House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (Begich): Leg Hrg on the following bills

Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rules 4, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. The gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Valadao, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, be allowed to participate today's hearing, and the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection. So ordered.

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Thank you all for being here today to discuss these important pieces of legislation. The bills we have before us today address a range of topics, including the Biden administration's lackluster energy policies that continue to harm our nation's energy security as well as the United States Geological Survey's hazardous emissions area. H.R. 931, Introduced by Representative Downing, would allow certain federal coal resources to be mined consistent with the Bull Mountains Mining Plan modifications.

Currently, the leased coal reserves in this mine are set to run out by the end of this year unless congressional action is taken. The Biden administration blatantly violated the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, by failing to promptly start the environmental review process required under the law. Whether they did so purposefully no longer matters, as Congress must act to right this wrong and prevent an economic situation in the surrounding rural communities. We also have 3 pieces of legislation to authorize 3 different hazard— hazards programs at the USGS. The bills include H.R.

2250 From Representative Dalbien, H.R. 3168 From Representative Alladale and H.R. 3176 From Representative Begich. These bills would authorize important programs that help save lives and protect our communities, including the National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program, or NILHRP, the 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, or NEHRP, and the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, NVIEWS. NHERP and 3DEP play vital roles in mitigating the effects of natural hazards caused by landslides.

NHERP established the ShakeAlert application, which provides earthquake early warnings to Americans living and working on the West Coast of the United States. NVIEWS monitors and warns communities near and around volcanoes when volcanic activity is imminent. Representative Higgins, H.R. 513 Limits the ability of the federal government to lock up offshore oil and gas development, which is crucial— critical, rather, not only for our energy security, but also our strategic national security. This bill addresses a similar issue to what my constituents have experienced.

I cannot express my disappointment in the Biden administration's decision to withdraw over 225,000 acres in my home state of Minnesota, restricting access to the Duluth complex, which is the largest untapped copper-nickel find in the world. Similarly, in the waning days of his administration, President Biden announced a withdrawal of over 625 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Biden administration's offshore energy lockups, along with their onshore mineral withdrawals, have cost Americans thousands of good-paying, often union jobs that are economic drivers in our respective local communities. These misguided actions threaten our long-term energy security and only serve to placate radical environmentalists who wish to divert energy and mining production overseas. H.R.

513 Nullifies 8 expansive withdrawals from the Arctic to the Gulf, unlocking roughly 40 million barrels of oil. And over 175 trillion cubic feet of gas in these areas, according to BOEM. Additionally, the bill would cap future withdrawals at 150,000 acres, limit withdrawals to 20 years, and mandate economic and resource assessments be completed before a withdrawal may take place. The last piece is especially important because when Secretary Haaland banned 225,000 acres of mining in the Duluth complex in the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota. In a Senate hearing, when asked, her comments were, quote, I did not think there were critical minerals in there.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's the biggest untapped copper-nickel find in the world. And she signed off to ban— did not even know what was in that complex. By requiring economic and resource assessment prior to withdrawal, future secretaries and future administrations will know exactly what kind of minerals and energy resources they are locking up and exactly how their lockups will hurt the American people and our economy. Lastly, Representative Huntsville, H.R. 2556, Or the CORE Act, would enhance offshore resource assessments with precise resource mapping By strengthening the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management assessments, the CORACT reduces uncertainty, bolsters U.S. leasing competitiveness, and will deliver benefits to taxpayers and coastal communities.

Together, these bills shatter arbitrary barriers, restoring America's offshore energy supremacy. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these bills and will now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement. Good afternoon, everyone. It's nice to see you. Chair Stauber, I wanted to start off— thank you— uh, with a special thank you to Dr. Walter Cruikshank for being here today.

I understand that you are nearing retirement after a 4-decade-plus-long career in public service at the Department of the Interior, and we are very grateful for your service. We are here today to discuss 6 bills in the subcommittee's jurisdiction. 2 On offshore drilling, 1 on a controversial coal mine, and 3 bipartisan United States Geological Survey Hazard Program reauthorizations. Let's dive in, starting with offshore drilling. I will start by saying clearly, there is no energy emergency, and we do not need to expand unfettered, unregulated fossil fuel development.

The United States is already producing more oil and gas than any country in history, and yet energy costs are still pinching at Americans' pocketbooks. This phenomenon has a simple explanation. Prices are high because the oil industry does not put America first. They put profits first. Big Oil is already sitting on nearly 2,000 unused leases in the Gulf covering almost 10 million acres of federal waters, just waiting for the price per barrel to go up before producing so they can make more money.

Yet Republicans are giving them even more control of your coasts and waters with H.R. 513. This bill overturns Biden and Obama-era protections against offshore drilling for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, for the Arctic, and for the Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area, an area co-managed by tribes to to protect fishing grounds and other resources. Notably, this bill leaves intact the Trump-era protections for the coast of North Carolina, the Southeast, and the Eastern Gulf because Republicans know backlash from their own party would be unbearable. And Republicans are not stopping there.

To make development even more enticing, Republicans would have taxpayers subsidize even more of the cost of doing business, like exploratory testing. That's what H.R. 2556, The CORE Act, would do, directing the federal government to do risky, harmful seismic testing across all of our coasts at the taxpayers' expense. This is on top of $15 billion in direct subsidies that we already give to the fossil fuel industry every single year. And meanwhile, this administration and its friends in Congress are firing critical agency staff while slashing budgets to the bone.

Our federal agencies will have to make hard decisions with their limited resources, like choosing between sending staff out to do safety inspections on oil rigs or having them do exploratory testing on the industry's behalf. Is this really how the American people want to spend their own money? Cutting essential safety checks so that we can pay for Big Oil's exploration? Republicans will stop at nothing to give away our public lands and waters to the dirty fossil fuel industry. Just hoping that this time the industry will be nice to us in return.

That's just what is happening in H.R. 9312. That, uh, this bill would authorize the expansion of the Bull Mountains Mine, which produces federal coal in Montana. This mine expansion has been shot down twice by the courts for insufficient environmental analysis, and the company that owns the mine has only just gotten off probation with the Department of Justice. The cherry on top, the coal mine that this mine produces is exported.

It's not even for American energy. But we know how this ends. These efforts will not end with lower prices, but with more pollution, more disease, more climate chaos, and the rich getting richer while you pay their bills. I remind my colleagues here and the American public at home that we do not have to stay stuck in this loop. Fossil fuels are not our only option.

Renewable energy is cheaper and just as reliable as fossil fuels, and that's without factoring in the extra cost of cleaning up oil spills or hospital bills for pollution-induced asthma. We can and we must do better. Finally, I'm happy to support the 3 natural hazard reauthorization bills, although I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle that we are actively seeing the president go outside of his authority to kneecap nearly all of Interior, including the USGS employees who are implementing these essential programs. Thank you. And I yield back.

Thank you very much. Now, I would begin our member panel to allow bill sponsors to speak on their legislation. I will— I will now recognize Mr. Hunt from Texas's 38th Congressional District for his testimony on his bill. Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the witnesses for joining us today.

In 2011, the Obama administration reported that 162 billion barrels of oil equivalent were in the Outer Continental Shelf, the OCS. And in 2016, also during the Obama administration, BOEM reported 149 barrels of oil equivalent in the OCS. The difference in undiscovered reserves in the OCS from 2011 through 2015 under President Obama was actually pretty normal. Let's fast forward to 2021, and BOEM under the Biden administration reported 109 billion barrels of oil equivalent undiscovered in the OCS, the lowest reported number in decades. One of the worst-kept secrets in Washington is that Biden's BOEM was incredibly impartial, even aggressive at times toward our domestic oil and gas industry, which then begs the question: were these 2021 BOEM numbers accurate, or were they another attempt at harming our energy industry in the Gulf?

Gulf of America. Following BOEM's reported numbers came the worst 5-year leasing plan in our nation's history, offering the fewest number of offshore oil and gas leases ever. This action left us with an oil and gas industry that is now scrambling to reestablish itself as the global leader and meet the market's demand. And this is why my legislation, the Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act, or the CORE Act, is so important. Oil and gas will continue to be an important part of our energy mix, and not only today and tomorrow, but also in our near and distant future.

And if you think otherwise, you are simply fooling yourself. Taking politics out of BOEM and giving the guardrails— it's imperative to the future of our national security and energy security. And lastly, Section 4 of the CORE Act relates to geological and geophysical permitting and surveys, which are crucial to the exploration and development of our offshore oil and gas resources.

Accurate G&G data is essential for identifying potential deposits, estimating their size, and understanding their characteristics so that our offshore workers can do their job. Improving BOEM's data acquisition methods will prompt an increase in domestic oil production, which will bring greater energy security to our nation, more affordable energy prices for all of our families, and lower national trade deficits. And increase revenue to states for vital coastal restoration and infrastructure projects. And just as a reminder, the Gulf of America produces the cleanest and most efficient barrel of oil found anywhere in the world. In fact, it's 46% less carbon intensive than oil produced in Russia, China, and Iran.

The American people deserve an honest oil and gas assessment process. And with this bill, we can deliver for all American families. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you very much.

And I recognize Mr. Begich from Alaska's at-large congressional district for his testimony on his bill. Representative Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on H.R. 3176, My bill to reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, or NVEWS.

As the representative for Alaska, where over 50 active volcanoes define our landscape and daily risk profile, This legislation is not just timely, it's also essential. Alaska is home to the vast majority of the nation's active volcanoes. These aren't remote curiosities. Many sit beneath international air routes and near major population centers. Mount Spurr, located just 80 miles from Anchorage, is currently in a state of volcanic unrest.

It remains at a yellow alert level as of today due to elevated seismicity, gas emissions, and ground deformation. While the short-term eruption risk has slightly decreased since March, an event similar to those in 1953 or 1992 remains a very real possibility. This is not a theoretical threat in Alaska. This is happening now. If Mount Spurr erupts, ashfall could shut down aviation, damage critical infrastructure, and pose a public health emergency.

H.R. 3176 Is a straightforward 5-year reauthorization that maintains current funding levels. It provides continuity for the US Geological Survey and its partners to keep operating and upgrading our volcano monitoring networks. It prioritizes instrumentation at high-threat volcanoes, ensures rapid data transmission, and supports real-time coordination with state agencies and emergency responders, all of which are especially critical in remote, high-risk states like Alaska. Volcanic hazards are not hypothetical.

They are active and present. Mount Spurr's activity today underscores the need for preparedness over complacency. Early warnings save lives, protect property, and reduce the cost of emergency response. In Alaska, where terrain, distance, and weather already complicate disaster logistics, this system gives us a fighting chance. The National Volcano Early Warning System has always had bipartisan backing.

This reauthorization is a pragmatic, measured step that keeps a proven system running without expanding scope or increasing appropriations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that communities living in the shadow of volcanoes, especially in Alaska, have the tools they need to stay safe. And with that, I yield the balance of my time. Thank you. And I recognize Ms. DelBene from Washington's 1st Congressional District for her testimony on her bill.

Representative DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this important hearing and inviting me to provide testimony on my legislation to reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness Act. Landslides kill 20 to 50 people and cause between $2 and $4 billion in damage each year. And unfortunately, this is a reality that people back in my district know all too well.

