Senate Energy and Natural Resources (Murkowski): Hearings to examine the state of the U.S. Territories.

Morning. The committee will come to order. We're going to conduct a brief business meeting before our hearing today, so we'll start with that. In today's business meeting, the Senate will take up S.1547, reauthorizing the National Parks and the Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, sponsored by Senator Daines. First, let me ask if any senator wishes to offer an amendment.

Okay. Yes, Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to note that reauthorizing the Legacy Restoration Fund is a priority for me, as it is for many of us on this committee. In California alone, we have nearly a $5 billion deferred maintenance backlog on our federally managed public lands, and this reauthorization could provide nearly $1 billion to address that over 5 years.

Why I co-sponsored the America the Beautiful Act, which I thank Senator Daines and Senator King for all their hard work on. However, the substitute amendment before us today would change the bill significantly from the one I chose and agreed to co-sponsor. Specifically, I'm concerned about the amendment's approach towards nonresident visitor fees. In January, the Park Service implemented a whopping $100 per person surcharge for nonresident visitors at 11 national parks, including Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks in California, some of the most heavily visited parks in the country. I'm concerned that this bill would codify this surcharge and apply it to all Park Service units that collect fees.

I'm also particularly concerned about how the Park Service determines who is required to pay these extra fees. Our national parks are significant contributors to local economies and should be welcoming to all who visit our country. Under the current practice, these fees have been collected on the honor system. However, if we codify this, I fear that parks could become de facto immigration checkpoints where our hardworking Park Service staff will be required to check passports birth certificates, and that's not their job. It's not something they're trained to do, and that's not what I signed up for.

Now, as to the amendments, I have a couple quick ones. It's my understanding that the goal of the nonresident fee is to apply to foreign tourists. However, the definition of nonresident has been left very vague in the text before us. That's why I filed the second-degree amendment with Senator Hickenlooper that would only apply these surcharges to foreign visitors on tourist visas, which I believe was the original intention. The language in our amendment would bring the bill in line with the bipartisan House version led by Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman on the House side.

This is Amendment 1A2. But, Mr. Chairman, I understand that our staffs are having encouraging and productive conversations to resolve this drafting issue. So I'd certainly like to see these issues addressed in the bill before its final passage, but I believe since members of both sides want to address this, I won't bring up the Padilla-Hickenlooper Amendment 1A2. But I have another critical issue that we need to address, which is how revenue from nonresident visitor surcharges would be shared across the Park Service system. Currently, at least 80% of the fee revenue collected at a Park Service unit stays in the unit where it was collected, while 20% benefits other parks around the country.

But the bill before us does not keep any of the surcharge revenue in the park where the fee was collected. Instead, it would redirect all of the additional revenue into the broader legacy Restoration Fund. I strongly believe that parks that are heavily visited and experience additional strain on their natural resources and infrastructure should be— this should be proportionally supported based on these surcharges. So, um, Second Amendment Padilla-Hickenlooper 1A1 has been filed that would require at least 80% of these foreign tourist surcharges be dedicated to addressing the maintenance, maintenance in the park where it was collected. Now, I understand that this is— the surcharge was added as a pay-for, and that we still do not have a CBO score for the bill.

But in good faith, I will not bring up this second-degree amendment for a vote today, knowing that we're continuing to work, uh, on this issue and maintaining the spirit that parks that collect high levels of revenue receive their proportionate share of support for deferred maintenance. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, my third amendment that I want to bring up, I believe it's critical that gateway communities and the public be able to have a say in these foreign tourist surcharges. When the Department of Interior created these nonresident visitor fees in January. They did not consult with the public in any way, despite consultation being a legal requirement of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. There was no public consultation on how expensive these fees should be.

There were no studies on the potential impacts on visitation levels and no analysis on the impacts to gateway communities and local businesses. I sent a letter to the Department of Interior in December with several of my colleagues on this committee requesting information on what public consultation occurred and how these fees would be implemented, and we have yet to receive a response. Now, as written, the bill would strive to, quote, maximize revenue, while, quote, retaining non-resident visitation when deciding the amount of the surcharge. It only seems appropriate that the gateway communities and local stakeholders should be consulted, given the impacts to local economies and the bottom line for many businesses and families. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you working with my staff to include language in your substitute amendment to provide public participation opportunities, uh, to gateway communities and local stakeholders in accordance with existing law.

And given these surcharges would no doubt impact local communities, I appreciate you supporting us and allowing all of our constituents to have a voice in this process. And I appreciate that the, uh— Thank you. Manager's Amendment includes language to address this third concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, Senator Padilla.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on these matters. I appreciate that. Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the concerns that Senator Padilla has expressed, and the amended bill would expand the authority of the National Park Service to charge international visitors higher fees at all fee-collecting parks.

Since January of this year, 11 fee- collecting parks have charged higher fees for nonresidents. We don't yet have data on what revenues— what revenue that has generated or the impacts that those higher fees have had on visitations to gateway communities, which is why, as Senator Padilla noted, it is important for community input and consultation regarding these higher fees. We should have that information before we expand that to all fee-collecting parks and codifying it into law. Another change to the underlying bill is that an entire provision has been included giving the Department of the Interior the authority to license intellectual property. The amendment would give the Department of the Interior authority similar to that given to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, but without requiring similar governing regulations.

I think that is an important aspect to giving this kind of authority to the Interior Department that the other two departments that have this kind of authority, they did have to undergo rulemaking to implement that authority. So I'm a cosponsor of the underlying bill, which has brought bipartisan support. So I'm glad that we are moving the bill. And I do support the basic purpose of this bill, even in the amended form and the concerns that I have. And the underlying purpose is to extend the authority for the Department of the Interior to address deferred maintenance needs on our public lands.

We know that it's in the billions of dollars of deferred maintenance, and it's something that I very much support. I would again associate myself with Senator Padilla's remarks and hope that we can improve this bill before the full Senate considers it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much, Senator Hirono. I'm going to defer my opening statement and my remarks on the bill until after we vote.

And we'll allow everybody else to speak afterwards if they'd like. But I'd like to turn now to my amendment that I've offered jointly with Senator Heinrich. And I want to thank Senator Heinrich and his team for— and all the others who have participated in this, including Senator King. Our teams have worked very hard on this and I'm grateful for it. This will be Amendment 1A, the Lee-Heinrich Amendment, and this will be a voice vote.

All those in favor of the Lee Heinrich Amendment Number 1A, all those in favor of that amendment say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the amendment is agreed to.

We'll now go to the bill, S.1547, as amended. And the question is on the bill. All those in favor of the bill Signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And the bill, S.1547, as amended, will be reported favorably to the Senate. I'll now recognize any speaker who wants to be heard on this legislation. I see hands up from Senator Daines and Senator Murkowski on this side, Senator King and Senator Heinrich on this side.

Mr. Chairman, we just witnessed something that looked very easy, but was very hard. This was a very profound moment to have a voice vote on what we just accomplished. And it's nice to have some good news in Washington, D.C. for a change of bipartisan cooperation, compromise, and a great outcome. The teams were up literally until about 6:30 this morning. Working to get to this point, and I want to commend them.

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, thank you for your leadership. And thanks to all the staff who are bleary-eyed and bushed this morning for working very late nights and long hours to get to where we're at here today. This is a big step forward. The Great America Outdoors Act was viewed as one of the greatest conservation wins in 50 years. I think similarly now we extend the work that was done with that bill by reauthorizing this tremendous investment in addressing the maintenance backlog in our national parks and national forests.

This amendment and the bill we're sending to the full Senate represents a bipartisan and bicameral collaborative outcome. We've been working with the administration, both sides of the aisle here in the Senate, as well as keeping our House colleagues in the loop— Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Huffman— so that we can move it not only out of the Senate but get it through the House into the President's desk. We've taken priorities from the House, the Senate, the administration, many members on this committee, and there were reforms made. The reforms we did make strengthen the Legacy Restoration Fund, help us tackle that growing maintenance backlog on our parks and public lands, It's a great down payment to help fix the aging infrastructure and bolster our recreation economy. This is supported by over 100 groups.

It has 64 Senate bipartisan cosponsors. And I want to thank my co-chair, Senator King, his staff. As many of you know, on the National Parks Subcommittee, we don't have a chairman and ranking member. Senator King and I have always agreed on a handshake. We are co-chairs no matter which way the gavel falls in majority minority position.

Senator King and I are co-chairs, been a wonderful partner on that subcommittee, and we have an outcome here today. I also want to thank Senator Murkowski and her staff, Secretary Bergam and his staff. I can't tell you how many text messages I have on my phone right now in the last 72 hours with the Secretary, working together with the administration to get to this point here today and this morning. I know their teams work all night with many of the staff that are sitting behind us here on this dais today. I look forward to working with Chairman Westerman.

They had a big hearing, even had Kevin Costner in Hot Springs, Arkansas on Friday to have a hearing about this bill, as well as Ranking Member Huffman. Good morning. We want to thank them for the work already done, and now once we have done the work here, to toss it to the House and get it through there as quickly as possible. So I urge my colleagues here and my friends in the House, let's get this bill on President Trump's desk before the Fourth of July. I can't think of no better president— no better present for the president and the country on America's 250th birthday than supporting our national parks.

Thank you. On our public lands. Chairman Lee, thank you. Thank you, Senator Daines. And a minute ago, I thanked Senator Heinrich and Senator King and their teams and neglected to mention others, including Senator Murkowski, you, Senator Daines, for your great work on this.

And I know you and your teams have also been working really hard on it and burned the midnight oil along with Senator Murkowski. And Chairman Lee, if I might say, you are the chairman, you have the gavel. Were it not for your cooperation on this bill, we wouldn't be here today as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for that because you hold the gavel, and without your cooperation and leadership, we wouldn't have had this outcome. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator Daines, I'm pleased to be able to follow your comments. You have been a leader in this space with the Great American Outdoors Act from the very beginning.

You have had a passion and a purpose, I think, towards this. And it is reflected in the working relationship that you have with your vice chair, Senator King. I too want to acknowledge the extraordinary hard work that so many people put into this. And I was somewhat amused by your statement, Senator Daines, that we made this look easy this morning. And it was anything but.

But I think that that is reflective of the hard work to get to yes, instead of people who were coming to the table dead set to oppose it, just, just to be able to oppose something. And in fairness, that's kind of the political climate that we are operating in. And so I think it says much about what we're talking about here this morning, which is our great American outdoors, something that whether you are from Montana Alaska, Hawaii, California, Mississippi, doesn't make any difference where you are. There is a deep love for our national treasures and for those areas that we find very personally connected and attached to. And so when we look at the list of deferred maintenance around the country for these treasured spaces and places, We should all be worried about it.

And so what was put in place with the Legacy Restoration Fund was significantly important. We need— we need to be aggressive in how we are handling our deferred maintenance. And so this reauthorization was very important. What was equally important in this, and I think the role that I and really my staff on the Appropriations Committee— Thank you. Worked aggressively around the clock with Senator Merkley's team.

I chair the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee along with Senator Merkley, and so our role here is to make sure that Congress's role in, in understanding how we're going to implement these priorities is maintained. And so ensuring that there was a list that is presented from the President to the legislative branch as outlined in, in GOA was important to maintain that. And how we, how we are able then to, to not only receive a list, but to be able to ensure that there is accountability on, on both sides, that we are not establishing a, a venue for the administration, any administration going forward, to kind of pick and choose and inject layers of politics into what should not be political, but again, really caring for our treasures. So I'm very appreciative, Mr. Chairman, of your leadership in this, and Senator Heinrich, your willingness to work with all of us, not only on this committee, but outside the committee as well. Thank you.

Truly very appreciative. Thanks so much. Senator Heinrich, and then we'll go to Senator King. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for marking up this legislation. This is a good model for how we can get things done on this committee.

