future forest conditions used by Federal7249and State managers, private landowners and industry.7250    How does the Forest Service plan to support the continuation of an7251experimental forest network and the information it provides for both7252management of National Forest System lands and non-federal lands by7253eliminating all research funds?7254    Answer. The FY 2026 Budget terminates the Forest and Rangeland7255Research program to ensure fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars7256and appropriate alignment of resources with the Forest7257    Service's responsibility to appropriately steward National Forest7258System lands. Experimental forests and ranges will remain in the7259ownership of the agency and will be managed in accordance with the7260Administration's priorities.7261    Question. I am concerned that the Administration is planning and7262implementing staffing reductions in these Research programs now in7263service to the President's FY2026 Budget proposal before Congress has7264acted on it.7265    Will you commit to continuing to operate all of the research7266stations, labs and experimental forests funded in fiscal year 20247267without interruption until you are instructed otherwise by7268Appropriations law?7269    Answer. For FY 2025 operations, the President is acting within his7270authority under the ``Full Year Continuing Appropriations and7271Extensions Act, 2025'' to revise spending within the amounts provided7272by Congress.7273    Question. The President's FY2026 Budget proposes to eliminate the7274International Program and Trade office. It is through this Office's7275work that the Forest Service meets its statutory responsibility for7276enforcing the Lacey Act's regulation of wildlife and plant trade, to7277prevent illegal logging overseas and protect domestic producers and7278markets. The Office also promotes American wood products globally and7279supports U.S. companies in the face of tariffs imposed by other7280countries. Since 2019, they have provided the critical forensic7281analysis for over 130 cases of illegal imports brought by Homeland7282Security and other enforcement agencies.7283    Without Lacey Act enforcement, the wood identification and7284screening center, or the programs that work internationally to keep7285illegal logging from occurring in the first place, how will the Forest7286Service protect the U.S. timber industry from an influx of illegal7287lumber?7288    Answer. The FY 2026 request provides for sustained support for Law7289Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) operations, the lynchpin of our7290Lacey Act enforcement capacity on and off National Forest Lands. The7291Agency will continue to deliver on its statutory Lacey Act enforcement7292responsibilities.7293    Question. If International Programs and Trade is eliminated, how7294will the Forest Service address wood export barriers like the European7295Union Deforestation Regulation and Chinese bans on softwood logs from7296the United States?7297    Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,7298Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility7299with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate7300role of the United States in international natural resources efforts.7301    Question. I am frustrated that while the Administration claims to7302be focused on efficiencies, the Collaborative Forest Landscape7303Restoration program, a proven, bipartisan model that delivers healthier7304forests and stronger communities and avoids costly, dragged out7305litigation, is eliminated in the President's FY2026 Budget.7306    Will you confirm for the record that you are moving forward with7307funding the existing Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration7308projects in 2025 at the full funding level of $31 million?7309    Answer. Yes.7310    Question. If Congress once again funds the program in FY2026, will7311you carry out our direction and fund Collaborative Forest Landscape7312Restoration projects?7313    Answer. We will implement programs within the bounds of the7314appropriations bill's legislative text and the Administration's7315priorities.7316    Question. A major aspect of the President's FY2026 Budget is7317removing firefighting responsibilities from the Forest Service and7318creating a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service at the Department of the7319Interior. It is difficult to seriously evaluate this proposal from an7320Administration that is jeopardizing our wildfire preparedness by firing7321staff, threatening to cut funding from State, local, and volunteer fire7322departments, and intentionally managing by imposing chaos and fear.7323Because we are already into fire season there should be absolutely no7324further disruption imposed on wildland fire response. This proposal is7325just a proposal and must not be acted upon without an explicit change7326in law.7327    Yes or No--Will you commit not to proceed with any changes to7328Federal wildland fire management during fire season?7329    Answer. Yes.7330    Question. Yes or No--Will you commit to follow our clear and7331longstanding Appropriations law that funds these two agencies7332separately, and work with Congress on a careful and deliberative7333legislative process for making any changes?7334    Answer. We will implement programs within the bounds of the7335appropriations bill's legislative text and the Administration's7336priorities.7337    Question. What obstacles to achieving important forest resilience7338work could occur if the Budget proposal separating fire management from7339land management becomes law?7340    Answer. The new organization will focus on response to wildfire but7341will assist both the DOI bureaus and the Forest Service in delivering7342critical land management actions. A coordinated effort across Federal7343agencies has always been critical to effectively managing our Federal7344lands. This consolidation builds on that tradition and will continue to7345leverage our multi-agency approach to Federal land management outside7346the boundaries of wildland fire response. In particular, the Forest7347Service will work with the U.S. Wildland Fire Service (USWFS) at DOI to7348build a comprehensive hazardous fuels program to deliver both7349commercial and non-commercial wildfire risk reduction benefit. USWFS7350leadership will work with the Forest Service to ensure effective, risk-7351based hazardous fuels management on FS land, improving on the7352uncollaborative and siloed approach in the last administration that7353produced competing and uncoordinated