11 Years ago, on March 22nd, 2014, Washington experienced one of our nation's worst natural disasters. In a matter of seconds, the side of a mountain, a tragic massive landslide near Oso, Washington, killed 43 people, destroyed an entire neighborhood of over 40 homes, and severely damaged public infrastructure and private property. That day forever changed the people of Oso, Darrington, Arlington, the Stillaguamish and Soksweatl tribes, and they are still living with its scars today. I went to Oso immediately after the disaster to support the community and families who had lost loved ones and their homes. Our first responders were the true heroes that day, and they worked countless days and nights trying to save lives and recover loved ones.

These were some of the most heartbreaking days of my time in office. Following that tragedy in 2016, I introduced the National Landslide Preparedness Act. As the Oso landslide demonstrated, simply sending aid after a tragic natural disaster is not enough. We need to invest in programs and research efforts to prevent future natural disasters from becoming national tragedies. I worked tirelessly, tirelessly to get the National Landslide Preparedness Act signed into law in 2021 with the support of many of you in this room today.

This law established a National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program through the United States Geological Survey to better identify and understand landslide risks, protect communities, save lives and property, and help improve emergency preparedness. It also authorized the 3D Elevation Program, which in the past few years has made incredible strides to update and coordinate the collection —of enhanced high-resolution topographical data across the country. In addition to helping communities plan for and respond to natural hazards, this data is being used to improve public safety, national security, infrastructure, agriculture, and natural resource management. Through this law, we made significant progress in landslide science, allowing communities to be better prepared for when landslides do occur. And it couldn't come soon enough.

In recent years, we've seen dramatic increases in extreme weather events. We need to do everything in our power to make sure that communities across the country continue to have the tools at their disposal to be prepared. The programs authorized by the National Landslide Preparedness Act expired in September of last year. I was encouraged that the House passed the legislation last Congress, but we know that nothing really changes until, until this bill makes it to the president's desk. I introduced the reauthorization bill along with Representative Schreier, Glusenkamp-Pérez, Newhouse, and most of the Washington delegation to reauthorize these programs through 2030.

This bill has bipartisan and bicameral support. Senators Cantwell and Murkowski will be leading the effort in the Senate. Every state across the country faces landslide risks, which is why we must reauthorize these critical programs. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on the need to reauthorize the National Landslide Preparedness in this act. And I yield back.

We thank the gentlewoman for her testimony. I now recognize Mr. David Valadao from California's 22nd Congressional District for his testimony on his bill. Uh, thank you, and I want to thank Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ansari for having me. I'm here today in support of my bill, H.R. 3168, The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025.

Every year California faces hundreds of earthquakes, more than, more than 70% of our state's population lives within 30 miles of a fault line. My district in Central Valley is surrounded by faults. The San Andreas to the west, the Garlock to the south, the San Sierra Nevada faults to the east create extreme risk for those living in and around the valley. Ensuring my constituents in California's 22nd Congressional District are protected from extreme natural disasters, it is is one of my top priorities, and this bill is a great first step. While earthquakes might cause billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure, the real cost is in the lives lost in these catastrophes.

Investing in critical warning detection systems like the ShakeAlert and providing researchers with the tools needed to make scientific breakthroughs in earthquake damage mitigation is crucial to ensuring people are safe, as safe as possible. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program through fiscal year 2030 to provide resources for the development, research, and implementation of life-saving earthquake risk reduction and safety technology. I'm proud to lead this legislation with my California colleague Jim Costa, and I want to thank Chairman Stauber and his staff for their work on this important bill. The Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I look forward to working with this committee and our colleagues on the science Space and Technology Committee to fully reauthorize this critical program.

Thank you. And I yield back. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. I now recognize Mr. Clay Higgins from Louisiana's 3rd Congressional District for his testimony on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I thank the ranking member for allowing me an opportunity to weigh in on today's subcommittee hearing. The production of reliable, transportable, and affordable energy product is a cornerstone of economic prosperity. And that's a topic that my bill seeks to address. H.R. 513, The Offshore Lands Authorities Act.

America has a responsibility to lead the world in the effort of energy production. And nowhere is the production of oil and gas energy product cleaner than here in the United States. Private industry innovations, not not heavy-handed government mandates, have allowed the United States to become a global leader in emissions reduction. However, my colleagues across the aisle have for decades sought to align the federal government against the oil and gas and petrochemical industries. In the final days of his administration, Joe Biden furthered that agenda with the withdrawal of over 625 million acres of federal waters from leasing and potential development.

Closing those offshore lands to energy producers does not change the demand for reliable energy product, nor does it reduce overall production of oil and gas on a global scale. What the Biden drilling ban does is shift energy production to foreign producers, raises, raises energy costs, for American families and threatens jobs and economic growth domestically. When President Biden closed 625 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf to American producers, there were zero acres closed in Russia and China. The federal government should be a partner to America's energy industry, not a predator. That's why I introduced H.R.

513, The Offshore Lands Authorities Act with Congressman Hunt, who serves on this subcommittee, and many other conservatives. Our bill repeals the Biden drilling ban and helps codify the action President Trump took on day one to unleash America's potential to produce clean, abundant, and affordable energy. The Offshore Lands Authorities Act also establishes guardrails to provide predictability and consistency in future leasing. The bill safeguards America's role as a leader in energy production and acts boundaries on any future land withdrawal and increases congressional oversight on decisions made through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Continued energy exploration and development of offshore lands requires stability in the leasing process.

Radical pendulum swings driven by political disdain for the oil and gas industry or support— that, that swing threatens America's energy and economic security because it reduces consistency and reliability in leasing. Congress should take action to protect responsible energy production, restore production in American policies and safeguard access to lease federal lands and waters. Our legislation accomplishes this goal, and I encourage my colleagues to strongly support H.R. 513, The Offshore Land Authorities Act. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a letter from Americans for Prosperity in support of my bill.

Without objection. I yield, sir. Thank you. Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes full committee chairman Mr. Bruce Westerman for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the, uh, for holding this hearing and for shepherding these important bills forward, and Representative Stauber's leadership on that. You know, U.S. peak energy demand is now projected to grow by as much as 128 gigawatts through 2029, which is a fivefold increase from earlier forecasts, now more than ever, long-term American energy dominance is essential to our economic and our national security. To meet this skyrocketing, rocketing energy demand, we must increase energy production everywhere, including on our federal lands and waters. While the federal government owns 61% of America's onshore and 99% of America's offshore mineral estate, Only 25% of domestic oil and 11% of domestic natural gas come from federal lands and waters.

Responsibly utilizing these resources is critical to America's social and economic future. H.R. 2556, The CORE Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Hunt, would help address these concerns by transforming how we map America's offshore energy wealth. The CORE Act mandates state-of-the-art tools such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and seismic surveys to locate and assess oil, gas, and minerals like polymetallic nodules and ferromanganese crust. The bill also requires offshore resource inventories every 5 years, evaluating jobs, global market impacts, and withdrawal effects while fostering collaboration with neighbors like Canada.

Studying shared reservoirs, and settling border disputes diplomatically. This analysis will sharpen our competitive edge and ensure U.S. leasing practices are attractive and are attracting investment, not sending producers overseas. H.R. 513, Introduced by Representative Higgins from Louisiana, would also support long-term energy dependence by lifting overly expensive offshore withdrawals, ensuring access to offshore resources for future generations. HR 513 would also set common-sense limits on the size and duration of any future offshore withdrawals, guarding against unilateral decisions that weaken America's energy future.

Together, these bills empower America with clear-eyed strategic energy policies for a resilient, thriving future. Representative Downing's HR 931 would finally allow access to federal coal reserves at the Bull Mountain Mine in Montana. The Bull Mountain Mine in Roundup, Montana, has been mired in litigation and procedural hurdles for over a decade. This is a perfect case study of how our permitting processes are failing everyday Americans and why we need permitting reform along with judicial reform. And we need that badly.

Congressional action must now be taken due to major judicial and administrative delays that have jeopardized this mine and the livelihoods of over 300 hardworking people in Montana. The 3 other bills before us today would reauthorize several critical programs in the United States Geological Survey's hazard missions area. Representative Del Beene's H.R. 2250 Would reauthorize the National Landslide Hazard Reduction Program and the 3D Elevation Program, which allows USGS to gather data that enables states and communities to reduce damages in the event of a landslide. H.R.

3168, Introduced by Representative Valadao, would reauthorize the National Earthquake, Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which aims to manage the impacts of earthquakes on life, property, and the economy by providing critical data for building codes and supporting an earthquake early warning system. H.R. 3176, Introduced by Representative Begich, would reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, through which the USGS monitors the most active and hazardous volcanoes to give ample time to evacuate nearby communities. It's impossible to prevent a landslide, an earthquake, or volcanic eruption. So the best course of action is to prepare the community in the event of a disaster and send early warnings to those in the affected area to give them precious time to react before disaster strikes.

These programs have already demonstrated the ability to save lives through advanced building codes being developed by federal agencies, and the USGS has proven it can mitigate the economic impact from these through advances in early warning and monitoring systems. I look forward to hearing the remainder of the testimony from our witness, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize Mr. Troy Downing from Montana's 2nd Congressional District for his testimony in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of H.R. 931. This is legislation I introduced to protect Montana jobs and preserve one of the most important economic anchors in my district, the Bull Mountains Mine. This is not a theoretical problem.

This is a real crisis unfolding in real time for over 250 workers and their families in Musselshell and Yellowstone County. Without action from Congress, Montana's only underground coal mine could be forced to shut down by the end of the year.

The Bull Mountains mine is a major contributor to Montana's economy and local tax base. Its operations support hundreds of high-paying jobs, and the revenue it generates helps fund our schools, county governments, and infrastructure. In recent years, it has contributed tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue and invested significantly in local services and scholarships. This is a homegrown operation that supports the long-term well-being of the community around it. Right now, the Longwall mine is up against a wall.

Not because of a market failure or drop in demand, but because of a bureaucratic bottleneck. The company has been seeking federal clearance to continue mining in AM3, Amendment 3, which contains a mix of federal, state, and private coal. This land pattern is complicated, but the issue is simple. Because the federal coal lies along state and private tracks in a checkerboard pattern, Access to one is dependent on access to the others. When access to the federal coal is blocked, the rest becomes inaccessible as well.

Due to federal court ruling, the mine is currently barred from producing federal coal in Amendment 3 until an updated environmental impact statement is completed. Now, this process was supposed to be done by now, but it's behind schedule and the clock is ticking. If the mine cannot access this coal soon, the operation will have to shut down.. That means families in Roundup, Billings, and nearby towns will lose their paychecks. It means school districts will lose a key source of revenue, and it means Montana will lose its only underground coal mine.

H.R. 931 Offers a narrowly tailored solution. The bill allows mining on a limited section of federal land to keep the mine running while the federal review process continues. It does not roll back environmental protections or shut shortcut oversight. The mine remains subject to state and federal regulations, and every ton of coal will be mined under the same safety and environmental standards already in place.

This bill is about saving jobs and protecting a community that has done everything by the book. The mine has gone through years of environmental reviews, spent millions to meet regulatory requirements, and made every good faith effort to stay in compliance with federal law. What it needs now is a clear path to keep operating while the federal government finishes its paperwork. You know, the stakes are high. Mining in the AM3 lease area has already been disrupted.

Private coal seams are nearly exhausted. Workers are being idled, and there's no backup plan if the mine closes. The region cannot afford to lose this economic driver, and the workers cannot afford to be left waiting on yet another delay. H.R. 931 Has broad local support.