You know, when I go home, left, right, and center, people make their family memories on our public lands, and so reinvesting in that infrastructure is incredibly important. I also want to thank Senator Daines, Senator King, all of the co-sponsors, the appropriations staff who worked all night to land this deal, and we got it done with minutes to spare. So I don't think— it may look easy this morning, but this was a big lift, and I want to thank everybody who worked so hard to make it happen. Thank you. Senator King.

Well, I want to provide my thanks just as all of us have, particularly to the staff who often don't get the recognition, who are working, as Senator Heinrich said, all night, literally, to finalize this document. Steve, Senator Daines, great to work with you, and this is the way this place is supposed to work. Bipartisan work together on a common cause important to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your accepting my amendment that this money will be allocated alphabetically by park, starting with Acadia. Actually, there's no such thing, but it's a good idea.

This is a strong objection from the guy who loves Yellowstone Park, which I know I know Senator Barrasso would associate himself with Yosemite. And Yosemite. And he's got Zion. I guess Zion is not going to fare well in that one. We're going to have the Y caucus rebel here, but go ahead, Angus.

Proceed at great risk. No, seriously. And I do want to inject one note of frustration, not with this bill, but for the necessity of the bill. Through multiple administrations, I had great problems with the last administration, on not providing adequate maintenance in the regular budget. We're doing a bill on deferred maintenance because we haven't adequately done maintenance which should have been done every year as part of the base budget of the, of the Interior Department, the National Park Service.

So this is a major accomplishment, but I think we should also work with the current administration, the next administration, to be sure that that this doesn't— we don't have to do this every 5 years. Because not doing maintenance is a kind of debt. It's incurring a debt, and we're now going to pay that debt. But going forward, I hope that whoever is in charge of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service budget will take the maintenance responsibility as seriously as they do the other portions. So— but with that note, this is an extraordinary achievement.

And it's being done in exactly the right way with a lot of work, a lot of compromises, a lot of— but as I think Senator Murkowski said, a lot of the impulse was to get to yes. And we made that happen. And we're not there yet. We've got to work with the House. We've got to continue to refine the bill, get through on the Senate floor.

But this is an important step forward for America and for—. Thank you. Our national parks. And I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member Heinrich for their leadership on this. We wouldn't be here without you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, what we're going to do now, we'll go ahead and conclude the business meeting, and then I'll give my opening statement for the hearing, in which I'll also give my brief remarks on this bill, put those into the record. Our national parks Our national parks are among the most popular features of the U.S. government. Not everything we do in this town necessarily brings about absolute popularity, but people like their national parks.

The national parks are iconic. They are among the most recognizable places in America. Millions of people travel from across America and from throughout the world to witness their beauty. And we— [SPEAKING SPANISH] as Americans, have a responsibility to make sure that they're well maintained and that they're going to be there for generations to come, as beautiful as ever. By 2020, however, there were— was some broad agreement that the federal government had fallen short of that responsibility.

Roads, trails, visitor centers, campgrounds, water systems, and other critical infrastructure at many of our national parks and on other federal lands were piling up. They were piling up these huge deferred maintenance backlog lists faster than the agencies responsible for managing them were able to address them. The Great American Outdoors Act, often pronounced as GOA, was—. GOA. Congress's answer to that challenge.

But when GOA first came before Congress during the first Trump administration, I had serious concerns about how the program was structured and whether it would actually solve the problems that it was set up to solve. Specifically, the drafters included a permanent extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in GOA, which allowed the government to continue permanently growing a federal estate that it's proven not to be able to, to manage, as evidenced by its massive and growing deferred maintenance backlog, increasing costs and restricting many communities, especially in the western United States where a lot of these lands are found, and ultimately adding to the deferred maintenance backlog. At the time of passage of GOA, the deferred maintenance backlog across federal land management agencies clocked in at about $26 billion. Today, after 6 years and roughly $10 billion taxpayer dollars, that maintenance backlog has skyrocketed up to $43 billion. Reasonable people can disagree as to why the backlog has increased instead of decreased.

But whatever explanation, one prefers. The fact remains that Congress should not reauthorize programs on autopilot. We ought to stop from time to time and ask whether they're achieving their intended purpose. And if the intended purpose of GOA was to reduce the backlog, and 6 years later the backlog is larger than when the program began— significantly larger, I would add— then what should Congress do? Well, one of the things that I appreciate about this committee is that members can disagree and then keep talking and work for forward toward a stronger product and a better outcome.

I'm very proud of that. And as I mentioned earlier, together with Senator Daines, Senator King, Ranking Member Heinrich, Senator Murkowski, and so many others in the Trump administration, we've done just that. I'm also very grateful for Secretary Bergam at the Department of Secretary of the Interior for his help and encouragement. Thank you. And I also again want to thank the staff who worked literally all night.

And given that we recently experienced another all-night photo-rama, I know that that can be very taxing. So I thank them and all those involved. But the amendment that we adopted today, along with this bill, to —pass it on to the Senate floor represents a real compromise. And while I've got concerns that language added at the behest of, of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee could slow down the issuance of 2027 funding to our states, and the legislation does not include needed reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the improvements reflected in the legislation demonstrate what can be accomplished when members are willing to engage in good faith negotiations and work through legitimate concerns to figure out what can pass. So I hope that we can carry the same approach into conversations that lie ahead because there's still a lot of work to be done.

We ought to continue examining how federal agencies prioritize maintenance. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And how—. And what order projects are selected. For maintenance, whether the current policies are encouraging the federal government to acquire land faster than it can maintain the land, the vast acreage that it already owns. I look forward to continuing those talks with my colleagues in the months ahead.

The drafters of the original GOA made— not a— there wasn't an adequately serious attempt to offset spending within the bill, even though many of the ideas were proposed. The late Senator Enzi proposed a solution: include a modest surcharge on foreign visitors to our national parks. This is done in other countries when Americans visit foreign destinations, and it makes sense to codify President Trump's executive order on the— on this point. That said, the bill before us is already partially offset. This is a positive step, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that legislation of this size is is fully paid for before it reaches the President's desk.

And I also believe that will be crucial to its passage in the House, if not also the Senate. And I hope we can continue working together to identify additional offsets as the bill moves through the Senate process and advances to and through the floor. America's national parks are a source of great national pride. It's my hope that if we can continue working together as we have today and in the days leading up to it, we can pass them on to the next generation in a condition that will make us all proud.

Anyone else want to speak on this bill before we proceed to the separate hearing on the Great American Outdoors Act? No.

All right, the business meeting is now adjourned and we'll begin the hearing. Yeah, got you. Thanks.

Okay, we'll now open the hearing portion of our meeting today. Today we're pleased to be joined by the governors or representatives of 5 U.S. Territories. These territories are beautiful and distinctive regions of America, and I look forward to hearing from each of these governors and representatives as to the state of affairs of the U.S. Territories and what, if anything, they would ask of Congress.

These governors or their senior representatives are as follows: The Honorable Jennifer González Colón, Governor of Puerto Rico. Welcome. The Honorable Albert Bryan, Jr., the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Welcome, sir.

Mr. Henry Hofschneider, Chief of Staff to Governor David Apatong of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, here today because the governor is dealing with the impact of a major typhoon that has hit his territory. Welcome. Also, the honorable Lourdes Aflage Leon Guerrero, Governor of Guam. Welcome.

And the Honorable Nick Pula, the Governor of American Samoa. I wish to welcome each of you to this committee. America's territories occupy some of the most strategically important ground under the American flag. They strengthen American national security and support our economy, extend America's presence into regions that will play a defining role well into the 21st century. In the Pacific, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, we see lands that are key to America's ability to deter aggression and maintain stability in the region, increasingly threatened by China's growing military ambitions and its potential designs with regard to Taiwan.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Further south, American Samoa expands our presence in the region, providing valuable logistical support for U.S. Operations while strengthening our relationships with Pacific island nations. In the Caribbean, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands anchor America's security and economic interests in that region. Their location gives the United States a strategic foothold that strides some of the hemisphere's most important shipping lanes.

While Puerto Rico has become a hub of America's pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity. These territories have been part of the American family for generations. They've contributed greatly to our country, and they'll continue to play a really important role in its future. Their importance to our country is undeniable. So too are the challenges they face.

In Puerto Rico, the island continues to struggle with energy reliability. Aging infrastructure, and concerns about the management of public resources. Millions of citizens still live with an electric power grid that too often experiences devastating rolling blackouts. The Virgin Islands face similar challenges. Public debt, high energy costs, and aging infrastructure continue to place pressure on residents and on businesses.

[SPEAKING SPANISH] Residents of the Virgin Islands pay some of the highest electricity rates anywhere under the American flag. Rates that are roughly 3 times the U.S. National average, while continuing to endure service disruptions and aging infrastructure. In the Northern Mariana Islands, economic concerns increasingly intersect with and affect national security concerns. The CNMI sits just 60 miles from Guam, which houses some of America's most important military installations.

Earlier this year, my colleagues and I called on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior to terminate the CNMI Economic Vitality and Security Travel Authorization Program, a Biden-era policy that allows nationals from the People's Republic of China to enter the Northern Mariana Islands for up to 14 days without a visa. This policy has threatened uh, to create, and in some cases created, serious problems. Chinese nationals have been convicted of trafficking methamphetamine into the CMI— CMI. The program has facilitated birth tourism and created additional travel avenues to Guam. At a time when the Chinese Communist Party is actively seeking to expand its influence in that region, and seemingly everywhere, We shouldn't be providing special access to a U.S.

Territory for PRC nationals. I continue to urge the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Department of the Interior, to terminate the CNMI Economic Vitality and Security Travel Authorization Program and to end Hong Kong's participation in the broader Guam CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Guam remains indispensable to America's security posture. In the Indo-Pacific. As tensions in the region grow, Guam's importance will only increase, making it all the more important that we take seriously the challenge— the challenges that we face in that region as a whole.

The circumstances facing each territory are very unique, but a common theme runs through them all: strong infrastructure, sound governance, economic opportunity, and national security are deeply connected. Our territories are not peripheral to America's future. As competition in the Pacific intensifies, as economic pressures continue in the Caribbean, and as these communities confront challenges of their own, Congress has a responsibility to pay attention. Their future matters not only to the people who live here— not only to the people who live there, rather, in those territories, but to the United States of America as a whole. Uh, cheers.

Uh, happy now to recognize, uh, our ranking member, Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman Lee, and I want to thank all of our governors and witnesses for being with us here today. Uh, this hearing reflects an important duty of this committee to invite and provide a platform for leaders from the United States territories to address Congress and speak to speak directly about the issues affecting their communities. And what we as senators and members of this committee are doing here today is simple but important. We are listening to you.

We can review reports and data, but there is frankly no substitute to hearing directly from all of you about the experiences, the challenges, and the future plans of your communities. Taken together, you represent roughly 3.5 million Americans. Living in Puerto Rico and Guam, in the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The people you represent serve in our military.

They strengthen this nation. They live under the policies passed by Congress. And yet too often their voices reach this chamber only when Congress chooses to make space to hear them. As our nation prepares to mark 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, I also recognize that more than 125 years ago, the United States established the governing framework for the territories that still shape these relationships today. These relationships are deeply important to our nation, but they have also created a reality where millions of Americans continue to experience a very different relationship with the federal government than those of us living on the mainland.

That reality makes hearings like this one even more important. [HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE] This morning we will hear from these representatives about energy costs, about disaster recovery, healthcare access, food security, and economic development in their communities. We will hear what it takes to build resilience in places that have experienced extraordinary hardship. One challenge facing every territory represented here today is the rising cost of energy. Families, small businesses, schools, hospitals, and local government are all feeling the impact of high electricity and fuel costs and fuel prices.