hazardous fuel management7354strategies.7355    Question. Were you and your senior career staff, who have fought7356wildfire over their careers, consulted on this proposal?7357    Answer. USDA staff and policy officials have worked closely with7358Administration leadership and the Department of the Interior on the7359proposal.7360    Question. Who in the Administration is spearheading the Wildland7361Fire Service proposal? To whom should Congress, the States, and other7362stakeholders direct our questions?7363    Answer. This is an interagency process and questions can be7364directed to USDA or DOI.7365    Question. We have heard proposals and musings from this7366Administration in support of selling or otherwise disposing of Federal7367lands. Americans are adamantly opposed to this. A poll by the Trust for7368Public Land found that 74% of Americans oppose the closure of public7369lands and 71% oppose selling public lands to the highest bidder. The7370President's FY2026 Budget includes reference to a ``land transfer7371initiative'' to transfer national forest lands to States and Tribes,7372including all existing Job Corps sites.7373    Will you commit to us today that the Administration will not change7374the status of statutorily created special management areas, national7375recreation areas, national monuments, or other special management areas7376on National Forest System lands?7377    Answer. The Forest Service will continue to work within the7378Agency's and President's authorities for all land management7379activities.7380    Question. Under what current authorities would the Forest Service7381implement this ``land transfer initiative'' proposal?7382    Answer. The Forest Service currently has limited conveyance7383authorities such as those under the Small Tracts Act.7384    Question. Is additional statutory authority, through legislation,7385required to institute the ``land transfer initiative'' proposed in the7386President's FY206 Budget?7387    Answer. The Administration will continue to work with Congress on7388any additional authorities needed for the larger initiative.7389    Question. What is the list of proposed sites for disposal7390(including their location, size, and current use) that constitute the 17391million acres being considered for the ``land transfer initiative''7392proposed in the President's FY2026 Budget?7393    Answer. It is important to note that the Federal estate is7394considerable and at its current size challenging to manage within the7395financial resources available. The lands transfer initiative included7396in the FY 2026 Budget would right-size the Federal estate and reduce7397Federal costs for land management and asset maintenance. It will return7398these lands to the governments closest to the people who use them--7399local governments that understand and respect the needs and desires of7400their communities far better than the Federal Government. The7401Administration continues to develop this initiative and will release7402further details as appropriate.74037404                                 ______74057406            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen7407    Question. The Wood Innovation Grant Program has been funded through7408the United States Forest Service's (USFS) Hazardous Fuels account in7409previous years, including covering the cost of at least 16 USFS staff7410to manage these programs. In the FY2026 budget proposal, the7411Administration proposes to move the Hazardous Fuels account and funds7412from USFS to Department of Interior (DOI). In the hearing, you stated7413that the Wood Innovation Grant Program will continue at DOI as a part7414of this transfer, funded at about $30 million. However, the information7415currently available in the President's Budget does not support that7416statement, as there is no mention of continuing the Wood Innovation7417Grant Program at DOI as a part of the proposed Hazardous Fuels account7418transfer.7419    Can you confirm for the record, consistent with your statement7420during the hearing, that the Wood Innovations Grant Program would7421continue to be funded at roughly $30 million?7422    Answer. Wood Innovations is not a standalone funded program but7423rather has historically been funded through annual congressional7424funding directives. It continues to be a priority of the Administration7425and is expected to be part of the Department of the Interior's ongoing7426implementation of the hazardous fuels program that is transferred from7427the Forest Service.7428    Question. How will you budget for the USFS staff needed to continue7429the management of the grant program?7430    Answer. The agency will focus staff on delivering the priorities of7431the Administration.7432    Question. In 1988, the USFS committed to supporting the7433implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program's restoration efforts by7434signing an MOU with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through7435its State, Private, and Tribal Forestry Program, the USFS has had an7436office with permanent full-time staff located in the EPA's Chesapeake7437Bay Program Office since 1992. This office has led efforts to maintain7438forest health, including urban forests, and to restore riparian forest7439buffers throughout the 64,000 square miles of the Chesapeake Bay7440watershed. The USFS has been instrumental in many of the Chesapeake Bay7441Program's successes in restoration progress. In the hearing, you7442acknowledged extensive layoffs, delayed resignations, and early7443retirements have the reduced the USFS workforce.7444    Given USFS staff reductions and elimination of the State, Private,7445and Tribal Forestry budget accounts, how will the USFS continue its7446commitment to support and collaborate with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay7447Program?7448    Answer. The FY 2026 request eliminates funding for the State,7449Private, and Tribal Forestry account to ensure fiscal responsibility7450with American taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate7451roles of Federal and State governments. The budget request anchors to a7452return to federalism, which is a priority for the Trump Administration,7453and encourages increasing State and local governments' authority to7454fund the management of State and privately-owned forests, community7455preparedness, and public risk mitigation activities in alignment with7456local priorities.7457    Question. How many USFS employees are currently working full-time7458in the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program's