It is backed by state leaders and community members who understand just how important this mine is to our part of the country. They know this legislation is the only way to keep the mine operational in the short term. This is a simple solution to a solvable problem. I urge the committee to act swiftly to advance this bill. Let's make sure these workers stay on the job, their families stay in their homes, and their communities stay strong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the remainder of my time.

Gentleman yields back. Thank the gentleman for his testimony. We will now move to our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Let me remind the witness that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press talk.

The talk button on the microphone. We're using timing lights. In my previous life, I explained the red light system to a lot of people driving across South Mississippi, but today it'll be just a little different. So, uh, when using these lights, you'll begin with the turn of the green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow.

At the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. Okay.

All right. Dr. Crookshank, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Your testimony. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Comprehensive Offshore Resource Evaluation Act. And the Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025.

The department has also submitted statements for the record on the other bills you're considering today. From his first day in office, President Trump has prioritized the revitalization of domestic energy production to stimulate economic growth and strengthen our national security. His executive order, Unleashing American Energy, reaffirms the national interest in maximizing the use of affordable, reliable domestic energy resources. The order establishes a clear policy directive to promote energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, including the Outer Continental Shelf, to meet the needs of the American people and solidify U.S. global energy leadership for generations to come. As the federal OCS steward, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management plays a central role in implementing this policy.

Our mission is to manage the development of the nation's offshore energy and mineral resources in an economically and environmentally responsible manner. Offshore energy development is a vital component of U.S. national security and a critical driver of American prosperity. Offshore activities support hundreds of thousands of jobs and provide a significant share of U.S. energy production. Last month, at the direction of Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, BOEM issued a request for information and comments the first step in the development of the 11th National Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The request for interest marks the beginning of a multiyear process that involves robust public engagement and multiple rounds of detailed analysis for the Secretary to consider while rendering his final program decision.

While we remain committed to completing the 3 Gulf of America lease sales outlined in the current National Oil and Gas Leasing Program, we are moving forward with developing a new schedule that aligns with the President's directive to maximize the use of OCS energy resources. OMB conducts a national assessment of undiscovered technically recoverable resources and undiscovered economically recoverable resources every 5 years. This assessment informs energy policy, including development of the National OCS Program, and contributes to the comprehensive inventory reports submitted to Congress. OMB's most recent assessment, completed in 2021, estimated mean undiscovered technically recoverable volumes of almost 69 billion barrels of oil and 229 trillion cubic feet of natural gas across the entire Outer Continental Shelf. Preparations for the 2026 assessment are underway, incorporating the latest geologic, geophysical, and economic data to ensure accuracy and transparency.

The CORE Act of 2025 aims to strengthen U.S. national energy security by modernizing— excuse me, by mandating standardized recurring assessment and mapping of offshore energy resources. It calls for the modernization and coordination of exploration methodologies and supports the development of data-driven policies that promote safe, efficient, and responsible resource development. BOEM welcomes the objectives of the CORR Act and recognizes the value of enhanced interagency coordination and improve transparency in offshore resource evaluation. BOEM would welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee and the bill sponsor on technical aspects of the bill. The Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 seeks to restore access to approximately 625 million acres that prior executive actions had withdrawn from energy development.

As drafted, the act would nullify certain withdrawals put in place by former Presidents Obama and Biden, and subsequently rescinded by President Trump. The act also places limitations on future withdrawals by placing limits on how much acreage a president can withdraw, limiting the timeframe of future withdrawals to no more than 20 years, and ensuring that such decisions are grounded in thorough geological, economic, and national security assessments. BOEM strongly supports overturning the OCS administrative withdrawals that unnecessarily impede American energy development. And generally supports the intent of the Offshore Lands Authorities Act to establish a more predictable framework for offshore resource management, to enhance regulatory certainty, encourage investment, and promote long-term planning in offshore energy development. As BOEM carries out its mission, we remain committed to meeting the high standards of this administration and Congress.

Expanding offshore energy capabilities is vital to providing affordable energy for American consumers, creating high-paying jobs, in reducing our dependence on foreign adversaries. On a personal note, I have lost count of the number of times I have sat at this table over the years, but this will likely be my last. It has always been an honor to appear before the subcommittee and to work with its staff, and I am sincerely grateful for the support the subcommittee has provided to our various programs to ensure that the nation's energy and mineral resources are responsibly managed to the benefit of the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your service to this country.

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for his 5 minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your assessment. Doctor, would you, would you mind just speaking to what Respectful of inquiries from across the aisle and sort of the narrative of opening up leasing, one of the common refrains that we address at town halls and et cetera is that what about the claim that some leases remain unused? And I have to clarify regarding the the inconsistency and that the withdrawal of lands had created and the requirement for reliable commitment contractually with exploration and potential extraction. There's time and money involved here. It's not easy to move forward with a lease if there's no stability in the considered areas.

And so the investment to explore, identify, and extract requires stable, a stable leasing environment. And from your position, I realize you'd be limited perhaps in how you can speak to this, but I'd like you to address that, the difference between where we were and where we're going with the stability of offshore leasing and what it would mean to the American energy industry and to, and therefore to the American economy?

Yes, sir. I will start by saying that the information on leases we make available identifies the number of leases that have been issued and the numbers that are producing. That does not mean the non-producing leases do not have activity on them. There's a great deal of work that goes into bringing a lease to the point where it can produce in terms of exploring what's underneath the seabed, understanding what's on the seabed as drilling wells to determine if there's anything underground, and additional wells to fully delineate any discovery, and only then beginning to design what a development project may look like. So it can take 5 to 10 or more years to bring a lease into production.

And so many of the non-producing leases actually have quite a lot of activity on them, and others are part of companies' portfolios that will allow them to, to, to act based on new information and new technologies as they become become available. To compare where we were to where we are, we are currently implementing the 5-year leasing program of the previous administration that called for 3 lease sales in the Gulf of America across 5 years. President has made it clear that he does not believe that's a sufficient number of lease sales, and we have started the process to develop a new schedule of oil and gas leasing. I cannot say at this time how many lease sales will be in that program. That is something that will be determined over the course of the process, but we are undergoing the process now to put together a new schedule.

It's a fascinating business when you really study what is required by the industry to explore and identify fields and then to prepare for extraction and then extraction and transport. It takes a lot to move our energy product from the, you know, far below the surface of the ocean floor to a reliable and clean and affordable and abundant product in our homes and in our vehicles. And the stability of the leasing environment is crucial for that journey to begin. And I would ask you to just comment on What is the— because of your background, you know, you know people in the industry. What is the level of confidence now since January and with the enactment of bills like my bill, 513, to restabilize and to secure the leasing environment?

What is the level of optimism in the American energy industry?

I believe the oil and gas industry is optimistic. They have been very much engaged with us since January in sharing their opinions of things they think ought to be done and providing their input and really saying that they are pleased about the direction things seem to be headed. I concur, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.

I thank you again for allowing me to wave on and I yield. Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the ranking member also for inviting me to participate today.

I should say that I served on this committee for almost 30 years, and I looked around at the nameplates. I don't think anybody was on the committee when I started in 1988. So it's nice to be back. But, um, today's hearing on H.R. 513, The Offshore Lands Authorities Act, is of critical importance to my district at the Jersey Shore.

You see, the waters off New Jersey and all the Atlantic states from Florida to Maine are protected from oil and gas drilling right now. And this happened because both Presidents, uh, Trump and Biden recognized the vital importance of the East Coast's existing economy to the well-being of Americans nationwide. And the Atlantic Coast rely on a clean and thriving marine environment is basically the foundation for major industry and for small businesses in our state. And the Atlantic Coast beaches and bays are where we take our families to recreate and relax. We're obviously looking forward to Memorial Day weekend.

But the Jersey Shore's economy and way of life depends on a clean environment. That's not just New Jersey. In every East Coast state, residents have agreed that offshore oil and gas development does not belong on the Atlantic coast. And we saw what happened years ago with the BP oil spill where the Gulf Coast tourism was really destroyed for a long time. And this, the spill actually went all the way around to Florida's East Coast.

And at the end of his first term, President Trump used the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Authority Act to protect Florida to North Carolina from oil and gas development. I think that was a good thing. But one oil spill even in North Carolina would destroy New Jersey's fishing and tourism industry. So President Biden went even further and protected the full Atlantic. And again, this was a good thing.

The problem is that H.R. 513 Revokes all the withdrawals ordered by Presidents Biden and Obama, even though it leaves in place the withdrawal from, from North Carolina to Florida that was ordered by President Trump. And of course, I oppose it because right now all of the Atlantic coast is, is closed to offshore oil and gas drilling. So I wanted to ask the director really two questions, and you can answer them together or separately if you like, sir. In the recently posted five-year oil and gas leasing plan documents shared with the public by BOEM, it calls for new seismic surveys in the Atlantic.

So, Dr. Krikshaw, I wanted to ask two questions. Is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Planning to issue permits for seismic testing for offshore oil and gas in the Atlantic, which of course I oppose? And then second, can you commit that the Bureau will not include offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Atlantic in the next 5-year plan? Those are my 2 questions.

Thank you, Congressman. And I have been at this table while you were a member member of the committee, so I remember conversing with you before. But at the current time, we have no permits before us seeking to do seismic activity in the Atlantic. And if at any time we receive such a permit, we would review it under our standard practices, but there is nothing pending right now. With respect to future lease sales, we are just starting the process of getting public input on the development of a new program.

There's a lot of work to go before the Secretary even proposes his first schedule of possible lease sales. There will be 3 such schedules put out before a program is finalized, so it's far too premature to be able to talk about what may be in or not in the next program. Well, I guess what I don't understand— I guess your third question now— is if right now the law says there is no offshore oil and gas leasing permitted on the Atlantic Coast, why would you even entertain the— if someone came forth asking for a permit for seismic testing or to do offshore oil and gas sales lease, why would you even entertain that given that the current law says that those are not allowed?

Under the OCS Lands Act, when we start the process, we provide the Secretary information on every planning area. Regardless of its, its current legal status, so that he can do the balancing that's called for under that act in coming up with his proposals. We also know that the status of any particular area can change. Obviously, we would not hold a lease sale in an area where the law says we cannot do so, but the Secretary has the ability to consider the potential of areas just in case the legal standing of areas changes over time. Well, my time is almost out, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to say again that the possibility of either seismic testing or the drilling is extremely alarming to me and I know to my constituents, and we would obviously oppose it.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. Gentlemen yields. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. After the fast past few months, the United States is finally seeing positive change to unleashing our country's energy production.

From the harmful Biden EOs we're overturning and new policies coming out of the Trump administration through today's hearing, jobs are being restored, businesses are beginning to thrive again, and we're on track, uh, to energy independence once again. Our nation will no longer be dependent on foreign adversaries for our everyday necessities. Dr. Krunkshack, you state in your testimony that 1.3 billion barrels of oil have been added after realizing new reserves across fields in the Gulf of America. How is it from 2021 to 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, added 1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent, but from 2016 to 2021, reports issued under Biden that BOEM seems to have lost 18 billion barrels and 86 trillion cubic feet of gas.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, the two sets of numbers. The first numbers you were talking about talked about the proven reserves, the amount of oil that had actually been discovered over time. And we took a look at the various new discoveries across, across the Gulf of Mexico in particular, and found that those discoveries had proven 1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent since 2021. But that's based on the actual drilling results and discoveries. The other number you were talking about was an estimate of undiscovered resources, things that had yet to be found.