And while we are seeing energy costs skyrocket across the country, island communities often feel those impacts first and more severely because much of their energy supply depends on imported fuel. I know you all are working with your communities to modernize aging energy infrastructure, strengthen grid reliability, but I also know that These efforts take time, resources, and sustained commitment from the federal government as well. And many of your communities are also still recovering from devastating natural disasters, from the hurricanes that reshaped Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to recent typhoons in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam that have once again demonstrated how important it is that we invest in durable infrastructure in island communities. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And climate change is making all of these challenges harder, from increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events to placing even greater strain on already fragile infrastructure, agriculture, and critical services. Energy resilience is not a luxury for island communities.

It is the foundation for everything else. When electricity prices run 2 or 3, even 4 times higher than the national average, That is not simply an inconvenience. It is every part of daily life in every corner of the economy. Uh, the issue is not a lack of local leadership or willingness to do the work. The question is whether the federal government is following through on the commitments that have already been made, funds already appropriated, projects already underway.

Too often, implementation moves far slower than communities can afford to wait. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] But these challenges extend far beyond energy and disaster recovery. For many families, unequal access to basic federal programs remains part of that same story. I have long supported greater parity for the territories in federal nutrition and health programs, and I believe that this committee should continue using every tool within its jurisdiction to help communities build resilience against storms, against habitat loss and invasive species, against rising energy costs, and against the kind of slow federal response that can turn a disaster into a decade-long crisis. At a time when families are already paying more for electricity, for fuel, groceries, and other daily necessities, Congress has a responsibility to understand whether federal policies are helping communities build resilience or making those challenges harder to overcome.

To our witnesses, thank you for making this trip. The Senate does not always come to you, but you are here and we are listening. Thank you. Thanks so much. And he makes an excellent point.

A lot of our witnesses come from across the country. You've traveled much farther distances than many of them have to travel, and we're grateful for that. I'll now invite each of you to give your opening statements, and your full written statements will also be made part of the record. We'll begin today with Governor González Colón, who has been serving as the 15th governor of Puerto Rico since the ratification of the Puerto Rico Constitution in 1952. She formerly served in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 2002 to 2017, and as resident commissioner of Puerto Rico from 2017 to 2025.

Governor González Colón, you may proceed. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Hendrick, and all members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the state of Puerto Rico today. I think it's important to have any territories today. As governor, I made a commitment to restore fiscal responsibility, accelerate the reconstruction of our energy grid and critical infrastructure, and strengthen Puerto Rico's contribution to national and economic security.

And we are delivering some results. In 2016, Puerto Rico faced bankruptcy, and Congress enacted PROMESA. Last year, I signed our first certified balanced budget since that law. And now, for the first time in a decade, the government of Puerto Rico led the budget development process. Once approved by—.

13 Days. 13 Days. We expect this will become our second certified certified balanced budget. We have cut contract spending by over $900 million in just one year and repealed nearly 400 regulations and 13 pages of obsolete regulatory text. And we are advancing reforms to improve the ease of doing business and attract investment on the island.

As a result, total employment reached 1.1 million in March of this year. The highest level since 2008. In one year, our trade surplus expanded by 30%. Exports increased by 3.6%, reaching $64.2 billion. And construction employment increased by 5%, adding 1,900 jobs.

When I took office, Puerto Rico was facing a power generation shortfall, and projections indicated that we will experience widespread blackouts blackouts last summer. Thanks to God and working with the Trump administration, and with emergency orders from the Department of Energy, we restored more than 1,600 megawatts of generation capacity and have not experienced an island-wide blackout in over a year. With DOE support, we are investing $368 million in grid improvements scheduled for completion by the end of this year. Thank you. With EPA permitting assistance, we are converting power plants from oil to cleaner and more affordable natural gas, a transition expected to reduce energy costs by approximately $180 million annually.

We are also pursuing 3,000 megawatts of new permanent baseload generation through public-private partnerships. Through our strong oversight of utility operators, we have accelerated FEMA-funded energy reconstruction projects increasing construction by more than 25%. FEMA-funded permanent works projects in execution have increased by more than 37%. During the past week, over 1,000 customers lacked water due to decades of underinvestment in our water utility system. We're still restoring that service, and to permanently resolve it, we have committed over $7.5 billion in 351 active capital improvement projects.

We're helping bring manufacturing back to America through an aggressive reshoring strategy. After all, made in Puerto Rico is made in the USA. To date, 23 manufacturing companies such as Eli Lilly, Amgen, Stryker have committed to invest more than $2.6 billion and create more than 5,700 jobs supporting our economy while reducing U.S. dependence on foreign adversaries for pharmaceuticals and other critical products. With the renewed attention on the Western Hemisphere, Puerto Rico is also playing a leading role supporting the counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean and helping keeping the homeland safe. Looking ahead, one of our most pressing priorities is securing long-term Medicaid funding for Puerto Rico after current 5-year agreement I achieved while I was serving in Congress expires in September 2027.

More than 1.3 million Americans on the island rely on this program. As I have outlined, we are balancing budgets, rebuilding our infrastructure, and strengthening American supply chain and creating new opportunities. As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Puerto Rico stands ready to continue contributing as an equal, full-fledged member of the union. Thank you. Since 2012, Puerto Rico voters chosen statehood in 4 plebiscites.

I look forward to working with Congress to respect that democratic mandate and secure equal rights, responsibilities, and representation for the 3.2 million Americans who call Puerto Rico home. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thanks so much, Governor. We'll now turn to Governor Bryan. Of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Governor Bryan is serving as the 9th governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, a role that he has held since January 7th, 2019. Governor Bryan, you're recognized and you may proceed. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to be here on behalf of the more than 87,000 American citizens and other residents who call the United States Virgin Islands their home. As I prepare to conclude the services— as I prepare to conclude the service as Governor, I do so with great pride.

I've had the privilege and the test of serving through some of the most difficult chapters in our history. I have watched our people recover from two Category 5 hurricanes and endure a global pandemic that temporarily brought our tourism economy to a standstill. But despite this, we have come out of the other side with a tourism industry and a community that is stronger than before. And through it all, I have watched Virgin Islanders rebuild with the resilience, determination, and patriotism that have always defined our community. We are proud Americans.

Our sons and daughters serve in uniform. Our students pledge allegiance to the same flag that flies over this Capitol. But throughout my years as governor, I have come to understand a difficult truth. Despite our American citizenship, Virgin Islanders are asked to overcome barriers that Americans elsewhere never have to face, simply because we're— because we're in this great nation we call home. That is not simply unfair to the people of the Virgin Islands, it is also a missed opportunity for the union.

We occupy one of the most strategic locations in the Caribbean. We can strengthen America's maritime presence, support energy security, expand regional commerce, and serve as a gateway to the hemisphere. Yet our ability to contribute is too often constrained by outdated federal policies and foreign actions beyond our control. And over the past 7 years, I have learned that these issues are not faced only by our territory. The American territories have increasingly come together to identify shared challenges and speak with a common voice.

That cooperation has shown that these are not isolated concerns. They are common American challenges that can and should be addressed through partnership. So my message today is simple. The people of the Virgin Islands are not asking for special treatment. We are asking Congress to remove these barriers to guarantee that we have the same opportunities, the same tools, and the same chance to succeed that every American community on the mainland enjoys.

Thank you. One of the clearest examples of these barriers is healthcare. More than 24% of our population is over the age of 65, and thousands of Virgin Islanders rely on Medicaid, Medicare, and disability benefits. Congress has already taken important steps to improve the healthcare funding for the territories, such as a permanent adjustment to the territories' Medicaid matching rate, and I thank the members of both parties who helped make that progress possible. Thank you.

But the work remains unfinished. While the Medicaid funding in the states automatically expands whenever enrollment or economic needs rise, the Virgin Islands continues to operate under a permanent federal funding cap. Our hospitals face similar challenges. Even when Virgin Islanders can access care, the institutions serving them must operate under a reimbursement system, TEFRA, that has not kept pace with the realities of modern medicine. Similar disparities exist with Supplemental Security Income, or SSI.

An elderly American citizen living in a state may qualify for SSI benefit, but that same American citizen with the same disability and the same financial need may lose access to those benefits simply by moving to the Virgin Islands. Their citizenship has not changed, their circumstances have not changed, only their address. The promises and benefits of American citizenship should not depend on the geography, as the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Bayhelo Madero. Only Congress can address these disparities.

And the same principle applies to economic opportunity. For generations, the refinery on St. Croix was an economic engine for our territory, created jobs and strengthened families. But— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] It remains closed due to the heavy-handed application of environmental rules. That is not only a loss for Virgin Islanders, it is a missed opportunity for the United States.

We need the kind of future at home that helps— that federal policies help. Today, under the net CFC-tested income regime, federal tax rules can treat investment in the Virgin Islands as much like the investment in foreign jurisdiction. Thank you. Discouraging companies from investing in an American community. But the Virgin Islands is not a foreign country.

We opened under a miracle tax system established by Congress itself, yet we are treated disparately by the European Union as we are a blacklisted entity, even though our taxes are controlled by the U.S. I want to conclude by saying, as I see my time is running out, that I really want to thank the Congress. Over the last 8 years, we have made tremendous progress. We have fixed our retirement system. By the end of the year, over 50% of our grid will be renewable.

We have recovered over $25 billion for our recovery. We have— of that, $11 billion of that has already created opportunities in contracts. Our tourism product is on fire. All we need now is to get the same treatment as everybody else. And yes, our power woes are becoming less and less, but we still need some help there as well.

So I'd like to thank the committee for their work that they have done, for listening to us over the years, and for the tremendous support of the Bipartisan Budget Act, which has really set us on a course for— that is anchored in progress. Thank you. Thank you, Governor Bryant. The chair now recognizes Mr. Hofschneider, testifying on behalf of the governor of the Northern Mariana Islands. Mr. Hofschneider serves as chief of staff to Governor Apo'teng, who again, unfortunately, was not able to join us today as CNMI continues to recover from the effects of Typhoon Sinlaku, which made landfall in April but has caused significant destruction to CNMI, necessitating his ongoing presence there to dig out from that mess.

Mr. Hofschneider, thanks for joining us. You are now recognized. Thank you. Hafa adai, Tiro. Buenos días, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am Henry Hofschneider, and I serve as the Chief of Staff to David M. Apatang, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. I am honored to provide these remarks on behalf of Governor Apatang and the people of the Commonwealth. The governor sends his regrets that he is unable to appear in person today. Conditions in the CMI and the current demands of disaster recovery require his presence at home.

As our government, our communities, our federal partners continue to work on the work of recovery following Super Typhoon Sinlaku, the governor has asked me to convey his deep appreciation to this committee for its undistracted attention to the needs of the CNMI and for the federal partnership that remains essential to our recovery, stability, and long-term future. When the governor was last in Washington, D.C. in February of this year, the Commonwealth participated in Section 902 consultation and the senior meeting of the interagency on insular group areas. At that time, we discussed many of the same long-term challenges that continue to shape our future: economic recovery, infrastructure, energy, labor, healthcare, and federal partnership. In February, these challenges were already severe. The Commonwealth was facing a deep fiscal and economic crisis caused by the failure of our primary economic sector, tourism, to recover from the collapse of international travel after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Historically important visitor markets had deteriorated, government revenue had declined sharply, and federal pandemic resources had expired. Since then, these challenges have deepened. 9 Weeks ago, Super Typhoon Sinulaco struck our islands. It tested our people, our infrastructure, public services, and our economy. It damaged homes, disrupted power and water systems, affected businesses, public facilities, roads, ports, schools, and healthcare services, and place a new pressure on a government already operating under austerity.

The Governor has asked me to be clear with the committee. The Sinamay is still recovering. It is recovering from Super Typhoon Sinulaco. It is recovering from economic collapse. It is recovering from the pandemic.

That is why federal assistance at this moment in the Commonwealth's history is so important. Thank you. Commonwealth has limited means to resolve its fiscal challenges on its own. We have a small revenue base, a narrow private sector economy, high fixed costs, and limited access to outside financing. We must still fund schools, healthcare, public safety, utilities, corrections, medical referrals, employee and retiree health coverage, and pension obligations.