Office?7459    Answer. As of July 2025, we have one employee working fulltime in7460the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program office in Annapolis.7461    Question. How many USFS employees who were working on the7462Chesapeake Bay Program have left because of layoffs, deferred7463resignations, or early retirements since the start of the current7464administration?7465    Answer. Since the start of the current administration, we had one7466employee leave the Chesapeake Bay Program through the voluntary7467Deferred Resignation Program.74687469                                 ______74707471             Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich7472    Question. The Forest Service projected last year that it would7473treat 4 million acres for hazardous fuels in Fiscal Year 2025. Please7474provide the number of acres so far treated this fiscal year for7475hazardous fuels, divided by treatment type (i.e. prescribed fire,7476mechanical treatment, etc.), month, and state.7477    Answer. Please see attachment 1 to this QFR.74787479--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7480                                                     Hazardous Fuels Activties on National Forest System Lands (Acres, FY25 to Date)7481    State & Type of Activity    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7482                                    Oct        Nov        Dec        Jan        Feb        Mar        Apr        May        Jun        Jul       Total7483--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7484Alabama........................  .........  .........      1,823      8,245     45,038      6,600     12,559      2,954  .........  .........     77,2197485--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7486Mechanical & Other.............  .........  .........  .........        230  .........        255  .........  .........  .........  .........        4857487    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      1,823      8,015     45,038      6,345     12,559      2,954  .........  .........     76,7347488Alaska.........................        173          3  .........  .........  .........          1767489--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7490    Mechanical & Other.........  .........          3  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          37491    Prescribed Fire............        173  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        1737492Arizona........................     41,802     43,343      5,562     10,988      7,154      3,068      8,653      9,375     13,027      9,273    152,2457493--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7494    Mechanical & Other.........      3,868      7,639      1,093         15      4,990      1,199        398        751      5,682  .........     25,6357495    Prescribed Fire............     36,658     21,016        882     10,973      2,164      1,869      8,255      8,624        915  .........     91,3567496    Natural Wildfire Meeting         1,276     14,688      3,587  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      6,430      9,273     35,2547497     Objectives................7498Arkansas.......................        224      1,720        183      1,218     47,563     81,401     60,943      1,118        681      2,860    197,9117499--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7500    Mechanical & Other.........        224      1,720         14        497        676  .........      1,258      1,118        681      2,860      9,0487501    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........        169        721     46,887     80,232     59,686  .........  .........    187,6957502    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,169  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,1697503     Objectives................7504California.....................     29,234     15,577     10,586     11,670      4,432     10,388      3,905      7,674      1,350      1,022     95,8387505--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7506    Mechanical & Other.........     16,111      6,819      3,919      5,275      2,575      7,740        522      6,380      1,337      1,022     51,7017507    Prescribed Fire............        247      8,758      6,667      6,395      1,857      2,648      3,383      1,294         13  .........     31,2627508    Natural Wildfire Meeting        12,876  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     12,8767509     Objectives................7510Colorado.......................      4,668      2,822      4,579      4,808      4,161        400      3,383      6,943        221  .........     31,9857511--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7512    Mechanical & Other.........      2,749        671      1,115        312        992          7         96      3,953        221  .........     10,1167513    Prescribed Fire............      1,919      2,151      3,464      4,496      3,169        393      3,287      2,990     21,870  .........  .........7514Florida........................        595  .........  .........      9,847     24,465      5,384         17      2,798  .........  .........     43,1067515--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7516    Mechanical & Other.........        595  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         17  .........  .........  .........        6127517    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........      9,847     24,465      5,384  .........  .........  .........  .........     39,6967518    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      2,798  .........  .........      2,7987519     Objectives................7520Georgia........................  .........        130      2,579  .........      8,607      2,077        553  .........        463     14,4097521--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7522    Mechanical & Other.........  .........        130  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        463        5937523    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      2,579  .........      8,607  .........      2,077        553  .........  .........     13,8167524Idaho..........................     79,391    117,245     60,053      7,333      2,103        179      7,915      4,880      1,668      1,856    282,6247525--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7526    Mechanical & Other.........      7,571      7,978        209      1,840      1,757        168      5,422        533      1,013      1,856     28,3487527    Prescribed Fire............      4,090      9,231        599         43        346         11      2,493      4,347        655  .........     