especially efforts to address permitting delays and reviewing -- renewing the review of lng export permits, and i appreciated your testimony on that issue, mr. mccown. but the means employed to do this are deeply troubling, and frankly, i'm disappointed that this committee didn't get the permitting work done in the last congress, because that is what we are here to do, that's what we need to do, and i hope we'll be able to do it in this congress. that said, the sweeping orders that president trump has signed really failed to give our energy industry the regulatory certainty it needs to succeed. it's just not what unleashing american energy looks like. with the united states producing more energy than ever before from all sources, now is not the time to halt innovation, much of which is happening in my district and my hometown, near mr. weber and not too far from mr. fluger.

houston is home to 11% of us energy jobs and more than 4700 energy related firms. and the number one issue i hear about from people in the business who work in my district and beyond, many of them api members, is the need to know the rules and requirements to trust that long-term projects can move forward once they are approved. they need permitting certainty. they need investment certainty. they need plan and before making these multibillion dollar investments that americans rely on, the people who are undertaking them need to be able to rely on the process. and what we are seeing right now is a destruction of the process, the legislative process, the agency process, a destruction that is going to have impacts and chaos for years to come. among other things, having a reliable process means having qualified, experienced personnel in the agencies responsible for the permitting process. we have all seen the news of what's happening in the agencies and the directives from

unelected billionaire elon musk, who now has access to all kinds of databases and has interns sending legally questionable memos to the career civil servants telling them to quit their jobs. i can't imagine that anyone waiting on a permit wants that kind of chaos and delay. it also means supporting investments of all kinds in energy to get more energy to the grid for americans and to continue to develop technologies that get more power onto the grid and technologies that we can export. the war on wind and solar is nonsensical, and don't just take it from me. it was the republicans in texas, president trump's first secretary of energy, then governor rick perry, that had the vision to build out our wind infrastructure more than two decades ago. the diversity, yes, diversity of energy sources on our grid in texas has spurred innovation of all kinds. we have some of our own challenges to address with grid resiliency and demand, but taking sources off the grid is not the way to solve it.

and it's critical, as you said, ms. eversole, that lawmakers and industry experts work together to implement smart energy policy that will be durable, that will allow members of our communities to innovate, create, and plan for the future that we all want. that said, i've only got about 20 seconds left for questions, so i am going to submit the many questions that i have for the panel for the record, but i really want to thank you all for your time. each of you has questions coming from me, and i'm sorry that with so much to say and so much going on, i didn't get the chance to have you answer them, but i look forward to seeing your written responses on these hugely important issues. thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. chair latta: the gentlelady yids back the balance of her time. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from iowa's 1st district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, chairman latta, and ranking member castor for holding this hearing today, and i also want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee. if you go to the house chambers and you look above the seat of the speaker, you'll find a saying that says, let us develop

the resources of our land, and that's exactly what iowa has done. iowa stands as a powerhouse in america's renewable energy landscape and has transformed its agricultural abundance into vital biofuels, producing over a quarter of the energy country's fuel ethanol and biodiesel and trying to get into sustainable aviation fuel as well. it's wind turbines, second only to texas, harness the strong prairie winds to generate an impressive 59% of the state's electricity, and we're a net exporter of electricity. this blend of agricultural might and renewable energy innovation has positioned iowa as a crucial player in america's energy sector, offering its residents some of the most affordable electricity rates in the country while maintaining high per capita energy consumption and also bringing businesses into our state that rely upon this mix. we know that for the united states to be competitive economically that we have to have abundant, affordable,

reliable, secure energy, and that's what this hearing is about. mr. mccown, i don't have a question for you. i just want to thank you for your many years of service as a fellow veteran. ms. eversole thank you for also , mentioning the tcja. it needs to be reauthorized at the earliest possible date for stability and continuity. mr. arnold, thank you for mentioning 45q's. and also, mr. o'connor and mr. arnold, thank you for mentioning canadian oil. as i recall, it was president biden in an executive order who canceled the keystone pipeline, which led to the loss, if i remember correctly, about 11,000 american jobs, most of those union jobs. mr. mccown i'd like to ask you , about the importance of any of the above energy mix, and we have most of them in the state of iowa, and that includes a diverse mix of generation sources. we know that wind and solar have become significant parts of the electricity mix, but they don't have a dispatchable continual base load, and storage will help with that. can you explain why it's