The last National Assessment that was done of undiscovered resources took a look at all the latest information and had a— and was smaller than the one before in part because of discoveries that move things from the undiscovered bucket to the discovered bucket, but in part also because there are a lot of disappointing exploration results in the 5 years since the previous assessment, which caused our geologists and experts to think some of the plays may not be as prolific as they had previously estimated. But recognize those estimates are a snapshot in time. As we get more information from additional drilling, as new technologies become available that make more, more things technically recoverable that may not be now, those numbers can change a great deal. And as an example of that, I'll note that that when I first started out, there was nothing in more than about 400 meters of water considered technically recoverable. But we now know that much deeper waters are the source of the majority of production in the Gulf of America.

In 4 years, you found 1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent from recoverable reserves. But over in 5 years of Democrat-led reports, BOEM lost 14.8 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Are you telling me that 14 billion barrels of oil were produced from 2016 to 2021? No, sir, that, that is simply a reduction in our estimate of what remained to be discovered on the OCS. There were bits of it that were discovered, but more of it had to do with, with the disappointing exploration results in some of the plays, leading our geologists to estimate that they had less potential than they previously thought.

Did the hydrocarbons seep out of the ocean floor? There are natural seeps in the ocean, but that has nothing to do with the estimates that were made. My main question is, can political appointees provide input in these reports' findings before they are published? Generally, no, that does not occur. Could a Biden administration official have said, let's take the lowest estimate possible and make that our number?

We received no such input. Our experts put together a range, and the number you were quoting was the mean of that range of estimates. Thank you very much. Ms. Elford, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I want to start by agreeing with many of the concerns addressed addressed by my colleague from New Jersey, particularly as we talk about seismic testing and offshore drilling, the potential, very real potential for environmental harm based on what we know happened in the Gulf of Mexico. I also want to just say that neither of these two bills would guarantee that any of the oil and gas produced from this offshore drilling would actually benefit the, the energy or the pocketbooks of my constituents. But I want to hone in here, Mr. Cruikshank, on a very real national security threat I view that these bills pose. First though, I do want to thank you for being here, and thank you for your, your decades-long career in public service.

And I hope this might be the last time I see you, but I thank you for an early congratulations on your retirement. But during the— this committee's reconciliation markup just a few weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would ensure any offshore oil and gas leases were not offered in areas designated by the Department of Defense as an impediment to military readiness and national security, and it's pretty simple why. Uh, even if everything on a drilling site goes according to plan, the mere presence of these rigs and the pollution they produce could cause immediate threats to our service members, and that's just not a risk I'm willing to take. Um, Mr. Cookshank, in 2015, the Department of Defense issued a report entitled DOD Mission Compatibility Planning Assessment, BOEM 2017-2022, Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing draft proposed program. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to submit the copy of this report for the record. Without objection. Thank you. In this report, the DOD analyzed offshore lease blocks, analyzed each block's role and activities critical for military readiness and national security, and determined what, if any, level of drilling activity can be done without impeding their work. Mr. Cookshank, are you familiar with the report I just referenced?

I did see it at the time. I don't remember the details. Okay, well, I'm happy to dig in here. Our military relies on obviously accessible and unimpeded waterways to conduct military exercises and again, if needed, defend our country from attack. So, um, Mr. Kershank, does Interior or BOEM implementing any of the recommendations from this report— now you're kind of familiar, but in the recent work, have you been matching these or implementing the recommendations from this report into what you're working on right now?

What we do at the start of the development of any 5-year program is we reach out to the Department of Defense and, and get their input as it exists today, because from year to year their needs change and, and their requirements change. So we will work closely with them in understanding what areas are of concern to them. Have you heard from them in this recent go-around? No, right now we just have our first round of public comment out, but before we publish any sort of schedule, we we will be getting input from them. Okay, Mr.

Chair, just again for the record, I have areas under consideration from BOEM's website, and there's no current mention of military defense or even input from the Navy. Could I submit this for the record, please? Without objection. Thank you. Due to the necessary and sensitive work of military installations, all the blocks, as I mentioned, that overlay East and West Coasts are classified by DOD.

In this report are either requiring total prohibition or very specific conditions for those leasing. Mr. Cruikshank, does Interior or BOEM intend to follow the recommendations from the 2015 study, or if you do get new recommendations based on this current DOD, what is the plan to follow those recommendations? We will work with the Department of Defense to understand what the requirements are now, to understand what areas are truly incompatible and which can be addressed through mitigation. And we will work with them, uh, to put forward a proposal for public consideration. Okay, I would, I would like to request, Mr.

Chair, that we, um, Mr. Cruikshank, keep us, this subcommittee, involved in those discussions as they can move forward, either in writing or in person. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay, so again, just, um, this is a deep concern for all the reasons I mentioned, but, uh, this needs to be a priority for this administration. Again, we cannot sacrifice our national security or our readiness for offshore drilling that again poses other, other challenges.

It's my sincere hope that the administration will implement either the 2015 plan, which I think is very thoroughly executed, or any updates to that plan that again meet our critical need for readiness. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.

Okay. I will yield to Mr. Hurd, Representative Hurd, 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Krupchenko, good afternoon.

H.R. 2556 Would require BOEM to modify or modernize its offshore resource assessments by using AI and seismic surveys and other advanced tools, not only to better estimate energy and critical mineral resources, but also to project the economic develop— economic benefits of development. Like job creation and federal or state revenues, outdated models, risk underestimating resources, which could lead to less interest in lease sales in these areas and discourage investment in the United States. Can you talk to us about how the CORE Act— the CORE Act's requirement for peer-reviewed modern analyses help quantify the full economic value of offshore development, particularly in terms of GDP, job creation, and billions in potential state and federal revenue?

I believe what the, the peer review the CORE Act called for is over the geologic modeling itself and coming up with the estimates, and that is something we are accustomed to doing. We have gone to the Society of Petroleum Engineers before to have their expert committees peer review our methodologies for coming up with those resource estimates. The models that we use then to estimate economic benefits that may come from development of those resources are made publicly available, usually through the development of the Five-Year Program, and we receive comments from across the board on those. Could this lead to more targeted and economically strategic leasing decisions? The better information can, can always assists us in making better decisions.

Okay. In what areas, geographic or technological, do you see the greatest potential for unlocking resources? Well, right now, if you look at where we have estimated the undiscovered resources to be, the majority are in the Gulf of America or offshore Alaska. And can you think of any new strategies that BOEM could use to unlock untapped offshore assets and strengthen America's position in global markets? Generally, the main tool at our disposal is to make areas available for the private industry to explore.

Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony today, and congratulations on this being your final hearing. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Representative Rivas from California's 29th District.

You're recognized for 5 minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. As we saw during our reconciliation markup, my Republican colleagues and President Trump are pushing for at least 30 offshore oil and gas lease sales over the next 15 years and 6 lease sales off the coast of Alaska. They're ripping away solely needed funding to agencies like BOEM and NOAA NEPA, which provide resources and research for our local economies and ensure our environment is protected for all.

They're stripping away the ability of judicial review and key provisions of NEPA that give underserved communities a voice. They're even mandating a protest filing fee if any member from these communities has an issue with their projects. These efforts are just some of many meant to dirty our water, pollute our air, and silence our communities. I think about what this means for frontline environmental justice communities like mine in the San Fernando Valley, those in the Central Valley of California, and in Cancer Alley on the Gulf Coast. Can you commit to ensuring that comprehensive community consultation on the oil and gas lease— leases that BOEM will oversee Yes or no?

Yes. The program development process really requires robust public participation throughout. There are 3 different periods where we get public input on what we should be looking at and what we should be analyzing. And we take those comments very seriously. So you are saying that there will continue to be community input in these community—.

In environmental justice communities around these leases, oil and gas leases? All of the public, all communities are welcome to participate as we develop the next program. Okay. You know, I think that, you know, these, you know, for decades these communities are, you know, have been burdened with these hazardous industries with high cancer and asthma rates. And I think it's very important to continue to allow the communities to speak out and not shorten this process in any way, or for there to be a way to get out of it, like I felt was happening during our markup in the bill.

And, you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, we take these communities' input into consideration on these issues. So I yield back. Thank you very much. I will now recognize our ranking member, Representative Ansari, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Dr. Krikshank.

I'd like to ask about some extremely concerning reports out of the Gulf about a recent major oil spill. According to CBS News, a leak was first reported as a, quote, well blowout, with witnesses later describing a geyser of oil shooting 30 to 40 feet into the air. The same reporting raises serious concerns about how DOJ cuts could hurt oil spill response. Response. We have one of these former NOAA staff members from the Emergency Response Division here today to testify on the next panel.

Since the beginning of this year, reporting has found that around 2,000 employees from NOAA have been laid off or taken early retirement, including members of the team who directly respond to oil spills. Beyond NOAA, I am extremely concerned with the huge numbers of staff at the Department of the Interior who have taken the deferred resignation program and reports that Tyler Hassan, a former oilfield services executive and member of DOJ, is managing plans to conduct these large-scale layoffs. These are staff that run essential programs and services like offshore oil and gas safety inspections and enforcement for incidents like this most recent spill and others like the USGS Hazards Program, which we are looking to reauthorize on a bipartisan basis here today. That protect communities from landslides, earthquakes, and volcanoes. Mr. Crookshank, I want to make clear that I'm grateful to career staff like you who have served to carry out the goals of the president, regardless who that president may be.

You carried out the objectives of President Biden, and now you're carrying out the work and objectives of President Trump. With that in mind, I'd like to ask a few questions. In addition to your role as Acting Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, you served as Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management from February 28th to April 10th. In this role, in addition to BOEM, you oversaw the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and importantly, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Dr. Crookshank, did you engage with any DOJ employees during your time as Assistant Secretary or in your current role as Acting Director of BOEM?

And can you briefly describe your engagement?

Yes, my engagement was largely in terms of representing BOEM and talking with them. And during the period that you mentioned, the focus was really on contracts at that point and what contracts should be terminated and which ones should be continued. And can you please provide us with an update on how many staff at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have taken buyout or early retirement offers? Uh, the— we don't have a final number on that yet, but it's in the neighborhood of 100 people. And how many employees took the buyout, early retirement, or were fired at the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement while you oversaw the department from February 28th to April 10th?

I do not know the numbers for BSEE. Uh, those numbers really would've been revealed after I was no longer, uh, Acting Assistant Secretary. Okay, and Dr. Crookshank, can you confirm that no staff responsible for essential services like offshore safety and enforcement will be laid off as part of the agency's reduction in force? I have not seen the workplace efficiency plan as yet. As you know, there's a temporary restraining order that has kept that from, from being circulated within the department, so I don't know what's in that, but I know that The department has as a priority making sure that operations offshore are done safely and making sure there's an adequate workforce to be able to do that.

Dr. Cruikshank, I just want to say I really appreciate your career service, and I appreciate each of the career employees who have taken early retirement or the buyout or who have been unfairly fired. I understand, Dr. Cruikshank, that you are an institutionalist and are probably personally just as alarmed as I am that 24-year-old DOJ employees are gutting your department. We should all be alarmed by what this administration is doing to undercut federal service, and there will be a time when we have to rebuild BOEM after this, and it will be significantly harder because you are not there. I also, you know, across both sides of the aisle, I think we can all agree that electricity demand is growing.