Those responsibilities do not— do not disappear because revenues decline. Post-disaster revenue data show that the Commonwealth's fiscal 2026 revenue forecast had been revised downward by approximately 9%, or $12.3 million. In April 2026, revenues fell approximately $6.7 million, or 32%, below the established baseline. We have also incurred more than $2.6 million in obligated, unbudgeted disaster-related costs. These are major losses for a government of our size.

The largest recurring weakness in our economy here— base— economic revenue base is the condition of the Sinamay's tourism industry. Tourism remains our primary private sector economic engine. It supports hotels, restaurants, transportation, retail, tours, cultural activities, airport revenues, jobs, and government collections.

But visitors arrive— arrivals are projected at approximately 400— 4,511 in fiscal year 2026, more than 500,000 fewer than the 607,000 arrivals recorded in fiscal year 2018. Airline seats capacity has fallen from approximately 762,000 seats in fiscal year 2018 to approximately 167,500 seats in fiscal year 2026, a 78% decline. For the CNMI, air service is the foundation of our tourism recovery. Visitors cannot drive to the Commonwealth. They cannot take a train.

Every visitor must arrive by air. When airline seats disappear, the ceiling for recovery drops with them. This has created a difficult cycle. Fewer flights remain— mean fewer visitors. Fewer visitors mean lower hotel occupancy and lower hotel occupancy tax collection.

Lower collections mean fewer resources for marketing and air service development. The Marianas Visitors The Port Authority's share of hotel occupancy tax revenues has declined from $14.2 million in fiscal year 2018 to approximately $1.4 million in fiscal year 2026. We are trying to rebuild tourism with approximately 22% of airline seats, 17% of the visitors, and 10% of the NVA occupancy tax funding that existed when the industry was healthy. This is why economic— the Economic Vitality and Security Travel Authorization Program, EVSTAP, and secure travel pathways are so important. The CNMI takes national security seriously.

We do not ask the federal government to ignore security. We ask that security be balanced with the economic reality of our islands. ESTAP must be secure, accountable, and supported by strong screening, but removing it without a workable replacement would harm our economy at a time when we are still recovering from the disaster and years of decline. We ask for serious consideration of secure travel pathways for the Philippines and other appropriate visitor markets. The Philippines is a close ally of the United States and has strong family ties to our community.

A Philippines waiver or travel authorization could strengthen tourism, support air service, and reduce dependence on any one market. Energy cost is another major pressure. The CNMI relies heavily on imported fuel for power generation. In May 2026, the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation fuel adjustment charge increased from approximately 24 cents per kilowatt hour to approximately 44 cents per kilowatt hour, an increase of approximately 81.6%. The Commonwealth Government has historically been— spent approximately $12 million to $14 million per year on utilities.

Under the higher fuel adjustment charge, annual utility costs could rise to approximately $21.8 million $25.4 million. That could mean nearly $10 million to $11 million in additional annual costs for government operations. Schools need power. Healthcare facilities need power. Power— public safety buildings, water systems, wastewater systems, ports, public facilities all depend on reliable electricity.

The CNMI needs reliable baseload power, a modern generation plant, stronger grid infrastructure, energy efficiency, and continued support for the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation. Clean energy is important, but we must be practical. Our hospital cannot run on promises. Our economy cannot recover on promises. We need power that works every day, including after storms.

We are grateful for FEMA and SBA and all federal agencies working with us after Super Typhoon Zellocko. Their assistance helps families repair homes, helps small businesses keep workers employed, restores public services, and brings confidence back to our community. But I ask the committee to understand that the financial impact of a disaster in the Sinimí goes beyond damaged buildings. It includes lost business, lost wages, interrupted tourism, higher construction costs, energy power costs, and the strain placed on a small government with limited resources. Thank you.

For that reason, I respectfully ask Congress and the administration to support an increased federal cost share for FEMA public assistance categories C through G. The CNMI must repair roads, public buildings, utilities, waterways, and other permanent infrastructure. We cannot fully recover if the local share for that work forces deeper cuts to essential services. The labor impacts are also serious. As of May 2026, the CNMI Department of Labor had received 19 workforce— I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, can I continue?

Yeah, if you could wrap it up in the next 30 seconds or so, we'll move on. You're about 4 minutes over, but you can have another 30 seconds to wrap up. I'll just wrap up. I still have more to read from Governor Apatow, but thank you for this opportunity. Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it, Mr. Hofschneider. Okay, we will now turn to the Honorable Governor Guerrero from Guam. She's currently serving as Guam's 9th governor. This is a position she's held since January 7th, 2019. Governor Guerrero.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] You're recognized. Mr. Chairman Lee. Hit the microphone button, if you will. Thank you. Sorry.

Mr. Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of this committee, hafa adai, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the people of Guam. Guam sits at the center of America's Indo-Pacific defense posture. From Guam, the United States projects power, sustains logistics, supports humanitarian operations, and maintains deterrence across the region. Today, that strategic goal is expanding through one of the largest military realignments in the Pacific since World War II. This buildup is unfolding on a small island community with finite land, aging infrastructure, and civilian systems already under pressure.

Guam is the tip of the spear, but that spear is only as sharp as the community behind it. Our resilience as a community is the foundation underpinning America's defense readiness in the Pacific. It is the basis for DOD's call for a whole-of-government One Guam approach to strengthening our Indo-Pacom force posture dating back to 2006. It is what not only justifies the reconvening of the Economic Adjusting Committee but demands it. Health care is the clearest example.

Guam is nearly 7 hours from advanced care on U.S. soil. In the Pacific, distance creates risk. The Department of Defense has recognized Guam's role in medical surge capacity and civilian-military interoperability in the Indo-Pacific. But our health care infrastructure was not built for the growth and mission demand now arriving. A modern Guam medical complex will strengthen civilian care, military readiness, and regional response capacity in a theater where time and distance shape outcomes.

The same challenge exists with power resilience. The military mission on Guam runs on a civilian grid vulnerable to typhoons, aging infrastructure, and above-ground transmission failures. Our recent brush with Super Typhoon Sanlako reminded us that Guam remains one major storm away from becoming a critical defense community unable to fully function operationally. Hardening and undergrounding critical power systems would strengthen operational continuity, emergency response, communications, healthcare delivery, and military readiness throughout the region. Cybersecurity must also be treated as part of the national defense picture.

Cyberattacks, supply chain disruption, and gray zone operations now target the civilian systems that sustain military power. Guam's hospitals, utilities, public agencies, communication systems, and infrastructure networks are part of the resilience architecture that supports America's Pacific Posture. That same principle should guide the federal government's approach to deep sea mining. Guam understands the national security interests of critical minerals, as well as supply chain resilience, but decisions involving the Pacific Ocean cannot be made without the Pacific communities most directly affected by them. BOEM current process concerns potential mineral leasing across a vast offshore area near Guam and the Sinami that is one regional marine ecosystem.

And any environmental impacts to this ecosystem will disrupt our economy, our culture, and social integrity lasting for generations. For that reason, Congress must invest in the infrastructure that underpins both Guam's resilience and America's defense readiness, including a modern Guam medical complex, and the hardening of our power system. And Guam is already doing its part. We're not sitting on the sidelines waiting to be rescued. We've eliminated our, our structural deficit, rebuilt our rainy day fund, and reduced debt obligations for the first time in generations.

Now we ask the federal government to match the scale of the mission with the scale of the partnership. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Convene the EAC. Adopt a One Guam approach. Align resources with reality. As we join the nation in celebrating 250 years of independence, I ask that you remember this: Guam has given the lives of its sons and daughters, the best of its land, and a share of its treasure to keep this nation safe and free.

We have done so without a vote in Congress. A vote for president, or a meaningful voice in our own future. Yet our commitment to America has never been measured by what we receive, but by what we are willing to give. Today we ask only to be equal. I also would officially invite you to come visit our island, because you will see how beautiful it is where America's day begins.

Sitzus maasi.

Thank you so much, Governor Guerrero. And finally, last but not least, the chair recognizes Governor Pula from American Samoa. Governor Pula is serving as the 9th governor of American Samoa. He's previously held a number of roles in the United States government, including a nearly 30-year stint at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Governor Pula, you may proceed.

Thank you. As a cultural chief of the people of American Samoa, I remove my traditional lei as a sign of respect as I speak to this esteemed body of the United States Senate.

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, distinguished members of the committee, talofa lava, and warm greetings from the people of American Samoa. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the nearly 50,000 American citizens and nationals who call American Samoa home. At the outset, I would like to thank this committee for its continued support of the U.S. territories. I also extend my compliments to Congresswoman Uepatali Radawaygen on behalf of American Samoa and the territories on the the U.S. House side. In addition, I am grateful to the Interagency Group on Insular Areas, IGIA, for its role in coordinating federal engagement and helping advance critical infrastructure and economic development priorities across our islands.

American Samoa has proudly been part of the American family for 126 years. As America's only permanent sovereign South of the equator, American Samoa occupies a unique place in the Indo-Pacific region. Yet our greatest contribution to this nation is not our location. It is our people. For generations, American Samoa, like its sister territories, has maintained one of the highest per capita military enlistment rates in our country.

Our sons and daughters have proudly served this nation in times of peace in peace and war, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to the United States. Despite that commitment, American Samoa continues to face longstanding challenges. Our per capita income remains below that of every U.S. state. Geographic isolation, high transportation costs, and limited economic scale continue to challenge our ability to grow and diversify our economy. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yet we have demonstrated that federal investments can produce meaningful results.

For example, American Samoa obligated its full American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA, allocation ahead of the federal deadline. Some of those funds are now supporting significant healthcare modernization efforts at our only hospital, the LBJ Tropical Medical Center. We are constructing a new emergency unit, an ICU, and the territory's first MRI facility. These projects demonstrate that federal investments, when paired with responsible stewardship, deliver measurable results. However, significant barriers remain.

Through the IGIA, American Samoa has identified 59 priority infrastructure projects totaling approximately $2.6 billion across energy, transportation, healthcare, telecommunications, and so forth. These are foundational investments required to maintain essential services and support long-term economic viability. I would like to highlight 6 priority requests. First, energy security. We request continued investment in renewable generation, battery storage, grid modernization, and water infrastructure energy projects.

Our grid is small, isolated, and fully exposed to global fuel price volatility. Reducing diesel dependence is the fastest path to lowering costs. American Samoa Power Authority, ASPA, requested 5 projects totaling $23.3 million. Second, the Port of Pago Pago. We seek federal partnership to modernize our sole maritime gateway with an estimated cost exceeding $200 million.

The territory has already committed $10 million for stabilization. We are also looking at using the port as a transshipment hub for critical minerals mined in the Cook Islands, facilitating transport to the U.S. for processing. Modernization is urgent. Current cargo handling capacity lacks regional ports that process more than twice the containers per hour. This investment will lower freight costs, strengthen supply chains, and protect a strategic U.S. asset in the Pacific.

Third, health— healthcare modernization. We seek continued support to modernize our hospital and expand clinical capacity. Today, patients requiring specialized care must travel to Hawaii or New Zealand. We request relief from the territorial Medicaid match requirement and inclusion in future rural health transformation funding. Current statutory structures do not reflect the fiscal realities of insular systems.

Fourth, air traffic control. Our air traffic is controlled by a control tower in independent Samoa, 80 miles away. We request funding for a U.S.-operated air traffic control tower at the Pago Pago International Airport airport to improve aviation safety, emergency coordination, and operational control. Fifth, deep sea mining policy. American Samoa maintains opposition to deep sea mining in its waters at this time.

Should federal policy advance, we request rigorous science-based review, full consultation with Pacific jurisdictions, environmental safeguards, and equitable benefit sharing. Sixth, ARPA extension. We respectfully request an extension of the December 31st, 2026 deadline for ARPA funds to ensure full and responsible deployment of remaining recovery resources. The story of American Samoa is not of dependence. It is one of partnership.