21,8167528    Natural Wildfire Meeting        67,730    100,035     59,245      5,450  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    232,4607529     Objectives................7530Illinois.......................         76         30  .........        199        180     13,229      3,243  .........  .........  .........     16,9587531--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7532    Mechanical & Other.........         76         30  .........         99        180  .........        808  .........  .........  .........      1,1947533    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        100  .........     13,229      2,435  .........  .........  .........     15,7647534Indiana........................  .........         89  .........         15  .........      2,420      2,818  .........  .........  .........      5,3427535--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7536    Mechanical & Other.........  .........         89  .........  .........  .........        127        427  .........  .........  .........        6437537    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........         15  .........      2,293      2,391  .........  .........  .........      4,6997538Kentucky.......................  .........         80  .........  .........      1,551      3,349  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,9807539--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7540    Prescribed Fire............  .........         80  .........  .........      1,551      3,349  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,9807541Louisiana......................  .........        952      3,719     11,268     13,196     15,228     18,644      1,268      2,980  .........     67,2557542--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7543    Prescribed Fire............  .........        952      3,719     11,268     13,196     15,228     18,644      1,268      2,980  .........     67,2557544Maine..........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........            9  .........  .........  .........          97545--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7546    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          9  .........  .........  .........          97547Michigan.......................      1,789      1,494        692        970      1,362        618      8,310      5,087      2,368        228     22,9187548--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7549    Mechanical & Other.........      1,720      1,456        508        659      1,287        587        800      1,831      1,569        228     10,6457550    Prescribed Fire............         69         38        184        311         75         31      7,509      3,256        799  .........     12,2727551Minnesota......................      3,019        925      2,557      1,926        374        166        935      2,417      4,225      1,379     17,9227552--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7553    Mechanical & Other.........      2,609        887      1,869      1,926        374        166        901      1,582      4,225      1,379     15,9177554    Prescribed Fire............        410         38        688  .........  .........  .........         34        835  .........  .........      2,0057555Mississippi....................  .........         18      2,677      1,726     12,370     15,286     40,886      8,719  .........  .........     81,6827556--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7557    Mechanical & Other.........  .........         18      1,094         46        304      1,352        481        323  .........      3,6187558    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........      1,583      1,680     12,066     13,934     40,406      8,396  .........  .........     78,0647559Missouri.......................      1,602        426      1,018      5,460        227     38,647      4,660      1,496        752  .........     54,2887560--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7561    Mechanical & Other.........        664        426      1,011      2,103        225      2,603      2,098      1,496        752  .........     11,3787562    Prescribed Fire............        938  .........          7      3,357          2     36,044      2,562  .........  .........  .........     42,9107563Montana........................     13,799     10,243     18,429      8,020      1,376      3,173      5,394     15,052      1,289      7,576     84,3517564--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7565    Mechanical & Other.........     10,164      1,773      3,023      6,994      1,024      1,852      2,238      8,738      1,289      7,576     44,6717566    Prescribed Fire............      3,304      6,831      2,254      1,026        352      1,321      3,156      6,314  .........  .........     24,5587567    Natural Wildfire Meeting           331      1,639     13,152  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     15,1227568     Objectives................7569Nebraska.......................         39     11,201          2         16        743  .........      2,029      4,931  .........  .........     18,9617570--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7571    Mechanical & Other.........         39     10,690          2         16  .........  .........  .........      4,931  .........  .........     15,6787572    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........        743  .........      2,029  .........  .........  .........      2,7727573    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        511  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        5117574     Objectives................7575Nevada.........................        831     10,185          5        175         39        256          8  .........      1,534         19     13,0517576--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7577    Mechanical & Other.........        831      1,953  .........  .........  .........  .........          8  .........      1,534         19      4,3457578    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........          5        175         39        256  .........  .........  .........  .........        4757579    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........      8,232  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      8,2327580     Objectives................7581New Hampshire..................        