According to a recent S&P Global report, U.S. electricity and demand is expected to surge up to 50% by 2040 due to the growth of data centers, new manufacturing, and electric trends. Regardless of how you feel about any one kind of energy production or another, offshore wind, which your department oversees, will be one of the fastest ways to meet this demand. Really, um, but there are multiple other projects in limbo, projects that have invested significantly in the US and have meaningful energy, any energy generation potential. Why would we slow down these domestic energy projects if the U.S. cannot afford to wait for energy security?

So I think that our task is both to try and move forward with energy development, but also to do so in an environmentally responsible way. That is what our statutes call for. And it is responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to take a look at his programs, and if he sees information that suggests that something's maybe out of line with what the laws call for, that it's okay to take a pause and take a look and make sure that everything is as it should be before letting them continue. All right. Thank you very much, Dr. Kirk Schenk, I think you had mentioned that this is your last hearing.

I'm actually privileged to be the last person to have a conversation with you officially. First off, I do want to recognize your professional career as a 40-plus years in the Interior. I will tell you that you came to one of the committees and I was asking you some questions and I had done my homework. You supported what President Trump was doing, 45, and then supporting what President Biden wanted done. They were philosophically different.

And when I asked you why you— why change? And you said you were just following the leadership from the elected people, what the elected president wanted. I— it actually shocked me. In a good way, that, that you weren't putting your own opinions. You were following what you were asked to do in a professional and a safe manner.

And I think as you leave your 40 years, I think there's many, many people, not only in Congress but the people that you've worked with, you've left something and you instilled in something that's so valuable as an employee. Professional employee within our government and Interior, and your knowledge. And I just want to say thank you for what you did, and I wish you the best in retirement. You, of course, being questioned so many times by members of Congress, you've earned it. And so I'll end up with just some of my questions here.

The Section 12 of OCSLA was never intended to permanently lock away offshore resources. Yet presidential withdrawals have attempted indefinite bans on hundreds of millions of acres in regions containing known oil and gas resources without regard for future needs or technology. H.R. 513— Excuse me— would limit the size and duration of withdrawals and require economic energy and security impact assessments before a future withdrawal moves forward. In your view, how could permanent closures impact future generations in terms of lost revenue, energy security, and technological opportunities?

Well, you know, depending what areas are put aside and the reasons they are put aside for, clearly if you are permanently withdrawing high resource potential areas from leasing and development, then you are forgoing a lot of a lot of potential investment, a lot of potential income. For the future. Yes. And do you believe— excuse me— and do you believe requiring an updated resource assessment before withdrawal, as the bill proposes, better balances conservation with future access? Yes, I think that mandating what has generally been the practice where we provide a lot of information on what we know about an area is important for making sound decisions.

I can't stress enough how important I believe this part of the legislation is. The requirement for an economic and resource assessment to be completed prior to a withdrawal. If an administration is going to take steps to institute a withdrawal, the American people deserve to have a full understanding of its impact. And in my opening statement, I mentioned that the former Secretary of Interior, Secretary Haaland, had no idea when she banned mining in 225,000 acres of the biggest untapped copper nickel find in the world in the district that I'm privileged to represent, Minnesota's 8th Congressional District, the Duluth complex, in a Senate hearing. She said she had no idea there were critical minerals in there.

I think it was so irresponsible for, for, for her to do that when we need those critical minerals. Again, the biggest untapped copper-nickel find in the world at the Duluth complex in northeastern Minnesota. We need those critical minerals. We can lead the world not only in oil and gas extraction, but critical minerals. And so much more.

And I'm really looking forward to having this piece of legislation not only pass this committee but get signed into law. It is, it is good for the American people and it's good stewardship of our oceans and our land. So with that, Mr. Cruikshank, I am done questioning. I will give you— this normally doesn't happen, but I will give you 30 seconds to wrap up, maybe a minute to wrap up your career.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that opportunity, and I appreciate the kind words that you and others of the committee have had. It's— 40 years is a long time to be working in one building, but it's— I believe in the mission of the department. I believe in the mission of BOM, all parts of that mission.. And it's really been a pleasure for me to work with this subcommittee over the years to try and make sure that we continue to improve upon what we do.

So I appreciate all the support that the subcommittee has given us over those years. Thank you. Well said. Thank you. If there are no further questions, we will now move on to— no.

I gotta find where I am here.

Okay, if there are no further questions, we will now move on to the third panel. I'd like to thank the witness for his valuable testimony. You are now dismissed. While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witness that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. 5 Minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.

I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute statement and to please remember to turn on your microphones. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before the member questioning.

Here. Yeah. Where's Mr. Dowdy? Uh, he's not going to be back to introduce him, so you can, uh, we can just move forward with introductions. Okay.

Our first witness is Mr. Parker Phipps, and he is the president and CEO of Signal Peak Energy, and he is stationed in Roundup, Montana. Mr. Phipps, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chairman Stauber and members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 931. The Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification Bill. I also want to thank Representative Downing for introducing H.R.

931. We're excited to have him as the congressman for the people of eastern Montana. I'd also like to thank my wife, who joined me for her first trip to Washington, D.C. I'm the CEO of Signal Peak Energy, the operator of the Bull Mountains Mine outside of Roundup, Montana. The Bull Mountains Mine contains a very high BTU, low sulfur coal, and coal mining has occurred in the Bull Mountains for nearly 150 50 years.

The Bull Mountains Mine is an underground coal mine which utilizes modern longwall mining techniques. Like much of the western U.S., the surface and subsurface of the Bull Mountains is a combination of federal, private, and state ownership. Signal Peak applied to lease 2,700 acres of federal coal in 2008, and after completion of an environmental assessment, entered into a lease with the United States in 2011 to develop the federal coal. Under the lease, we pay an 8% royalty, with half of the federal royalty going to the state of Montana. In 2022, the last year Signal Peak was allowed to mine federal coal, we paid $31 million in federal royalties.

In 2023, we paid more than $93 million in state and local taxes in Montana. We currently employ 250 hardworking Montanans spread out over 17 rural towns. Mining at the Bull Mountains Mine is under a state-approved permit issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Montana has the delegated authority to administer the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Because we mine federally owned coal, our mine plan is reviewed by the Office of Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior.

As noted in my written testimony, Signal Peak has spent over 13 years seeking approval to mine this leased coal. During that time, OSM has completed 3 environmental assessments while Signal Peak continued producing coal from private, state, and at times federal reserves. Litigation has been continuous for over a decade since Signal Peak began mining federal coal in 2015. Over the years, the courts have found fault with just 2 aspects of the thorough environmental review, and until 2023, Signal Peak was able to continue to mine federal coal as OSM worked to fix the NEPA analysis. That all changed in February 2023 when the court again remanded the EA back to OSM for the fourth time, but this time the court prohibited Signal Peak from mining any federal coal until OSM completed yet another NEPA analysis.

OSM told the court in December 2022 that its fourth NEPA analysis on the Signal Peak mine plan would be an environmental impact statement. OSM's initial schedule had the issuance of the final EIS by July of 2024. Unfortunately, OSM has missed its own deadlines and kept delaying the process. They've demanded extra studies that neither the court nor Montana DEQ found necessary. Signal Peak has spent over $3 million in the last 2 years and is still waiting for our EIS.

The delay in finalizing the EIS has created a serious problem for the mine. Signal Peak relies on longwall mining because the coal— and because the coal is a mix of federal, state, and private ownership, being unable to access the federal portions effectively blocks mining in the AM3 permit area. Initially, when we thought the EIS would be complete last summer, Signal Peak modified our mine plan. First, as shown on the map, we started— we mined the start of two longwall panels, Panel 10 and 11. You'll note that these longwall panels are a quarter mile wide, and as soon as we bumped into federal coal, we stopped mining.

Second, as shown on the far right and the top left of the map, we worked with the state to get approval to mine two areas of private coal at the edge of our mine. Our efforts, which have cost over $70 million in additional operating expenses, have allowed our employees to continue working. However, without some type of authorization to resume mining in the main area of the mine, Those efforts won't be enough and will begin winding down our operations in the coming months. That's where HR 931 comes into play. As shown by the orange hashed areas on the map, HR 931 would allow Signal Peak to return to the main area of the mine and mine specific federal coal until OSM completes the EIS.

This mining would proceed according to the current mine plan approved by Montana DEQ and previously by OSM. HR 931 would allow us to mine a small portion of the leased federal coal to keep our mine open. If HR 931 is enacted, Signal Peak will have sufficient coal for the next 18 months of production to provide our workforce with the certainty needed to continue this complex mining process. Thank you for your time today and interest in the Bull Mountains mine. I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

Gentlemen yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for 30 seconds to introduce our next witness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm especially pleased to welcome our next witness, Mr. Mike West, who serves as the state seismologist for Alaska and the director of the Alaska Earthquake Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Mr. West is not only a nationally recognized expert in seismic and volcanic hazards, but also an Alaskan and a constituent. His leadership has been critical to advancing real-time monitoring and hazard mitigation strategies in our state, a place that experiences more earthquakes and volcanic activity than anywhere else in the country. I'm grateful for his service and for the insight he brings today as we examine legislation that will directly impact the safety and preparedness of communities across Alaska and the nation. Welcome to Washington. Dr.

West, you're now recognized for 5 minutes. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, I appreciate the opportunity to talk today. About earthquake, volcano, and landslide legislation. I direct the Alaska Earthquake Center. I spent 10 years as part of the Alaska Volcano Observatory, and my recent research focuses on monitoring landslides.

I feel well-positioned for this. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, known as NEHRP, is one of the most successful pieces of hazards legislation ever, coming up on its 50th anniversary. It coordinates the efforts of 4 agencies: the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, FEMA, NIST. In my opinion, this is what smart collaborative government looks like. I can paraphrase the goal of NEHRP very simply: reducing the economic impacts and the fatalities of earthquakes.

Here on the figure on the screen, this is just one of NEHRP's many deliverables. This is the National Seismic Hazard Map led by the USGS. This map shows the shaking to be expected from future earthquakes. This is a scientific masterpiece that reflects 50 years of the NEHRP program. This map informs hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure design.

It drives insurance rates, building codes, land use decisions, emergency response. Uh, that said, the work of NEHRP is not done. Uh, just 3 states so far have the USGS's ShakeAlert system, which is capable of providing warning before shaking even starts. 4 Months ago, the USGS published a ShakeAlert plan for Alaska. There are other states that are developing plans, uh, as well, but it is NEHRP legislation that'll provide the national coordination that can make ShakeAlert more broadly accessible.

Let's change gears. How about the second figure? The National Volcano Early Warning System, aka NVIEWS, is a similar piece of legislation. The U.S. is home to 58 high-threat volcanoes. On occasion, they put ash in the air.

They create lava flows, landslides, toxic gases. But with the right research and monitoring, we can actually forecast most of these. That helps prevent unnecessary evacuations, protects infrastructure, and can reduce the costs of responding to disasters. It also protects aviation by detecting airborne ash that threatens planes. The recent unrest of Mount Spurr, shown here on the screen in my home state, is an outstanding example —of volcano warning.

Just outside of Anchorage, this photo shows steam and gas from the summit. On the bottom is a chart of earthquake activity over the past 16 months. Together with other data, the Alaska Volcano Observatory has used these to issue increasingly detailed forecasts for many months now. The problem is that most U.S. volcanoes aren't monitored like SPUR. Fully implementing NVIEWS would fix this.