Continued partnership will help American Samoa become resilient economically viable, and capable of supporting both local priorities and broader national interests in the Pacific. Thank you for this opportunity. God bless the United States, and God bless American Samoa. Thank you. Thanks so much, Governor.

Appreciate your opening statements. We'll now proceed with 5-minute rounds of questions. In order of seniority, I'll go first, followed by Ranking Member Heinrich, Then after that, in order of seniority, subject to the early bird rule, as long followed by this committee. Governor González Colón, I'd like to start with you. Your former Secretary of Economic Development resigned after stating publicly that interventions by your office following contracting investigations, quote, made it impossible to continue performing the duties of the position.

With the integrity and autonomy that the role requires and that every secretary owes to the public. Close quote. Now, his resignation was followed by 10 other senior officials' resignations at the resignation of the director of CORE 3, the Disaster Recovery Terminal. Now, did you or anyone in your office encourage, direct, or request that disciplinary actions related to these investigations be reversed? No, sir.

And first, they're separate things. The first, the allegations are false. The second, the core 3 director did resign, and he told me about that in April of this year because he got a family issue, and he will continue to work with me in other assets. So it's completely false, the allegation the former secretary is making. Second, he did ask about that contract, and I instructed him about canceling because he prompted the problem with the contract, and he was worried about the situation.

So I told him to— if he was distracted, to cancel and redo the contract. No contract was awarded whatsoever. So those are false allegations, and they're investigated at this time by the Department of Justice in Puerto Rico. Thank you. Okay.

So you've ordered an independent review of the allegations that have been raised, and you're categorically denying—. All of them. —Accusations of the former director of economic development. Now, how can Congress be assured that federal funds sent to Puerto Rico aren't being misused or misplaced? First of all, there are many federal funding on the island.

We've been increasing the participation with the federal IG office, with federal FEMA, with the FBI, and all the federal liaisons in many of the areas. We're increasing the reports in all of the agencies. Not federal funding at this time during the last year are being misused. As a matter of fact, we are increasing the use of federal funding. We are imposing more regulations to oversight and approving and presenting more local laws to review and do oversight on local and federal, um, federal, uh, budgeting and, and review and corrupt, uh, uh, probes as well.

Okay, so if the allegations raised by the former Secretary of Economic Development are emphatically entirely false, any idea why he would say those things if they were untrue? It seems like the kind of accusation that he would know if it were not true, that could be figured out. Any ideas on that? I don't know what political motivations he may have. I don't have an idea.

There have been— he submitted an allegation of one of his employees that has been submitted to investigation, that is part of the Department of Justice, and he was referred to further investigation by the Secretary of Justice in Puerto Rico and is right now under current investigation. And that's the allegation. Saying that my office, myself, or my chief of staff is involved is completely false. And creating the narrative of any kind of involvement in this issue is completely false again. There is no evidence.

There's no evidence of that, sir. And I will tell you more. The facts are there. There is no sworn— Sir. Position at this time, and the employee that he is referring is fighting that allegation as well.

Thank you. Now, Mr. Hofschneider, do you think it makes sense for the citizens of one of America's biggest, most menacing adversaries, that is the People's Republic of China, should be allowed to enter a U.S. territory without a visa?

That's a good question. The answer to that, as we look at it from the CMI point of view, they shouldn't. But there are other ways for other nationals to enter the CMI without a visa. Okay, so you agree that Secretary Mullen should close that program with respect to the PRC? Chairman Lee, that's a very difficult question to answer because Our economy depends on tourism.

And around us in the CNMI, the closest island is Guam. Some people go to vacation or relax in the CNMI, and they're U.S. citizens. Some of them are maybe not U.S. citizens, but they enter the CNMI. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that we shouldn't sacrifice American national security for tourism dollars, wouldn't you? Of course not, but there's got to be a way to make them both work at the same time.

We take national security very seriously. We live with it, we breathe with it. The military comes and visits our governor once a month, or regular meetings happen, and we talk to them about their activities, what's going on on the island of Tinian. As you all know, there's a big military project going on there, Guam as well, and it's very serious. But to just cut it off and look at tourists from other market source would be very, very detrimental to the Siem Reap economy.

Okay, my time's expired, but I'm not confused by your answer. I thought you were saying a few minutes ago you agreed that people from China should not be able to enter your territory without a visa. But your last statement seemed to contradict that. Help me understand which way you're going. What I'm saying is we need to work on a system that would protect national security and protect the CNMI's economy as well.

Understood. That's our life. Talking about tourism generally, not necessarily supporting ongoing visa-free entry by PRC nationals into your territory. Right. Let's work on that.

Understood. Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Governor Colón, Puerto Rico residents continue to face all too frequent outages and reliability concerns. That's despite billions of dollars in federal investments intended to modernize the grid.

And I understand that you've raised concerns regarding LUMA's performance and in fact are actively moving to challenge their legal contract in court. If LUMA is out of the picture, who steps up to manage Puerto Rico's grid and generation assets?

Since the last year, we've been trying to resolve the lack of commitment of LUMA with the government of Puerto Rico. I inherit that contract. So what we've been doing is first trying to coordinate those difference with the contract. The contract says that when you have a difference with the contractor, in this case the operator, you manage those difference negotiating with them and having that difference being resolved by the courts. And we try to do that.

And that's the reason we file a first motion to the courts. That's still pending. They tried to remand that to federal case. The Judge Swain at the federal level said that that should be resolved at the local courts. So that's still in that—.

Venue. That court. The second, we filed, after not being resolved, we filed a second motion to cancel the contract. That is still pending to be reviewed. One of the issues is that we are asking the court to make a transition process.

Right. No, I understand that. But if you are successful, who steps in and manages the grid and the generation? We want to have a private company as well with experience in the United States. So we are not looking to get into public hands.

So that would require an immediate transition. It would require a commitment from some private entity. Yes. I want to understand that transition. I don't want there to be a gap.

I mean, the people of Puerto Rico need more reliability in their power than they have now. So, like, who would fill that gap? The question that we are asking to the court in that case is to allow a transition process at least to a year, to allow the government of Puerto Rico to begin a formal process to ask for companies that are interested— and they are— to begin that process of formal request for proposals and begin that transition process. But as we are—. So would LUMA still retain management through that year, or would someone else?

That will be part of the decision that the court needs to make. Because as we are binding—. What incentive would LUMA have to manage for a full year if they're not— We are not—. We need the court to decide how that transition process will go, because the government of Puerto Rico is not looking to go back to government operating the system. And I want to make that clear.

PREPA had huge challenges. Exactly. We already got a bankruptcy in PREPA, so we are not looking at the government to take back that operation. So we want to have a private operator like we do have LUMA right now, and a transition to another private operator. Operator.

So to make that transition process, we should have companies with experience in the United States. So we want companies that have got experience in the United States in transmission and distribution to make that happen. In order, in order to get that ready, we need the court to allow us that period of one year to make that open process. We cannot begin that process with the proper instruction of the court. You referenced 1,300 megawatts of restored generation capacity.

Can you walk through what specific projects represent— make up that 1,300 megawatt figure? Yes. During the last year, we saw many reports of, you know, what was going on. We got a very old system, and many people know from '70s and '60s. Yeah, correct.

Correct. So we went with the Department of Energy and PREPA and even Genera, which is the other operator, to try to switch oil and bunker C, all installations, to convert them to LNG, right? And most of them, and just combine cycle. So we're talking about plants like San Juan and Palo Seco. That we're transitioning.

Even last week, we were transitioning old turbines that were invested more than $58 million from the Department of Energy, and they were revamped in a few months and even now more energy. Pickers, new unit pickers that are being converted on the island that were using oil and now are using gas. They're going to be installed from FEMA money. Tesla units from batteries across the island as well. 6 Units that are going to be installed to the end of this year.

So what we've been doing is changing the complete use of oil to a diversified basket of energy, combined cycle, of course, LNG and batteries as an opportunity to increase energy —Chairs, I apologize for going over my time. Before— as I wrap here, I just want to ask unanimous consent to enter a letter from Governor Guerrero and Governor Apateng regarding deep seabed mining into the record. That will be admitted without objection. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Governor, I think we need a little bit of an update on Medicaid and A number of members here on our side have worked hard to try to provide stability to Puerto Rico's Medicaid program over the last few years, but the temporary fixes are about to expire, as you know. If Congress fails to act, Puerto Rico plunges into a multibillion-dollar Medicaid funding cliff. Nearly half of your population relies on this program. I mean, this is life-saving.

Gracias. Healthcare. Can you just paint a clear picture for the committee of what this funding stability means for Puerto Rico? It will be catastrophic not having that appointment of resources in September of 2027. First of all, I want to say thank you, Senator, because you've been always a leader helping us to the government of Puerto Rico to achieve the last deal of making the huge amount that was done during my time serving in Congress.

I will give you a clear example. Puerto Rico's Medicaid money is always capped at 55% FMAP. That means that we cannot receive more than $500 million. It's capped by law. Different from the rest of the states, that depends on a formula based on the poverty rate.

We don't have that as territories. So that means that Congress needs to intervene. As the hurricanes hit us in 2017, we received 100% FMAP for 2 years. And after that, because of the pandemic, we received 86% FMAP, which is the cost share of federal money that was assigned to the territories. At this time, it's 76%.

It covers 1.3 million Americans at least in Puerto Rico. Even with that money, and we're talking about $3.6 billion a year on the island, that never covers all the mandatory programs for Medicaid on the island because we cannot afford the rest of the programs. That means we don't cover long-term care for elderly citizens in Puerto Rico. That's the reason you see A lot of Puerto Ricans moving to Florida, moving to Texas, and moving to the rest of the states because there they can receive all the mandatory programs. I want to get in one other question that I know you care about.

I just want you to know that those of us that have been working with you, we're going to pull out all the stops to handle the situation that's coming up at the end of the year, and I share your view that the pain would be devastating. The other question I just wanted to get into I want to deal very quickly with you is the question of the statehood matter. And the Department of Justice and state and Congresses have made clear again and again that the alternatives to the current unincorporated territory status under the Constitution are essentially statehood, nationhood as a purely independent nation, or nationhood freely associated with the United States. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Certainly there are people in politics, you know, here who are floating ideas of a commonwealth that isn't governed by Congress and can even make its own treaties, but is still part of the United States. What do you think about these— I call them unconstitutional fantasies.

They seem to me to be a distraction, and the status question needs to stay focused on if Puerto Rico should become a state or an independent nation, and I would be interested interested in your thoughts. First of all, even Republican and Democratic Department of Justice and any administration of both parties has declared that unconstitutional. None territory can declare what federal laws applies to a territory. That cannot happen. And a plebiscite proposed by the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico saying that you can have a territory saying what federal laws applies and what not and they can have which country they want to do a treaty or not.

It's been banned by the Supreme Court of this land and the Department of Justice, by both departments, by the Department of Justice of the Republican administration and Democratic administration, both. And the people of Puerto Rico have rejected not once, not twice, 4 times in a row, but— And the last one in 2024, but more than 60% of the vote against the current territorial status. So that is denying the consensus of the island of more than 60% that they want statehood. So Senator, I believe that the only options the people of Puerto Rico got are independence, remaining as a territory, or statehood, which is the preferred option of the people of the island. And you know what?

More than 230,000 people on our island have served the United States uniform. And as we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of America, it is time to solve our issue. Well said, and I particularly appreciate your salute to the people who wear our uniform. Thank you, sir. Incredibly important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, a lot of discussion about power and electricity today.

I was surprised to learn that Puerto Rico, something like only 20% of your power source is is solar, and that's mostly rooftop solar rather than any major system. First question: Is it true that the current administration canceled some $300 million earmarked for solar development in Puerto Rico earlier this year? During my time in Congress, Congress approved $1 billion money to solar installations on the island. I believe more than $500 million were installed in solar panels across different areas to try to solidify—. But was there a cancellation?