262  .........  .........         51         33         43         73         50  .........  .........        5117582--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7583    Mechanical & Other.........        262  .........  .........         51         33         43  .........         31  .........  .........        4197584    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         73         19  .........  .........         927585New Mexico.....................     11,733      1,201        827        950      1,785         77      3,040        239      3,704      1,026     24,5827586--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7587    Mechanical & Other.........      2,077        198        447        900        488         77      3,040        239      3,690        936     12,0927588    Prescribed Fire............      9,656      1,003        380         50      1,297  .........  .........  .........         90     12,4767589    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         14  .........         147590     Objectives................7591New York.......................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        200         91  .........  .........  .........        2917592--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7593    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        200         91  .........  .........  .........        2917594North Carolina.................  .........  .........  .........        943        977        966      2,588  .........  .........  .........      5,4747595--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7596    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        943        977        966      2,588  .........  .........  .........      5,4747597North Dakota...................      2,230  .........      1,947         48  .........  .........  .........      2,329  .........  .........      6,5537598--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7599    Mechanical & Other.........      2,230  .........      1,857  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      4,0877600    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........         89         48  .........  .........  .........      2,329  .........  .........      2,4667601Ohio...........................         39         62  .........  .........  .........      1,966        927         22         19  .........      3,0357602--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7603    Mechanical & Other.........         39         62  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         22         19  .........        1427604    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,966        927  .........  .........  .........      2,8937605Oklahoma.......................  .........  .........  .........        183      5,409  .........     10,799  .........  .........  .........     16,3917606--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7607    Mechanical & Other.........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,034  .........  .........  .........      1,0347608    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........        183      5,409  .........      9,765  .........  .........  .........     15,3577609Oregon.........................     93,987     30,537     57,601      8,774     30,222      6,051     11,528     18,876      3,567      7,065    268,2087610--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7611    Mechanical & Other.........     15,048      7,335      7,986      3,001     21,561      5,921      8,258      8,897      3,045      7,065     88,1187612    Prescribed Fire............      5,833     23,153     13,115      4,367        612        130      3,270      9,979        522  .........     60,9807613    Natural Wildfire Meeting        73,106         49     36,500      1,406      8,049  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........    119,1107614     Objectives................7615Pennsylvania...................  .........        151        315        187        484        754        599      2,248        106  .........      4,8447616--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7617    Mechanical & Other.........  .........        151        315        187        484        754        599      2,210        106  .........      4,8067618    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         38  .........  .........         387619Puerto Rico....................          7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          77620--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7621    Mechanical & Other.........          7  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          77622South Carolina.................      1,587         39         37      2,144     10,865      1,231      3,235      3,587      1,116        625     24,4667623--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7624    Mechanical & Other.........  .........         39         37        991         15        633        455        234      1,116        625      4,1467625    Prescribed Fire............      1,587  .........  .........      1,153     10,850        598      2,780      3,353  .........  .........     20,3217626South Dakota...................        450        454  .........         87      4,570      1,497      2,457      1,243  .........  .........     10,7587627--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7628    Mechanical & Other.........        228        454  .........  .........        200      1,060  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,9427629    Prescribed Fire............        222  .........  .........         87      4,370        437      2,457      1,243  .........  .........      8,8167630Tennessee......................      1,543  .........  .........         64  .........      7,915  .........  .........  .........  .........      9,5217631--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7632    Mechanical & Other.........      1,543  .........  .........         64  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      1,6067633    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,915  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,9157634Texas..........................  .........      1,207      2,225      5,566     27,796     10,222     53,649      1,798  .........  .........    102,4637635--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7636    Prescribed Fire............  .........      