Landslides. Good numbers on landslides are hard to come by. That's something the bill before you would actually help address. But even 20 years ago, annual costs were estimated above $2 billion. They affect nearly every state anywhere that there's steep terrain and heavy rainfall.

The Oso landslide mentioned earlier in Washington State killed 43 people. In 2014, the California storms in 2023 triggered hundreds of slides and billions in damage. We have some evidence that landslides are increasing in frequency. In Figure 3 on the screen right now, you'll see the landslide on top in Wrangell, Alaska, that killed 6 people in 2023. On the bottom is a 2024 slide in Ketchikan.

These disasters are becoming a near-annual experience in my state. The Landslide Act empowers the USGS with state partners to map, monitor, and respond to landslides nationwide. So I'm thrilled that you're considering all three of these bills together today because they share a common set of proven strategies. Each program tracks long-term patterns in the earth. How do you track long-term patterns?

Well, with long-term instrumentation and monitoring. With years of baseline data, it becomes possible to know when a hazard is developing or where it's most likely to occur. These programs build formal collaborations between federal agencies, universities, state geological surveys, each bringing what they do best. So earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, they're part of the planet. On which we live.

We can't make them go away, but the surest way to minimize their impacts, human and financial, is to update and reauthorize the bills that affirm our national stance. Thank you. Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes Mr. Helton for 5 minutes. Chairman Staubert, Ranking Member Ansari, and subcommittee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak about the major risks of offshore drilling NOAA's role in protecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, and the American people.

My name is Doug Helton. Until recently, I served in NOAA's Emergency Response Division, providing scientific and technical support during oil spill responses. Today I'm speaking on my own behalf. After 33 years of service, I retired alongside more than 1,000 other NOAA employees who left amid the Trump administration's effort to gut the agency. Together, we represented 27,000 years of experience— it's an irreplaceable loss that endangers Americans' health, safety, and the economy.

As an oil spill expert, I'm deeply concerned by this administration and this committee's attempts to expand offshore drilling. During my time at NOAA, I worked on preparedness and response efforts up and down the country's coasts, from Maine to the Arctic to American Samoa. I also chaired the Oil Spill Recovery Institute, created in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Given my extensive experience, deep concern about NOAA, and recognition of the widespread public opposition to offshore drilling, I am here today to testify in opposition to the Offshore Lands Authorities Act of 2025 and the CORE Act of 2025. The Offshore Lands Authorities Act would revoke permanent protections from oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific, Eastern Gulf, and Arctic, areas established by presidential withdrawal, while also limiting future withdrawals.

These presidential withdrawals, including those enacted by President Trump, didn't happen in a vacuum. They happened after decades of sustained bipartisan opposition to offshore drilling. Nearly 400 municipalities, 2,300 Republican, Democratic, and independent elected officials, 55,000 coastal businesses, 500,000 fishing families, national defense interests, and members of Congress have all formally opposed expanded offshore drilling. The communities most impacted by this bill are overwhelmingly against it. Every year, NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration responds to over 150 oil and chemical spills.

The simple truth is that whenever and wherever you drill, produce, transport, or store oil, there is risk. Expanding that footprint, as this bill proposes, multiplies that risk, just as the budget and staffing cuts are impacting the agency's ability to respond. The Deepwater Horizon example is a— remains a sobering example. I worked 16-hour days for 87 days straight until the well was capped. The cleanup took years more.

Despite a response of 45,000 people and highly specialized equipment, only a fraction of the oil was recovered. Even smaller spills can cause serious harm. A spill in Tampa Bay, for instance, polluted 13 miles of beach, harming wildlife and disrupting fishing. Oil spills in Alaska are particularly concerning. The North Slope is remote and difficult to access.

Getting proper equipment can take weeks. Housing the number of responders needed would also be logistically impossible, and severe weather and long winter darkness would create major additional challenges. All told, this bill's proposal to eliminate protections across the U.S. waters will invite oil and gas development on every coast, risking spills we can't contain and harming ecosystems and economies for decades. Although not part of my area of specific expertise, I also want to express concern about the CORE Act. This bill would prioritize seismic testing and drilling even in sensitive areas.

Seismic testing that involves repeated high-decibel blasts that travel hundreds of miles underwater, which can seriously impact marine wildlife. These risks are magnified by the Trump administration's rollback of safety regulations and its dismantling of the very federal— the very federal agencies responsible for oil spill prevention and response. Cut to agency budgets and staff mean fewer inspections, weaker safeguards, and slower responses. With hurricane season just 12 days away, these stakes could not be higher. Expanding offshore drilling while also weakening our federal response capacity is a dangerous combination.

In closing, after more than 3 decades responding to spills, I've seen firsthand the devastating, often irreversible impacts to communities, ecosystems, and livelihoods. These bills ignore the will of the American people and unnecessarily increase the risk of catastrophic oil spills, especially in areas lacking the capacity to respond. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to weigh these risks before advancing these bills. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your testimony.

Gentleman yields. Mr. Keefe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

Chairman Stauber, Mr. Ezel, Ranking Member Asari, and all the committee members in attendance today, it is an honor and privilege to come before you today. I'm here today to share my thoughts on the recent bills to be introduced in the 119th Congress by Congressman Higgins and Congressman Hunt. As I understand, these two bills will limit the executive authority of POTUS relative to cancellation of lease sales and better identify and evaluate what is available for development and production of natural resources in this great nation. Let me start by explaining the service industry that I represent. I'm the Director of Business Development and Governmental Affairs for Crosby Tugs, located in Galliano, Louisiana.

Louisiana. We provide marine towing services for the energy and civil sectors of the U.S. Our fleet of 130 vessels navigate the inland waters, rivers, Gulf, and oceans of this great nation. We operate domestically and internationally. I have 49 years of experience in this industry and began my service as an, as an ordinary seaman and worked through the ranks to become an executive in field. I also serve in several civic capacities as outlined in my biography.

My comments on Congressman Higgins' bill is that limiting the authority of POTUS to withdraw lands from leasing that are necessary for offshore production of energy is critical. The U.S. needs every electron, barrel of oil, foot of gas it can harvest to meet growing energy demands. My comments on Congressman Hunt's bill are that there are so many regions in this nation that are off limits which are vital to our nation's goal for energy independence. I do believe that the last evaluations were done in some regions in the '60s, which were incomplete and outdated. I'm sure that new seismic technology today could help us better understand just exactly what is out there.

I do believe that would be good to know. Also, we have Canada to the north, Russia to the northwest, Mexico and Cuba to the south. May be actively harvesting resources from our region that we should be harvesting. These bills complement each other. The Offshore Lands Authority Act makes sure lands are available for leasing for generations to come, and only the most sensitive areas can be withdrawn and must be reconsidered every 20 years in order to be withdrawn again.

No more permanent withdrawals. The CORA Act looks at these areas and lets policymakers like Dr. Cruikshank here from BOM know the resource potential set so that when leasing occurs, it can be directed in a strategic way. It's as simple as that. Without areas to lease, operations like those of Crosby Tugs and other vessel operators, rig workers, engineers, service companies, and others are in jeopardy of being phased out. Without resource assessments, the already dysfunctional federal government will be left to make decisions with even less information and outright outdated and inaccurate information.

Although these measures are important, in no way are they near enough to have a national energy policy that is substantial enough to attract investment. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, you all meet as welcome to the terms that the US is simply not an attractive place to invest in the energy sector. This nation must fix the permitting process, and we must do it for all energy sources and all infrastructure projects. Too much time is being wasted bickering about which sector of energy is better than the other. Too much blame about who shut down oil and gas and who shut down renewables, when the fact is that all sectors of energy should be brought online.

That— and that's what I said, all sectors of energy. There's no place in the world that wakes up every morning demanding less energy. All regions of the world want more and more. There's a smart way to do it, but it seems that you haven't figured out yet— figured that out yet. If you don't figure it out soon, we will be forced to buy energy from some other places in the who will capitalize on our weaknesses.

Did you know that the revenue generated for the US Treasury by the sale of leases and royalties generated by production of oil and gas was second only to federal income taxes? Millions of people depend on the energy sector for their jobs. They're negatively affected by government overreach as well, all because our government can't get its act together. Thank goodness we have a nation who wants energy independence. But the good people of this nation don't have a government that we can depend on to make that happen.

The messaging is wrong as well. It is insane to believe that renewables will replace fossil fuels, but we can bring another source of energy online that will help to satisfy the needs of energy, and we've done it in the past without sacrificing other energy inputs. The political machine is hurting us. The world is watching and forming their own opinion about how great this nation really is. I believe these bills are a step in the right direction to begin to get the U.S. back on track to have better energy policies.

But this committee and the federal government have much more work to do as well. We deserve better. We're depending on you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Key. The committee will now recognize members for 5 minutes for questioning. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I'm going to start with you, Mr. Keith. Is it true that the current mobile offshore drilling rig count in the United States has drastically declined in the last 20 years and cannot in reality support a drill, drill, drill program?

That is correct, sir. Why is that, and can anything be done about it? Well, I'm going to read to you my past testimony from 2011 that I did before the Committee on Natural Resources when Chairman Hastings was here. Drilling contractors are leaving the Gulf to go to work in other countries that have the ability to obtain steady financial commitments. These drilling contractors have already demonstrated they will not stay in the U.S.

Waiting for the government and the operators to get their act together and iron out the wrinkles in this new regulatory environment. Service companies such as ours who depend on this system are now facing severe economic decline due to this lack of efficiency. We just can't simply get our act together to figure out how to compete with the rest of the world, bottom line. There's to keep the Corps Act and Offshore Lands Authorities Act, OLAA, are both critical bills to realize an American energy dominance for the future, but especially important for coastal communities. As you well know, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are recipients of GO-MESA funding paid directly as a percentage of offshore oil and gas receipts.

Do you think that both bills will ensure that Gulf states realize funds for generations to come since OLA identifies more resources that can be produced and other prevents these resources from being taken off the books? I certainly do believe that the coastal states are depending on that revenue that's generated from royalties and from production. The problem that we have is constantly we address, uh, Congress and everybody wants to talk about production. Production, production, production. What we're missing is exploration and development.

I base my business by reading lease sales, and you know what the lease sales for the last 10 years tells me? This is not a good place. And what's in jeopardy is our revenue that's being generated from Gomez or Goesa, whatever you want to call it now. But the point is, and look, Louisiana has constitutionally protected that money that we spend on coastal protection and restoration only. I'm the president of our local levee district.

We depend on that funding to build resiliency for our, for our people who live along the coast. Thank you. I want to give you another minute to speak about the importance of GO MACE, and I understand you're involved with public infrastructure in Louisiana as well. Yes, sir. I'm the president of the Association of Levy Boards for the great state of Louisiana.

I'm proud of that. Thank you very much. I now recognize— who's up? Miss Ansari for 5 minutes. Thank you.

I want to thank you, Mr. Phipps, for attending our hearing today. I do believe there's some important context that is missing from our discussion of this bill and expansion of your Bull Mountains mine. First, I'd like to enter into the record this New York Times exposé titled A Faked Kidnapping and Cocaine: A Montana Mine's Ascent into Chaos. For those who aren't familiar, this exposé is written about your coal company, Signal Peaks, and details some extremely concerning behavior from previous executives. Mr. Phipps, yes or no, is it true that 9 executives of Signal Peak have been convicted or charged as part of a scheme involving embezzlement, bribery, and a faked kidnapping?