No, it was reapportioned, $368 million instead of helping 10,000 individuals to 1.3 million citizens on the island. With that money, with those $368 million, we improved the 1.3 million people on the island's grid, and that's the reason we don't have power outages. It strikes me as odd that there would be a diminution of funds for solar. You're the Saudi Arabia of solar. You have enormous solar potential.

And I don't—. And we don't have anything against solar. In all your testimony, you talked about LNG and other energy sources. I don't think you mentioned solar. And we want— actually, I was one of the coauthors of that solar bill.

But the situation we do have in the island, sir, is that We don't have enough generation at this time. Solar is generation, Governor. Yes, but in order to have the whole island with power, we needed to have baseload generation. Solar plus batteries is baseload. Yes, and we are adding batteries this year.

Actually, I signed a contract with FEMA to add the biggest amount of batteries in the island. So we are making diverse—. Separate question about resiliency, a sort of mundane question. I know in in the Virgin Islands, they've installed these massive amount of telephone poles that are carbon fiber, I think, Governor. Clearly enormous increase in reliability.

Have you done that in Puerto Rico for your transmission? The transmission line, that's LUMA, they are changing some of the poles. They're using concrete in most of the poles that have been installed. So that is part of your grid restoration?

Senator, if I may, when you refer to the solar, I think you were referring to the Solar for All program. We lost $50 million and was revoked by the administration. It was a plan we had to subsidize low-interest solar loans and also grant—. And that was canceled for the Virgin Islands. That's correct.

Which is also a pretty good place for solar. Right. Quick question. Any chance of that refinery on St. Croix being reopened by a new— is there any redevelopment plans? That clearly was a major driver of the economy of the islands.

Thank you for that, Senator. Absolutely. I'm speaking to people interested in purchasing it weekly, especially since the action in Venezuela. Our refinery was made specifically to refine that crude, so there's a lot of interest, and we're hoping we can get it properly invested, permitted, and at least start the rehab before the end of the year. Thank you.

Governor Guerrero, question about your grid. Do the extensive U.S. national security facilities on Guam depend upon the local grid, or do they have their own energy sources?

Our Guam Power Authority is the only provider of energy to the whole island, including military bases. —So the security of that grid, you mentioned cyber—. It's very important. But also just vulnerability to some kind of attack is a very important issue, not only for the people of Guam, but for our national security. Absolutely.

And is that—. So we have been working very closely with INDOPACOM and also federal government, to enhance the security for those grids and for our power transmissions. One of the biggest resilient action, I think, is putting the transmission lines underground. That's very key to hardening and efficient and effective transmission of energy. But we have— yes, we are very aware, Senator, about cybersecurity.

We're very aware of that. Are you under assault? I know the People's Republic of China realizes the strategic value of Guam. Are you experiencing cyberattacks and—. Yes, we have.

—Potential sabotage, those kinds of things already? Yes, we have had some cyberattacks just recently. Federal government, FBI, the CISA, and other various federal agencies are working very closely to monitor, investigate, and help us identify those attackers and of course try to get rid of them. But we have been— yes, we have had several, just recently, a cyberattack. And so that's a problem not only for the people of Guam, but also, as I mentioned, for national security because of the strategic importance.

Absolutely, yes. So we have a very good relationship with military in helping us to enforce that and strengthen that. I have visited your island to visit those military facilities. I can attest it is a very beautiful place. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Senator King. Senator Cortez Masto.

Thank you. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for traveling a long distance to get here, and I appreciate continuing to work with all of you. Can I just— so So while you understand we've been talking a lot about your grids, are you all seeking grid modernization in your— on your islands? Is that true?

Is that— and let me start, Governor, with you. Just a yes or a no. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Definitely yes. Definitely yes. And so as you have been planning this grid modernization, it hasn't happened overnight. There are plans that you have undertaken. Congress has appropriated in a bipartisan way funding to help support some of that grid modernization.

I'm curious, under the new administration, my understanding is some of those projects that were previously permitted and ready to go forward under, under the previous administration have now been pulled back and they have eliminated those projects. Is that true for all of you? Is that— Is Yes. That— has that happened under this administration? In the case of Puerto Rico, with the relocation of some of the funds, the DOE, with executive orders, has commenced and done some of that relocation and conversions, yes.

Okay. Yes. Governor? So they have as well. Okay.

Chief of Staff? We received $63 million for— Solar Energy. Solar for All, yeah. And we do have that. We're working on expending that grant for the projects that we identified in the grant proposal.

No, other than that, has any federal dollars been pulled back based on projects that already were approved to move forward? No. Okay. Governor Guerra? Not for us, just the Solar for All.

And you do have solar funds that you can move forward with, or that's been pulled back? That's been pulled back, yes. So no more funding for solar? Okay. Governor?

No, but projects are proceeding. Projects are proceeding forward? Mm-hmm. Great. Thank you.

Here's what I'm curious about, and I'm hopeful— I'm going to ask all of you. Obviously, the grid modernization in your communities is key, not just for your constituents, everybody on the island, for their safety and their health. It's important for national security. It's important to address cyber issues, so many things that we have been talking about. As you're planning to move forward and you are looking at that grid modernization, I would hope that you would continue to talk with us and let us know what you need in terms of that modernization.

But most importantly, based on your geography and where your island is located, what's the best generation? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] What's the best generation that— right, for that electricity that we should be focused on and not playing politics with or favoritism? I'm going to ask every single one of you. For us, of course, solar. I think Senator Lee said we are the Saudi Arabia in terms of solar.

And yes, and we are aggressively in our island, have solar farms and have many, several projects that turn to solar generation. And you need the funds to continue to move forward. And by the way, let me just say, From Nevada. Solar is our number one generation for clean renewable. And not only is it important and it creates jobs, it's good for the economy, it keeps people connected, but we have batteries as well.

And battery storage. And it is a baseload. I don't care what this administration says. It is an essential baseload. And if we are not developing those batteries, we are not developing that type of technology, some other kind of country is going to be, and we're going to be left behind.

So thank you, Governor. I just want to say also, for us, we've experienced two major typhoons, and our solar farms were very resilient and was very good. Thank you. That's fantastic to hear. Governor?

In our case, we changed our public policy, so we are now diversifying our energy portfolio. So we are doing hydro, We're doing solar, we're doing LNG. We need to lower our cost of energy, which is so expensive. We're doing batteries to, you know, lower the cost of energy as well. We're doing combined cycle.

And of course, we need to have some oil. But right now, oil still the most expensive one. And we need to get rid of a lot of the fines from EPA. So that's the reason we are changing to LNG and maintaining solar as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. One of the things I want to point out is, unlike the mainland, we don't have redundant grids. So when you're on an island, if you— if your power goes out in Georgia, you got Texas or somebody else to pick it up. So when we're out, we're out.

So, yeah, our focus is to go at least 70% solar. The batteries are very expensive, but we have to get that in. The difference is we're buying solar now from our public provider, we have these private providers, we're paying 8 to 11 cents a kilowatt hour compared to 23 cents to 30 cents generated. So it's really going to revolutionize living on an island. Thank you.

Governor? That's a great question, Senator. I think one of the things I wanted to mention is that we're all different. Everybody think, you know, we're in the islands, there's the sunshine, there's wind, American Express card. Anyway, in American Samoa, if you fly in, we hardly have any flat land.

It's mostly like mountains just rise up. Beautiful. Green. So therefore, with solar, we don't have a lot of flat land, so we don't have a lot of solar. And also— [SPEAKING SAMOAN] We tried, we've tried in smaller places that we have some flatland, and with the wind, there are studies that have been done and sometimes it's not consistent.

So we basically, I think we all kind of look at different, right now we're looking at wave energy. That's something. Let me just say something which is really, It was all over the United States. We had a Western Governors Association meeting at the Department of Interior earlier this year, February. I was sitting between Governor Dunleavy from Alaska and another governor from Montana.

And of course, we had the Secretary of Energy there, Secretary of the Interior. We were talking about this, and I think at one time the U.S. Attorney General— I was wondering where the Attorney General was there. Then I realized with Western governments, there's a lot of lawsuits against the federal government with the energy. And so I asked Don Levy from Alaska, hey, since the president said, you know, drill, baby, drill, you're going to have a lot of oil from Alaska, why don't you ship it down to Hawaii, you're in the Pacific, you know, for the Indopeikama in the state of Hawaii, and then we can ship it down to American Samoa, we're south of the equator, and I can sell that to all the Pacific Island nations that China is having domination over them. I mean, that's a good thing we can do.

And Dan Levy said to me, "Governor, what's your kilowatt per hour?" I said, "About 40 cents, north of 40 cents." So he wrote it down. And then he goes, "How much do you pay for gas?" I said, "About $4-something, almost $5." So he thought a minute, turned to me and he said, you know, Governor, you'd be better off with small nuclear energy. And I was like, well, I certainly don't want to say the word nuclear to my constituency. But the point I'm saying is that we are so different in all the states and, you know, including our territories. So we're trying to look at ways how to get our energy used.

So I think it's a combination of things. That's a short answer. I just want to say. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I just say something about— for the CNMI, CNMI power plant is more than 50 years old, so we're looking at modernizing the power plants. We'll always depend on fossil fuel to guarantee baseload. We're also looking at the small modular units It's still years before it's commercialized. Geothermal, where there's been exploration a few years back or 10 years back.

We want to begin, restart the exploration. Wind energy. Solar, like the governor from American Samoa said, our land area is very small, unlike Guam that it's a bit larger. Our utilities corporation— company now is reviewing contract with our Attorney General to enter into an independent power producer for solar energy. And that's going to generate somewhere between 60 to 70 megawatts of electricity.

So we're looking at all options. There's no one perfect answer. It's going to take a combination of a few. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to return for a minute on a topic that Senator Wyden raised during his line of question, and that is territories being forced to run Medicaid on a capped block grant and a matching rate that's been frozen and how they're disproportionately and negatively impacted relative to rates they might otherwise receive compared to their state counterparts. So part of it was a funding reimbursement question, its impact on providing care. I had a follow-up question for Governor González Colón as it pertains to workforce.

Right. Because you testified that below-market federal rates are pushing providers off the island, not just the patients, providers themselves. When a Puerto Rico physician moves to Florida, the federal government pays the same doctor mainland rates because of their practicing in Florida, which is higher. And then when patients follow, they enroll in mainland Medicaid at a higher match. It only makes sense.

So doesn't underpaying Puerto Rico fail even on these policy terms and arguments, shifting costs to the states, number one, but then the island losing both patients and physicians. So my question, I guess, would be what role do training pipelines, residency slots, and licensure play in growing a homegrown workforce, and where would federal better federal support make a difference? First of all, Senator, you're completely right. And that's one of the main problems we do have. And that creates another situation.

The United States is putting more money in those states, so it's more cost for the system than allocating those resources in the local states. Even when we receive a minor increase in the funding on the island, We are retaining those professionals on the island. And even with the last deal that was done in Congress, we increased a little bit the retainer, not just for the physicians, but for the whole industry and maintaining those on the island as well. What we did in the last year, we increased the amount of local residents for the local doctors, because that's another situation. We got a brain drain.

Mm-hmm. Our local, you know, University of Puerto Rico, which is our local school of medicines, they graduated, they moved to the States, they got hired immediately, and locally they receive almost half the amount of money that they may be doing in the States. So that creates double problem. Less doctors on the island, less professionals on the island. They got the same licenses, they're professionals in— In the States.

Not just nurses and the rest of the healthcare industry as well. So we increase those. We are asking CMS, and they've been visiting the island the whole year. They've been visiting the island, meeting with the stakeholders, professionals as well. One of the problem is we don't have, as the U.S. Virgin Islands just mentioned, the Disproportional Share Hospital portion.