1,207      2,225      5,566     27,796     10,222     53,649      1,798  .........    102,4637637Utah...........................      5,465      9,398        303      3,321      3,365      1,751      1,002     19,100        272      1,058     45,0357638--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7639    Mechanical & Other.........      4,715      7,963         76      3,237  .........        642        577      9,300        272      1,058     27,8407640    Prescribed Fire............        750      1,128        227         84      3,365      1,109        425      9,800  .........     16,8887641    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        307  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        3077642     Objectives................7643Vermont........................          8  .........  .........         20  .........        204        240         91         24  .........        5877644--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7645    Mechanical & Other.........          8  .........  .........         20  .........        204  .........         12         24  .........        2687646    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        240         79  .........  .........        3197647Virginia.......................         44  .........         15        377  .........        638      1,939  .........         41  .........      3,0547648--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7649    Mechanical & Other.........         44  .........         15        377  .........        111        145  .........         41  .........        7337650    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        527      1,794  .........  .........  .........      2,3217651Washington.....................      7,996     16,041        520        269        140      4,505      5,252      1,636      1,123      1,468     38,9497652--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7653    Mechanical & Other.........      2,792        449  .........        188  .........      4,021         10        833      1,123      1,468     10,8837654    Prescribed Fire............      5,204      7,992        520         81        140        484      5,242        803  .........  .........     20,4667655    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........      7,600  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      7,6007656     Objectives................7657West Virginia..................  .........  .........  .........         32  .........        411        641  .........  .........  .........      1,0847658--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7659    Mechanical & Other.........  .........  .........  .........         32  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         327660    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........        411        641  .........  .........  .........      1,0527661Wisconsin......................      1,028        316        334        838      1,388      1,092        803      1,664         62         15      7,5407662--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7663    Mechanical & Other.........      1,028        316        290        747        854      1,091        700        893         12         15      5,9457664    Prescribed Fire............  .........  .........         45         91        534          1        103        771         50  .........      1,5957665Wyoming........................      1,126      3,440     91,365      4,955      2,553        192      2,219      1,865      3,098         59    110,8717666--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7667    Mechanical & Other.........      1,027      2,548        664      4,112        459        192  .........        432        482         59      9,9757668    Prescribed Fire............         99        709        771        843      2,094  .........      2,219      1,433      2,616  .........     10,7847669    Natural Wildfire Meeting     .........        183     89,930  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     90,1137670     Objectives................7671        Grand Total............    304,747    279,328    269,953    112,692    264,528    239,507    287,471    130,011     43,226     35,991  1,967,4557672--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------76737674                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS76757676    Senator Hoeven. And with that, then the hearing is7677completed. Thank you.7678    [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the7679subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of7680the Chair.]76817682       LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS76837684                              ----------7685                                                                   Page76867687Baldwin, Senator Tammy, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, Question7688  Submitted by...................................................7689  106............................................................7690Burgum, Hon. Douglas, Secretary, Department of the Interior:7691    Prepared Statement of........................................7692      68.........................................................7693    Questions Submitted to.......................................7694      102........................................................7695    Statement of.................................................7696      59.........................................................7697    Summary Statement of.........................................7698      66.........................................................76997700Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,7701  Questions Submitted by.........................................7702  51.............................................................77037704Fischer, Senator Deb, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Questions7705  Submitted by...................................................7706  52.............................................................77077708Gillibrand, Senator Kirsten, U.S. Senator from New York,7709  Questions Submitted by77107711Heinrich, Senator Martin, U.S. Senator from New Mexico, Questions7712  Submitted by77137714Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator from Oregon:7715    Questions Submitted by77167717    Statement of77187719Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska:7720    Opening Statement of77217722Rounds, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Questions7723  Submitted by...................................................7724  53.............................................................77257726Schultz, Hon. Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service:7727    Prepared Statement of........................................7728      116........................................................7729    Questions Submitted to.......................................7730      137........................................................7731    Statement of.................................................7732      109........................................................7733    Summary Statement of.........................................7734      114........................................................77357736Van Hollen, Senator Chris, U.S. Senator from Maryland, Questions7737  Submitted by77387739Zeldin, Hon. Lee, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency:7740    Prepared Statement of........................................7741      8..........................................................7742    Questions Submitted to.......................................7743      51.........................................................7744    Statement of.................................................7745      1..........................................................7746    Summary Statement of.........................................7747      6..........................................................77487749                             SUBJECT INDEX77507751                              ----------77527753                         DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR77547755                                                                   Page77567757Additional Committee Questions...................................7758  93.............................................................7759Alaska Issues....................................................7760  100............................................................7761Alaska Resources.................................................7762  72.............................................................7763Bureau of Indian Education Schools...............................7764  89.............................................................7765Chesapeake Bay...................................................7766  84.............................................................7767Critical Minerals................................................7768  86.............................................................7769DOI:7770    Efficiency...................................................7771      94.........................................................7772    Reprogramming................................................7773      95.........................................................7774Federal:7775    Appropriations Process.......................................7776      96.........................................................7777    Land Management..............................................7778      83.........................................................7779Fiscal Year 2025 Funding.........................................7780  75.............................................................7781Great American Outdoors Act......................................7782  75.............................................................7783Hurricane Ridge..................................................7784  79.............................................................7785Indian Affairs...................................................7786  81.............................................................7787Ice Age Trail....................................................7788  90.............................................................7789Insular Affairs..................................................7790  95.............................................................7791National:7792    Monuments....................................................7793      90.........................................................7794    Parks77957796    Park System..................................................7797      74.........................................................7798Norcross, GA Water Science Center................................7799  92.............................................................7800Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge..............................7801  92.............................................................7802Oklahoma Law Enforcement.........................................7803  87.............................................................7804Ocmulgee National Park Initiative................................7805  93.............................................................7806President's FY 2026 Budget Request for Specific Priorities, The..7807  116............................................................7808Productivity.....................................................7809  78.............................................................7810Public:7811    Lands........................................................7812      78.........................................................7813    Lands and National Parks.....................................7814      79.........................................................7815    Safety and Justice...........................................7816      100........................................................7817Reorganization...................................................7818  102............................................................7819Tribal Law Enforcement...........................................7820  77.............................................................7821United Stated Geogocial Survey...................................7822  91.............................................................7823Wild Horses......................................................7824  77.............................................................7825Wildland:7826    Fire.........................................................7827      81.........................................................7828        Budget...................................................7829          101....................................................7830Workforce Efficiencies78317832Working Together.................................................7833  71.............................................................78347835                               [all]