That was prior to my time, and I don't believe it was 9. Say yes or no. That's my answer. All right, it is a yes. Is it true that a former vice president of Signal Peak pressured, bribed, and threatened workers not to report injuries that they suffered on the job?

Uh, that was before my time at Signal Peak Energy. Is it true the owners of Signal Peak Energy did the right thing when they found out about this behavior? It's a yes or no question. This was before my time. All right, it is a yes.

Uh, and 3, is it true that a United States attorney stated that Signal Peak's actions demonstrate, quote, utter disregard for environmental and worker health and safety standards? No, Signal Peak currently complies with all federal and state laws. Is it true that a United States attorney stated that this happened? Yes or no? Prior to my time, I don't know.

It's kind of bizarre that you don't know much about your company prior to your time, but, um, Signal Peak was fined $1 million and sentenced to 3 years of probation for violating environmental and safety regulations This is the kind of company that Republicans want to sell off our federal lands to without proper review, especially of the climate impacts. Frankly, I think that's a disgrace, and the American people deserve better. Mr. Helton, I want to thank you for your many years of federal service. Congratulations on your retirement. Thank you for taking the time to be here today.

The bills on today's agenda are part of a significant action to expand fossil fuel development, especially offshore drilling across federal lands and waters, all under the guise of a so-called energy emergency. But the United States, as you know, is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. We're producing more than any other country in history. We're also a top exporter, which does increase our energy costs here at home. Interestingly, all of the coal from the coal mine I was just asking about is exported to Japan and Singapore.

Mr. Houghton, if we significantly expand offshore oil and gas, especially in places like Alaska, where is that oil most likely to go? And what are the risks of transporting that oil and gas if it might, for example, head west to Asia?

Thank you for the question. I'm not sure exactly how the oil will be transported or where, but my suspicion is that much of the oil will be exported, especially from Alaska. There aren't the routes of transmission to get the oil from the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea currently to the Alaska pipeline. And even if it gets into the pipeline system, it would— it's a chance that a substantial amount of that would be heading west to Japan and Korea and other Asian locations. And from, from my perspective and concern is that there's very little response capacity in that region.

So historically, tankers would leave Valdez and head down to California or Washington ports. Along the way, there's plenty of assets and rescue tugs and equipment if a vessel gets in trouble. But if a vessel heads west to the Aleutians, it's unlikely that there's going to be a rapid response and a simple mechanical problem could lead to a catastrophic incident. Thank you so much. I yield back to the chairman.

Representative Downey, you're up for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just jump right into it. A question first for Mr. Phipps. Can you start by explaining the long history of the Bull Mountains mine and how it has contributed to the region's economy over the, over the years.

So mining in the Bull Mountains has occurred for over 150 years. Signal Peak Energy commercially developed the property in 2008, invested hundreds of millions of dollars to bring rail service to the mine and, and big power that's required for a commercial operation. And with that, they, they brought a longwall operation to produce coal domestically for power plants in the U.S. And over— as market forces changed and, and the need for domestic coal dropped, Signal Peak began exporting coal, and now 98% of our production is exported to Japan and South Korea. Thank you. Signal Peak has made significant contributions to the community in Muscleshell County and beyond.

Can you speak to what is at stake for local schools, public services, and charitable programs if the mine were to close? In addition to the extractive taxes and royalties that we pay, we also contribute to Musselshell and Yellowstone County. Signal Peak has a community foundation where we donate millions of dollars to the community that can go to anything from fire trucks to to playgrounds for kids and youth baseball. We also have an endowment where we award scholarships to any student from Musselshell County that wants to do secondary education. And then we've also done a large project recently in Yellowstone County where we've made the largest donation to the city of Billings to construct an ice rink for the community.

Thank you. You know, the federal sections are relatively small here. So why is access to this small area of federal coal so critical right now, and what would happen to the mine's operations and workforce if H.R. 931 Was not enacted? We have enough coal reserves to, to remain operational through the end of the year.

Uh, our, our mine is shovel ready, ready to deploy our longwall into this federal coal at the end of the year. But we also have to develop ahead of the longwall with our continuous miner units. So we'll begin winding operations down at the end of the year if we don't, if we don't receive approval to mine. So what does that mean to workforce? How many, how many jobs are lost?

What, what happens there? I would probably be 85% of our workforce. Thanks. Some of the language, uh, was included in the reconciliation package the committees advanced. So why do you believe it's still necessary to move H.R.

930 31 As a standalone bill. When we were in front of, uh, Judge Malloy on this case, OSM represented to the court that they could have the EIS completed by July of 2024. We were asked if the operation could remain open during that time, and our answer to the court was we could remain open, however it had to be done on time. Well, that case has since closed, and now OSM has failed to meet their end of the deal., and we're, we're stuck holding the bag and, and have nowhere else to mine. Thank you.

Uh, just in closing, uh, obviously, uh, this operation is important to Musselshell County, it's important to Yellowstone County, it's important to the state of Montana. It's, uh, supporting, uh, schools, charities, uh, families. These are high-paying jobs that are spending money in these communities. This is, uh, incredibly important, and my understanding, uh, is if operations have to stop at these federal sections, that a lot of this coal will be essentially sterilized and unrecoverable, at least not economically. So I just want to point out how important this is to the communities that I represent and to the state of Montana.

So on that, Mr. Chair, I yield. Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes Representative Rivas from California's 29th for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I'm glad to see, uh, the bipartisan reauthorization for the National Landslide Preparedness Program, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and the Volcano Early Warning System Program all on today's agenda. These programs provide critical services to our constituents and help us better understand national disasters so we can mitigate risk to assess risks and prepare in advance. This is especially relevant for my constituents in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles, who are at risk of experiencing earthquakes and landslides. Just over 30 years ago, the Northridge earthquake devastated the San Fernando Valley, killing 58 people, injuring 9,000, and displacing 125,000 residents.

Dr. West, can you describe how the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program can help us both mitigate and respond to disasters like the Northridge earthquake?

Let's try this. I can. I think the— in my testimony, I called out the 4 agencies that participate in NEHRP. I think they provide a nice outline for the different components of your question. At the foundational research level, you have the National Science Foundation working to advance the— our core understanding of, quite honestly, how earthquakes happen, and also on the engineering side, I'm doing the research to figure out how buildings respond, how structures respond to different kinds of forces.

Then you have the US Geological Survey, who is kind of the eyes on the ground of earthquakes. So tracking and understanding what's actually happening, as I showed in my figure, mapping out what we might expect in the future. Then you have FEMA, who contributes not only on the, the recovery side, the response and recovery side that we're all very familiar with, but also on the mitigation inside. So working with communities, working with cities to identify specific future hazards and address the risks and address them. Then you have the National Institute of Standards and Technology who really takes a lead in coordinating those groups, but also in translating those things into building codes.

So all of those pieces come together, I think, to reduce the risks from earthquakes. Thank you. You know, I, I agree with you. It's clear that these programs do work, and it's important to continue investing, especially in science research at NSF and other federal agencies. You know, in California we have Caltech in Southern California that is known for earthquake research.

And, you know, I, I've worked there years ago and met met many scientists and engineers that work in this field, and very important, especially for Southern California that's always at risk for earthquakes, especially in, in my district. But, you know, I'm concerned that staff firings across the federal government because of DOJ will threaten these services and the safety and preparedness of our communities. We're already seeing changes to our emergency alert system You know, thanks to these DOJ firings at NOAA, which plays a key role in safeguarding our communities from natural disasters before and after that they strike. In fact, the National Weather Service is no longer providing weather alerts in languages other than English. And this, this is another attack from the administration towards non-English speakers in this country.

We need everyone in our communities to be safe and, and to know what to do in the event of a natural disaster. You know, in my district, almost 70% of households report speaking a non-English language as their primary language. And, you know, what will my constituents do in the next earthquake or landslide, or if they don't get the emergency alerts in a language that they read and understand? And so, Mr. Helton, I know we have very little time, but can you describe how DOJ's firings affect the agency's ability to provide similar critical services? Yeah, the cuts to NOAA are across the agency and all the divisions.

Like you mentioned, the National Weather Service has been cut. I know in the— in the relationship with the oil spill world, there's talk about expanding drilling in the Arctic, for example, but the Weather Service is no longer offering 24-hour weather forecasts in north— the northern region of Alaska. So that's an example where those models and data would be critical for any kind of operational response and to model where that oil might go. Similarly, the IOSS system, which is the Inter- National Ocean Observing System apparently is also slated to be defunded, a critical data source that oil spill modelers would use to predict where contaminants would spread and how rapidly they would get there. So that's just a small snapshot.

I think every part of NOAA has seen substantial cuts. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Representative Hageman for 5 minutes. Thank you.

Mr. Keefe, what was the reaction in your state, in the Gulf of America, and in your industry when President Biden issued an order to withdraw these 600-plus million acres? Well, as I mentioned before, um, the way we plan our business is based on these things. Robust lease sales usually mean that we can make good investments into growing our businesses and things of that nature. Those things are just an economical turnoff. I mean, what are we looking at?

And when we see these things, we realize that our investment's not dead. You know, we have millions of dollars invested into equipment, people and services. And, uh, when those things happen, what, what are we supposed to do with our investment? And we're depending on these things for us to have a viable business. It actually produced something that the rest of us need, correct?

Well, as I mentioned before in my testimony, I don't know anywhere in the world where you wake up and people demand less energy. Everybody wants more and more and more energy, and we should be working every day to figure out how to, how to produce those things in a responsible way. Well, we're using more energy today than we used yesterday, and tomorrow we will use more energy than we use today. That's just the reality of the situation, isn't it? Master— the study that I've been doing shows that by the year 2050 that we're going to have a demand that's going to increase by 50%.

Okay. Uh, luckily, because of the change to President Trump's pro-energy agenda, this withdrawal that President Biden attempted to do was reversed 14 days later. So it was only in place for a short period of time. In that period of time, did your industry suffer any harm as a result of the withdrawal? Could you repeat that again, please?

I'm sorry. Sure. Did you suffer any harm during the, the 14-day withdrawal that withdrawal was in place under President Biden? Not really, because those impacts aren't felt immediately. Well, one of the things that we hear often with energy producers is the word certainty and how important certainty is in your industry.

How— why is certainty important, Mr. Keefe? Well, because it's the only way that you could attract investment. I mean, you know, and it's not just with us. What we do as a service industry with a tugboat company company. These operators in the Gulf of Mexico, they have to decide where they're going to make capital investments if they're larger oil companies.

The smaller independents, they need to go and find investment capital and money, and when these things happen, they just can't get, you know, attract investment, and it is just a wet towel on everything. Mr. Phipps, is certainty important for your industry? Yes, it is. And why? Blue-collar workers are, are attracted in all industries.

And when you work at a coal mine and there's uncertainty on your permitting or whether or not you're going to have a job in a year, you're being recruited to go work elsewhere. And so with us not being able to provide certainty to our workforce, it's been difficult to retain top talent. So one of the things that I heard earlier today is that the so-called renewables are less expensive and as reliable as our energy that is produced with coal, natural gas, and uranium. And I see, Mr. Keefe, that you are shaking your head. I find it to be absolutely, utterly, and completely 100% absurd for anybody to make that claim.