We don't have the SSI. So those creates an additional burden to our local hospitals. And that's a situation that we may lose private hospitals on the island because they need to cover a lot of the services that are not covered by the system. And in the case of Puerto Rico, let me tell you one of the problems we do have. Long-term care space— service, we don't cover that.

The long-term— we added non-emergency transportation last year. If this is not extended, we may take that away. Durable medical equipment, we include that in 2024, and we will take that away as well. Hospice care, we include that in 2024, we may take that away. Home care is the first time included, we may take that away.

Those are mandatory programs in the rest of the states, but in the case of Puerto Rico, we don't have the We don't have enough resources to cover those mandatory programs. We shrink those resources. If we go back to the $500 million, we're talking about giving some resource to 600,000 people instead of 1.3 million assistance to the rest of the island. So low-income subsidy, we don't have the Medicare Savings Program as well. So those are different programs that Medicaid got in states that we don't have in the territories.

And that creates another constraint in our system. And that's the reason people just take a ticket and they move to any other state. Just to add on that, the fact is, is all our hospitals are public. So we don't have the ability to turn down anybody. So insured, uninsured, underinsured, we pay.

I mean, for 87,000 people, we're handling at least like $50 to $60 million in uncompensated care annually. And it's boring a hole in us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Senator Padilla. Senator Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member. Governor Colón, good to see you again.

And obviously always good to hear from my friends in Puerto Rico. I'd love to talk about SNAP because obviously there is a disparity there. And, you know, Puerto Rico has been part of the United States now for more than a century. In 1981, the island was removed from the National Food SNAP Program, and this move cut Puerto Rico's funding by nearly 25%. And as you know, Puerto Rico's current nutrition system program is capped also.

Unlike SNAP, it cannot expand when need increases, so emergencies, for example, which tend to happen. And when Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated the island in 2017, Puerto Rico didn't have access to disaster assistance that states can request directly from USDA. So instead, the island had to submit a full plan to USDA before it could receive, and obviously, that bureaucracy started up. Can you speak to how this gap in nutrition assistance continues to affect Puerto Rico's disaster response or disaster response preparation? Yes.

This is one of the issues that we need always to come to Congress. Whenever there's a national declaration of disaster, territories need to come to Congress and enact a new law to assign new resources because we don't have that provision. We just got the NAP program, not the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The rest of the state got the SNAP program. So that creates another burden to the territories.

We need to wait until Congress act, and that may take months, that may take weeks, it will depend on the necessity to receive that extra money to help old people in the case of a situation. It could be a terri— it could be an earthquake. It could be a tsunami. It could be a hurricane. In the case of Puerto Rico, NAP is a capped block grant.

So that means you get just that amount of funds that is designed to the island. In the case of Puerto Rico, we import from the States almost 95% of what we consume. So this is not that we're taking the food from China. We're not taking the food from any other places. We're taking our food from the States, and it's traveling directly from Florida in our weekly commute.

So in that sense, in order to get our— the food to our table, to people in real need, we are asking to have a transition process. And the government of Puerto Rico, since the last 3, 4 years, by different measures that have been— are being approved by Congress, are making that transition. Thank you. Transition, not just in paper, coming with the Department of Agriculture to allow us a low-income— 1.2 low-income residents to receive, you know, the employment and training program, to start a pilot program to see how we can make that happen. Right now, there's been language approved in the nutritional assistance program to allow that to continue to happen with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture.

The House approved its version in the Farm Bill, and we work with that committee and the report language. In our case, the funding approved will literally raise a little bit of the funding for the island. Senator, can I put in real quickly? Good. In the Virgin Islands, you know, I look at the CNN reports that are American mainland Americans are complaining about 4% inflation.

We have not seen less than 7% inflation in the last 5 years, and we've had as high as 14% inflation. And I always use chicken to make sure people understand what we're dealing with. A bucket of chicken in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands is $56. A 20-piece hot wings is $35. And not that we, we can afford to go to Kentucky Fried Chicken because it's luxury eating for us.

But that's true in the rent, the power, everything else. So our efforts now in solar is to be able to control the price. That's the only way we can control inflation as we move forward. I would love for us to consider setting different poverty income limits for the territories because of the duress that we are seeing. No, thank you, Governor.

And I have 3 kids and I travel to Puerto Rico with my 3 kids and they love eating.— and so I end up paying a lot. And Governor has met them all, so she knows what I'm talking about. One of the things that actually got me first interested, particularly in Puerto Rico, is because I served with a lot of Puerto Rican Marines in the Iraq War. And Puerto Rico actually has some of the highest concentration of veterans and per capita participation. And one of the things that really disturbed me when I got back was that a lot of them do not receive the same benefits that they do on the mainland.

So if you serve your country as, you know, an American— Puerto Rican— and you go to Florida, you get full benefits, right? TRICARE For Life, you get treated great. However, if you are a veteran on the island of Puerto Rico, you do not actually get the same benefits. Can you describe that disparity, Governor? And any other governors, have you seen that kind of disparity?

Because I think it's particularly disturbing for many of us that have served with men and women from the territories that their benefits are entirely zip code related instead of the fact that they served their country. Yes, sir. And you just said it. They are just related to the place they lived. If they live in Florida, they got their full benefits.

And we're not just talking about being veterans. Is that, that disproportionate share of hospital, the Social Security income that is related to their age is just because where they lived. They lose that benefit as soon as they get back home. And sometimes they just want to get with their family and they cannot receive that home.— and it's a shame. That's the reason people are continue voting to end that disparity.

I know that's the same situation for most of the territories. Yes, Governor. For us in Guam, Senator, we do have those benefits, but our biggest problem is they're so slow in coming. Claims processing is very, very slow. When veterans apply for durable medical equipment, they have to go to Hawaii to get the durable medical equipment.

And so one of my suggestions, which I had already posed to the Secretary of the Veterans, is that we do our own regional claims processing in Guam. And if we do that, then we can also service Palau, Pohnpei, the Marshall Islands, who also have a lot of U.S. veterans there. Right. But these people have to fly to either Guam or U.S. To even do their claims processing. Because they're nationals.

Because they're sovereign nations. They're sovereign nations, but they're U.S. nationals that can serve in the military. Yes, absolutely. But don't necessarily have the right to vote. Right.

People forget that too. So if we have this regional office where we can do our own claims processing, then we can also service these outer islands through satellite offices. So for us, it's more the processing. It takes months. Sometimes even years to get the service.

Senator, I was just going to echo the same thing. During the first Trump administration, I traveled with the then Secretary of the Veterans Affairs to the islands. We went all the way to Pohnpei, which is Federated States of Micronesia. And that was the issue. We were in Hawaii where a lot of them have to travel to.

And I tell you, I was really surprised the way the veterans were talking to the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs. They call it the bitching session. It's pretty common as a veteran, just to be honest. It happens in Arizona, it happens in New York. That's right.

I was surprised, and then I was like, wow. So we were trying to— I was working at the Department of Interior to kind of do the thing what Governor Guerrero is saying. Kind of have it at a regional base where the other satellite offices can help some of these veterans who, you know, fought in the war. So same thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. The same thing is going on in the CNMI that Guam is experiencing, American Samoa. I just want to let everyone know Governor Apeteng is a Vietnam veteran, and he is like 75, 76 years old. He's going through a lot.

And the other veterans that have come home and made Saipan their permanent home, they wait. They need services, medical services, answers from the veteran office. It takes time. And sometimes we get word that someone's coming over to Saipan to help the veterans with medical care, medical needs, where they go to. But sometimes they don't come.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] We have to wait, and then veterans have to fly to Guam for a very simple treatment or test. The cost is so much to fly from Guam and back. I mean, from Saipan to Guam and back. It's over $600, and there's only one airline that flies between these two islands, United Airlines. It used to be we can pay for a round trip ticket to Guam.

Like $200, $300, but now it's that high. And veterans are, you know, they need to relax, enjoy their moments, their remaining time, and they have to go through additional stress to just try and get help. You know, Senator, if I can—. Up to the chair at this point. I apologize.

I just want to make a comment about air transportation. As throughout the islands, the South Pacific, the North Pacific, air transportation is very key for connectivity, for the economy, for commerce, and so forth. And we are very limited in air transportation. And one of the reasons is the Kabitoch Law, which says that a foreign air carrier cannot go to two U.S. ports of entry. So— Thank you.

With us in Guam, this cost of high— it's about $4,000 just to go from Guam to California and back. To Hawaii, it's about $2,000, $3,000. And so if the CABOTAGE law was exempted from us, we could use Philippine Airlines, we could use China Airlines, we could use Korean Airlines that can fly to Guam, pick up passengers, and go on to the United States. So you ask what Congress can do. If you could review this cabotage law and just give us an exemption or a waiver to be able to have the opportunity and the access.

I'll tell you, South Pacific Islands is the same thing. They have limited, limited carriers, and so is the North Pacific. Removing the cabotage law is going to do a lot to improve commerce and the economy for islands in the Pacific. Thank you. Senator Murkowski, and then Senator Hirono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for, for holding this hearing. It's good to see our governors here and to have the opportunity to renew acquaintances.

We should not limit our governors to 5 minutes when you come back to once a year, maybe once a session hearing, but this is the way our process is set up, so I feel like I need to offer a little bit of an apology because it is so important that you are here, that you all have flown as long as you have, as many hours as you have, And so I hope that you have had a good reception as you are meeting individually with members and members of the administration to express the concerns and to state specifically the many, many ways that we can— the federal government can be there to help, whether it's on the healthcare side, the issue that you have raised, Governor Guerrero, about the cabotage and how we deal with transportation. There are so many things that we need— we are in a position to do to help, but we need to understand the impact. My state of Alaska is going through what I know virtually all of you are facing as governors, as we're looking at the high cost of fuel. When your communities that are powered by diesel and the price of diesel has gone as it has— we have a little bit of an extenuating circumstance in Alaska because our fuel deliveries in many of our coastal communities are twice a year, not due to distance but due to ice. And so we have similar challenges, again, where I feel that I represent a big islanded north state, whereas your islands may be smaller and warmer, but many of the same challenges.

[SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] I wanted to ask both to Governor Guerrero and Governor Pula because both Guam and American Samoa have raised some concerns or issues regarding the potential offshore critical mineral development. And Governor Guerrero, we had a little bit of a chance to talk about that yesterday in my office. I think we're all looking to try to understand I mean, in Alaska, we are eyes aware, not certain of how this would work. The regulations are not in place. And it has raised— it has raised an issue of concern in northern waters as well.

So I'm wondering if you can share with the committee what you might consider meaningful consultation with territorial governments would look like. Before the federal government advances any future leasing decisions. And further to that point, about the role possibly you see of the government when it comes to surveying, mapping, we don't know what we don't know oftentimes, but the ability to even characterize the resources if commercial development remains uncertain. So if you can just please speak to that issue, because it is very relevant to the moment. Thank you very much, Senator.

You're absolutely right. And one of the biggest concerns we have in our island is this deep-sea mining licensing and exploration project that's really going very, very fast. Without any input, if anything, by the Pacific Islanders, other than maybe the time to make public comments. But we expect that we would want— we want actually face-to-face communications with those entities and that we don't learn about these requests for interests or comments through public media. You can imagine our surprise when that happened.

Have you asked for that one-on-one dialogue? I have met, yes, with the head of BOEM, and we have asked to be heard. And they did come out, but very limited time with us and didn't really spend a lot of time with our public to get the input. And even American Samoa was actually the first island that had that event going on. But even with 65,000 comments submitted, we felt we were not heard because the next day, the process of the licensing changed and was expedited.

Then a few days later, we hear that the land— area space was expanded without even our knowledge and information. So this is what we suffer in our islands is policies that are passed, made, acted on without input from any of us. And I guess that's because of our political status. We're an unincorporated territory. And so my fear of this is that the United States to just come in and say, oh, you have no control.