And I'm just going to give you a quick example of what I mean by that. I was recently on the 9th floor floor of a power plant near Colorado Springs. And I was looking around and I looked across the highway, I-25, and I saw a solar farm over there. And so I was asking the manager of the facility where I was touring and I said, what is the footprint here? About how big is this place?

Looks to me to be about 300 acres. And he said, yeah, probably about 300 acres. I said, how about across the road? How about how big is that solar farm? And he said, about 1,500 acres.

So 5 times larger. And I said, what's the output? And he said, 200 megawatts here. I said, how much over there? He said 150.

I said, what's your efficiency here? And he said 82 to 85%. I said, what's the efficiency over there? And he said 22%. So when you just look at that one metric by which the, the amount of, of land necessary per, per a unit of energy produced, they're not even comparable.

The other thing that's so crazy about it is when you talk about solar for 8 to 10 hours every day. Solar power has a catastrophic failure, a catastrophic failure, because the sun goes down, right? For 8 to 10 hours every single day, it can't produce electricity. And yet we have people who attack what you do, Mr. Keefe, and what you do, Mr. Phipps, and attempt to prevent us from being able to access these resources with the idea that we're going to be able to replace that energy with wind and solar. Is that at all feasible, Mr.

Phipps? No, it's not. Mr. Keefe? No, it's not. But it's still important that we bring all sources of energy online some kind of way.

Sure. But it's also important that we protect the ones that we already have that are, that are powered with our traditional energy resources, correct? That's correct. All right, thank you, and I yield back.

The chair now recognizes Representative Crank for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, um, and thank you all for joining us today. In 2023, Congress passed the most significant permitting reform in over 40 years through the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the FRA. This legislation shortened review times, limited what qualifies as a major federal action, and it codified the one federal decision framework. A central goal of these reforms was to provide greater certainty and greater timeliness for project applicants, ensuring agencies arrive at decisions without unnecessary delays.

FRA clarified that the 2-year shot clock, if you will, for completing an environmental impact statement begins when an agency determines that an EIS EIS is required for a proposed federal action. Any extension beyond that timeline must be done, quote, in consultation with the applicant, unquote, ensuring agencies don't unilaterally drag out the process. Mr. Phipps, despite exceeding the 2-year deadline for the EIS, did the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement consult with Signal Peak in good faith when it extended the EIS schedule to 2026? No, they did not. Um, in your testimony, you mentioned that, uh, OSM undertook additional studies during the EIS process, and despite FRA making clear that agencies are not required to conduct such studies unless they're truly necessary, in your view, did OSM use these additional studies as a means to delay the issuance of the EIS?

Yes, I believe they did. And then finally, I want to touch on the legal challenges. The D.C. District Court dismissed your suit saying that it wasn't ripe because the original 2024 deadline hadn't passed yet, even though the agency had already amended its timeline to 2026. Do you believe Congress should revisit this issue in future permitting reform efforts? Yes, I think that would be helpful for operators.

It's like getting your midterm report and you're failing your class and you say, let's wait till the end of the semester to see if I really fail, rather than changing course, because OSM did not change course. And then specific to that, should project applicants be allowed to challenge unreasonable delays before the deadline is passed, especially when an agency publicly revises those timelines? Yes, I think they should be. Okay, thank you. Um, Mr. West, the National Landslide Preparedness Act additionally reauthorizes the 3D Elevation Program, also known as 3DEP, a complete topographical map of the U.S. that is important in not only landslide preparedness but flood mapping, forestry, and infrastructure planning as well.

As the state geologist from Alaska, do you see 3DEP as playing an essential role potentially in combination with other programs such as Earth MRI at USGS to help identify mineral deposits?

Absolutely. Two different pieces there— landslides and mineral deposits. 3DEP has proven tremendously valuable in And landslides basically happen where we have steep terrain, right? That's a prerequisite. And the 3DEP program has made it possible to map vast areas and to unleash, you know, algorithms, computer technologies to identify those areas that are most likely and most prone to landsliding.

So they— what they really do is allow you to move from kind of one person in the field doing field investigations to covering large areas. And the same analogy I think holds for mineral exploration. I hope I'm not stealing questions from my colleague Mr. Begich, but do you have any— I mean, do you have examples of that in Alaska where that's happened, where you've used 3DEP? You know, I'm a seismologist. I can't comment on exactly which datasets which were used, but, uh, there's just— the USGS has just recently completed a widespread survey of landslide risk around the Prince William Sound area, which was premised very heavily on topographic data sets.

Um, I am not in a position to know whether or not 3DEP— which portions of that were 3DEP-informed. I'd be happy to follow up. Okay, that's fine. No, I appreciate that, and thank you, uh, for your answers. And, uh, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you very much. I'll now recognize Representative Begich from the great state of Alaska for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter addressed to the chair and ranking member of this committee, signed by over 460 individuals, including leading experts in earthquake and volcano science, engineers, and members of the private sector, expressing support for the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and the National Volcano Early Warning system. Without objection.

Thank you. Uh, Dr. West, uh, with over 50 active volcanoes in Alaska, many directly beneath major air traffic corridors, do you believe the federal government has appropriately prioritized volcanic risk in its hazard mitigation strategy? And as a follow-up, what role does the reauthorization of INVUEs play in ensuring aviation safety and economic continuity for both Alaska and the broader U.S. Economy? In my opinion, the previous iterations of NVUES, which date back— oh, I don't know, I don't remember the first year, I want to say the early aughts— actually demonstrates Congress's recognition of the problem.

There's, of course, more work to be done. We have not completed the full build-out, the full set of suite of tools that would be available. Under Envius, but I think it'd be wrong— I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that it's a hazard that's been ignored.

And do you believe that, that the Envius work products help to ensure aviation safety and economic continuity? And can you speak to that as it relates specifically to Alaska? Without a doubt is the short answer. And the long answer is the ability to to forecast where ash might occur in the air is pivotal in identifying regions where planes shouldn't be flying, where we might want to avoid. But also, when eruptions occur, a lot of things happen very, very quickly, right?

There's— all of a sudden there wasn't ash in the air, now there's a huge area that is. So putting that together with weather patterns and understanding where that ash is going to go I live in Fairbanks, hundreds of miles north of the Aleutians, and we have flight routes impacted by ash. So those products are tremendously valuable. I might have strayed from your question. No, that's great.

And I think it's, it's worth mentioning just for the benefit of others and for the committee, Alaska has one of the busiest cargo airports in the world. I believe we're number 3 right now in terms of cargo air traffic in Anchorage. Many of the flights that originate on the West Coast going to Asia fly directly over Alaska on the Great Circle Route. So it is absolutely important that we have this capacity, and it's a, it's a funded capacity. You noted that real-time monitoring not only saves lives but significantly reduces economic costs after disasters.

In Alaska, that's especially important because of our distance from supply chains and other emergency services. Can you speak to how programs like the NEHRP and ENVIEWS, as reauthorized by these bills, can help Alaska prepare more effectively for both earthquakes and volcanic events and reduce long-term infrastructure repair costs? Yeah, in 2018, uh, there was a magnitude 7.1 earthquake essentially underneath Anchorage. It did tremendous damage. Hundreds and hundreds of buildings experienced some damage.

There were schools that were closed permanently. However, not a single building collapsed in its entirety, and remarkably, there were no fatalities. That was not an accident. That was because of construction practices over the course of decades that were informed by the building codes, which are a direct product product of NEHRP. So while that's a damaging event and we're never going to make all impacts of earthquakes go away, I think that's a remarkable success story.

I was in that earthquake. It was remarkable. It was extraordinarily powerful because of its proximity to Anchorage. And I— my house still stands. So thank you for your work.

And I yield the balance of my time. Representative Ansari. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from a coalition of 22 organizations opposing H.R. 2556, The CORE Act.

I would also like to enter letters in support of Biden's permanent protections against offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific, Eastern Gulf, and Alaska's Northern Bering Sea. These include letters from the House, Senate, Business Alliances for Coastal Protection, the Defense Support Initiatives Committee, and 197 national and local non-governmental organizations. Finally, I would like to enter for the record this roundup of statements of support from members of Congress, governors and state officials, local elected officials, national organizations, and tribal organizations. Thank you. Without objection.

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, Act, or NEPA, along with bipartisan reforms that were signed into law by President Biden last Congress. Agencies have 2 years to complete an environmental impact statement from the date when an agency determines that such an EIS is necessary for the proposed action. Mr. Phipps, when did the department realize an EIS would be necessary for this modification for your project? December 2022.

And when was the hearing?

The final hearing was in February of 2023.

Did the department start the EIS process on that date?

We, we started the EIS process, selected a contractor, we were given a schedule that the EIS would be complete by July of 2024, and time and time again, every time we met, the schedule would slip by 1 month, 2 months. Uh, pretty soon the schedule slipped all the way until 2026. Why do you think that happened? I believe it was intentional.

And the law says, for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, for, uh, environmental assessment, it's a 1-year shot shot clock. That's law. And for an EIS, it's a 2-year shot clock. That's law. We know that the Biden administration took that as recommendations, and it's unfortunate.

When did they start? So the notice of intent was in August of 2023, after months and months of delaying just to get the notice of intent out. So they officially started it in December of 2022 when they notified Signal Peak and the court that an EIS needed to be complete, but it wasn't until August of 2023 where they officially did a notice of intent. But the, the Builder Act says the earlier of the two. How many NEPA reviews have you completed for this specific modification?

This is our fourth. This is your fourth NEPA review for this modification? That's correct. And how long has this process taken overall? The initial leasing of the coal was in 2011, and we began mining federal coal in 2015, and constant litigation, uh, has been on and off or they've been successful on some areas, but they've also been denied on others.

But it's been, been constant litigation for a decade. That's really uncalled for. Mr. Keefe, as we've discussed, Rep. Higgins' bill would limit the size and duration of offshore withdrawals and require details of economic and resource assessments before areas are looked— or correction, locked away from development. For companies like Crosby Tugs, which support offshore engineering, procurement, construction, and installation, how would maintaining more predictable long-term access to offshore areas impact your business investment decisions, workforce stability, and ability to plan for future operations? Is the only way to gain stability is to have some type of.

It's the only way for us to be able to plan in an efficient manner. There's no way in the world that we could depend on what we're seeing right now. It's just too soft. You know, we live in— I live in South Louisiana. I'm not walking on rocky ground in Texas.

We walking in the marsh. This is the same thing. You know, how can we walk in this marsh? We can't. It's just not substantial enough for us to be able to depend on.

Now, how it would affect us if it would be much more stable— we are a company that likes to grow and be diverse, you know, and we just don't have it. We don't— we're not seeing what we need to be able to do those things. Dr. West, turning to USGS programs, it is my understanding that there can be often a domino effect from one of the hazards we discussed today Is that correct? Yes, it is. Earthquakes trigger landslides.

Landslides happen as a result of volcanoes. These are all interrelated hazards, and I have to point out tsunamis, which are not part of our story today, but certainly with Noah sitting next to me. Yeah, my— you answered my last question, which are how are these USGS programs interconnected. Is it safe to say these programs build off each other and are thus more effective when operated together? I, I think that's absolutely a good statement.

Uh, the individuals, the scientists, uh, who sit behind these programs and the, uh, the systems they operate are all interconnected. I want to thank you all for your valuable testimony and time today. Uh, the members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the committee must submit questions to the committee clerk by 5 PM on Friday, May 23rd. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses.

If there's no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.