We are just going to come in and mine these waters. And please know that this is our livelihood. Our lives are very dependent on these waters. So I think more dialogue, more discussions, and listening to our concerns, genuinely listening to our concerns. Governor Pula, you— American Samoa has clearly been— in the news?

Well, American Samoa is in a very interesting situation because in our EEZ, we do have those critical minerals out there. I, as a governor of American Samoa, our lifeblood is basically tuna, which is, you know, a migratory species. So in the Pacific Islands, and this is something I'm gonna complain about, the United States for long, many years, have kind of neglected the fishing industry in the Pacific. China has now dominated, you know, our areas. We have the largest starkest canning tuna left for domestic tuna.

We, the Stuckey Supply, rations for the military, and they're hanging on to our cannery. Now, the fact that we have critical minerals in our EEZ, and the fact that territorial waters only go out to 3 miles, beyond that, that's federal government. Mm-hmm. I want my people to know that I am against mining. However, should the federal government move forward, that we would like to have basically a seat at the table to be able to understand science and everything so that we don't damage this area because of the resources.

On the other hand, I would rather for national interest of the United States We have those minerals in there. If they do it right, do it in a way that is environmentally friendly, that we, our little territory, would very much appreciate, you know, revenue sharing. Not only just for our territory, but it's important for the national interest. I don't want my grandchildren to speak Chinese, 20 years from now, I want them— the United States to have power over energy in terms of fuel and all that. I mean, the world's in commotion these days, and I want to do right by our nation, and I want to do right by my territory.

So that's where I am. Thank you. Senator, can I say something? Fort Sinimí. All right, real quick about deep sea mining.

Yes, we went through the process. The publication went out. They invited comments. We submitted comments over— I think BOEM received over 65,000 comments. You mentioned something about meaningful consultation.

So that's a term that needs to be defined by BOEM and the CNMI, Guam included. If you look at the CNMI, the Northern Mariana Islands Archipelago, we're a chain of 14 islands, and it extends south near Guam, and it goes all the way up north. On the eastern side is the Mariana Trench, and then right along that, the proposed mining area It borders the Mariana Trench. The second area identification that came out from BOEM identified the western side of the chain of islands. Now you have our archipelago sandwiched between two mining— potential mining areas.

Once mining permits are issued and commercial mining begins, I'll leave it up to you to imagine what conflict might arise. We have ocean vessels that come in, they deliver goods to our islands. The military uses the same ocean to do their exercise, their training, so their troops would be defense-ready. We have our culture. We've lived in the islands for many, many, many years.

We know the waters around us. No one has asked us about what do the waters mean to us. It's our food. It's our identity. We've never done anything to jeopardize it.

It's amazing. And President Trump signed the commercial tuna. It opens up the Pacific Ocean, our area as well. So that would create additional activity out there. Thank you.

So can you imagine the traffic? Who knows what might happen up there. So Governor Apteng is opposed to deep sea mining, but we need to sit down. We've met with Matt Giaccona this February. He said they'll be out to meet with people, our community, and they send— [HAWAIIAN LANGUAGE] Their representatives, they were there on the island for just a day and they left after that.

So we need more meetings, more meaningful consultation. It doesn't just mean that we look at the environmental or the ecosystem that might be damaged. We need to look at our economic livelihood. Thank you. Senator Hirono.

Thank you. I just want to have a little bit of clarification regarding the deep sea mining. So Governor Guerrero, you mentioned that that is happening rapidly, but is it the consensus of each of you— by the way, thank you for coming this far to share with us your priorities and your concerns— but is it that— do all of you share the concern that you are not being given meaningful consultation or input to what is happening in your environment and in the seas that surround your nations? Is that a shared concern with all of you? Senator, I do want to say that the BOEM office as well as NOAA folks have traveled down to American Samoa.

They've gone out to the area. Where there are critical minerals. In April, the Deputy Secretary McGregor of the Department of Interior came down to American Samoa, spoke to the leadership of our legislature, myself, and our delegate to Congress, Mr. Adwoa Agyemang. So we are engaged. I want to say that we have been engaging and most likely because American Samoa in the EEZ do have those critical minerals.

Therefore, there has been, I would say, engagement with us. We— I am still not there yet in terms of concurring with the speed of how they're moving forward. I have been told that even if they issue license through BOEM— Excuse me. In the month of August. Governor, I don't have that much time, although I would like to request the chair to give me a little bit more time as others have, because this is really important for all of us to understand.

So you are being engaged, but Governor Guerrero, you're expressing concerns that you folks, Guam, has not been adequately consulted. Absolutely right, Senator. On November 12th, I found out through the announcement, public announcement about a public comment period for deep sea mining. Mind you, Guam is not identified in the deep sea mining, but CNMI is, but where they want to do the deep sea mining is very close to Guam. So it does affect us.

Yes.. And when I found out about it, I called Governor Apatang to see, hey, did anybody tell you? And he said no. And so that's a very concrete example of yes, going quickly without input from the islands. Thank you.

So what would you suggest that we contemplate doing to make sure that all of you have adequate input to this particular activity, deep sea mining in your waters. My suggestion is that Congress ask to put a pause on deep sea mining and do a lot of research on science and data. And to allow also, or, you know, I know you can't force people to do this, but to come forward through the agencies to meet with the leaders and the people through public town hall meetings and so forth. Mm-hmm. So you can't legislate increased communication, but certainly work towards policies that might say to everyone, Let's look at this more closely.

With the rest of your support, some kind of a communication to the powers that be that there be a pause on deep sea mining. Do you all agree? Yes. For me, yes. Governor Hapiteng and Governor Guerrero have written a letter to Chairman Lee to introduce the legislation to place a moratorium.

And you all agree that that would be a good idea? We believe so. It gives us time to work and study what Boeing is releasing. Most of the materials that they're releasing and information is good for them. This is very serious, Senator, because the seabed is not resilient at all.

And once you go in there and you disrupt the seabed and the environment, it's very hard to— recover. As an island state, Hawaii is very aware of the potential for manganese nodules and other minerals in the waters off of Hawaii. And also, I just want to share with you that as an island state, Hawaii very much empathizes and understands the high cost of energy if you are relying upon importing fossil fuels, which is why for all the states, Hawaii residents paid among the highest for electricity and why we are so focused on alternative and renewable energies. And I can very much understand why you are going in that direction of looking for other ways of keeping the cost down for people. So for your constituents.

I did want to ask a little bit about the visa waiver program. I have some familiarity with visa waivers. So this is for Thank you, Mr. Hofschneider. So as far as I know, there's still visa waiver programs that apply to Japan, South Korea, and many of the European nations. Is that correct?

Do you know? That's correct. But in order for the travelers to come from these nations, they still have to go through a vetting process. So my question is for The program that you have in CNMI, are the Chinese people who avail themselves of this visa waiver program, are they vetted? Does the chairman express concerns about the kind of people who are coming in under this program?

They're supposed to be vetted by the immigration, USCIS. They're supposed to be, but they're not?

I don't know if they're not because we're not doing the vetting. The chairman expressed serious concerns about this program to the point where he is suggesting that it be completely stopped. Do the people from the Philippines also— are they included in CNMI's visa waiver program? No, they're not. Would you like them to be?

As well, yes. We're asking—. I mean, is it the State Department that authorizes Would they have to authorize CNMI to have such a program? Yes, the Department of Homeland Security. It's Homeland Security, and it has to do with denial rates, and there are various kinds of factors that go into whether a country can enter a program like this.

Right. So Governor Epting and Governor Guerrero have written Secretary of Interior Doc Bergum and—. So I—. —Secretary Mullen to include the Philippines in the Guam statehood discussion. I mean, having worked on some of these programs for Hawaii, particularly Korea's visa waiver for South Korea, then I understand how important and what kind of impact such a program has on tourism.

And that's why for Hawaii, I very much push for a national visa waiver for South Koreans. So I would suggest that, I mean, really not, you know, far be it for me to tell you all what to do, but Considering that, I think this is an important program for CNMI, as you suggested in your testimony. I do think that there probably needs to be more careful consideration of the process by which people come to CNMI under this program.

So for Governor Guerrero, you note that there is a lot of— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] a lot of military infrastructure being built on Guam and to deal with the movement of the Marines out of Futema in Okinawa, among other reasons. So you do need workers, don't you? Yes, we do. And we have H-2B program. And initially, the H-2B program had capped the number of H-2B— was capped for the number of H-2B workers to come to Guam, but Congress has recently removed the cap, and now there is no cap, but it's only for military projects.

And the civilian community also need those H-2B workers because our construction is also expanding and our economy is expanding. So right now, this is only available till 2029, and I know that there is a provision in the NDAA to expand it to, I think, 2031, and that would be greatly appreciated if it was supported and passed. Would you consider a longer timeframe? I would consider maybe not even having a time. I mean, we have had to extend this—.

The other issue, Senator, is it's only for military construction. And one of my requests is that we just remove that military construction and just say for construction for the island. I understand. Just as a last note. You all raised some concerns about the high cost of providing healthcare.

And there have been some massive changes to Medicaid that's going to make it even harder for you all to provide Medicaid coverage. And that is going to hit millions of people nationwide. So I can certainly empathize with the need for us to look at what kind of reimbursements you are receiving from Medicare, Medicaid. The states also have that issue, by the way, because Hawaii, for example, would like our Medicaid reimbursements to be reviewed. So again, I hope that these areas that we can take a look at and see what we can do to work with you all to support your needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much, Senator Hirono. All right, we've previously considered doing a second round, but we've got a vote that's gonna close soon and we'll turn into pumpkins, so we gotta head down there. I appreciate each of you for coming today and for your testimony. It's been very informative.

As I close, I wanna make a couple of comments. First of all, Governor Carrero, I'm grateful that you raised the Jones Act to disguise issue. It appears to me, as I've been thinking about it in response to your questions, some of our territories, and I would certainly include Guam, American Samoa, and CNMI in this, you're so far from the United States mainland and so much closer to many other countries than you are to the United States. This appears to disproportionately and unfairly affect you and your populations. In a way that's fairly unique.

It also seems to me that the purported public policy justifications of those laws as applied for your territories might be outweighed by the unique burden that your territories face in that. In some ways, they do to your areas what the Jones Act might do to other territories, including perhaps Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. So I'm gonna take a look at that, and I really appreciate you raising it. That is an important point. With regard to the CNMI issue and the visa waiver program, although I do believe we gotta get rid of that particular policy, I am very sympathetic to the concerns you expressed, which are legitimate, about maintaining your tourism industry.

And I'd be happy to work with you and your governor to help think of other creative ways that we could do that without creating the same national security concerns that we face as a result of this. And then Governor Bryant, I was hoping to follow up with you with an additional question, but I'm out of time and I'm going to have to run quickly for a vote. And for that, I apologize. Normally I'd like to stay afterwards and visit briefly with the witnesses, but I've got to run very fast to get to this vote so I don't Luz, but the issue I wanted to flag and that I may ask you about in a follow-up question in writing relates to a gun control measure passed by your legislature on June 12th. As I look at that, it appears to present serious questions as to whether it can withstand scrutiny under the Second Amendment, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's analysis in Heller, uh, and also in connection with the, uh, the Broome case and the test established in that case with respect to constitutional carry.

Uh, so I hope you'll take a look at that and consider a veto, uh, if, as I suspect you will conclude after you've done the analysis, these questions are significant. Um, with that, we're gonna have to conclude the hearing. Any senator who wishes to submit additional questions for the record may do so. The deadline for submitting such questions for the record, uh, is at 6:00 PM on Thursday, June 18th. Uh, senators will also have until 6:00 PM next Wednesday, June 24th, to add statements, uh, for the record of today's hearing.

So thanks again to each of my colleagues for being here. For their participation in the business meeting earlier, for helping to get that passed out of committee. And again, I thank the governors and representatives for their important testimony before this committee. And as I sprint to the floor, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you.