important to our economic and national security? and i say that not just as a quick. it is tremendously important to national security to have a diverse energy supply from all generation sources, and that is both abundant and affordable. mr. mccown: absolutely. thank you so much for that question. you know, like we said, you know, don't put all of our eggs in one basket. have a difference. and as i listened to both sides with, believe it or not, i think there's more consensus here than maybe we might think about some days. we do need an approach that includes everything in our energy mix, and that particular mix, the percentages of that mix will change over time as technology and innovation move forward. the trouble is if you push a transition, and leading experts say transitions take years, decades or even centuries. you cannot will it through congressional mandate overnight. molecules do not respond that way. we have to be careful about how we change this mix, and we have to understand that the reality

of today is, is that fossil fuels are powering the future. and if we want to reduce our carbon footprint, we should start by talking to the chinese and the indians. and so with that, the staff, the ethanol, the ccs projects that you have going on in your state are fundamentally crucial for this country, and i think your state is a model of how to do things. >> well, as chair of the conservative climate caucus, i believe that we can leave a cleaner, healthier planet to our children and grandchildren and compete economically around the globe. we should focus on reducing emissions and solutions rather than trying to support and subsidize certain industries. and you brought up a crucial point about carbon-based fuels. i too have a lot of questions which i'll submit from the record. ms. eversole expanding american , energy production is crucial for keeping energy prices affordable. one of the things that's not been mentioned in this industry is the fracking revolution that

led to saving, according to nber, 11,000 american lives since 2005, lowering emissions in the united states greater than any other country, while increasing energy generation by 48%. that's quite a stellar record. so we know that it helps national security, our energy security, it helps energy poverty, and it drives economic growth. the administration has taken important steps like restarting the lng export approval process. in your view, what additional actions are needed to reduce barriers and accelerate development of america's vast energy resources because demand is only going up and we need every energy supply generation that we can possibly muster using our natural resources. ms. eversole: thank you congresswoman. , i would point to api's 5 point policy roadmap that contains solutions that we all need to benefit from. >> thank you. i will submit questions for the record. i yield back. chair latta: thank you very much . the gentlelady yields back her

time. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from new york's 14th district for questions. >> thank you, so much. at the beginning of this term, president trump, president trump has allegedly promised to cut energy prices to americans in half within 18 months, a tall order. and for the record, the price of gas on the day that president trump was sworn in was about $3.01 per gallon. yet this past weekend, donald trump announced one of his first major energy price policies, which is gas tariffs, including broader tariffs on canada and mexico. mr. o'connor, the broad tariffs on canada and mexico, the 25% tariffs also include tariffs on energy, correct? mr. o'connor: correct. >> ok, and what percent of us -- of u.s. crude oil imports come from canada and mexico? mr. o'connor: i think between

50% and 60% from canada and around 10% from mexico. >> that's what we see here, about 60% of the crude oil that the u.s. imports comes from canada and about 10% comes from mexico. so we're talking about 2/3 of all u.s. crude oil imports come from canada and mexico. if they come from those two countries, and donald trump is announcing overnight tariffs on these two nations, let's dig into what that means. if we were to place tariffs on 2/3 of the united states' crude oil imports, what impact would that have on prices? mr. o'connor: yeah, they would increase. i think i saw something from yale that said gas prices would increase about 4%, but significantly more in the midwest and then we'd also see , higher prices from natural gas. i think in the pacific northwest, you import quite a bit of natural gas from canada, so those prices would go up.

and of course new york imports hydro from hydro quebec, and frankly it's unclear to me how the tariffs would apply to electricity, but i think niso has expressed concern that we would raise prices in -- electricity prices in new york. these tariffs will increase prices in other commodities as well. >> so what i'm hearing is that despite all of this talk that donald trump and the republican party. we have about driving down energy costs. their first decisions are actually to drive up energy crop costs, including prices at the pump across the united states, and that has knock-on effects across the entire economy, right? these prices are not just contained. they're not just hiking prices on oil and gas. oil and gas prices will then hike up prices on groceries and pretty much any good that gets transported, as well as housing and construction, correct? mr. o'connor: yeah, that's right. >> ok. we are looking at almost an all economy increase in prices, and that has also been backed up in previous price changes as well.

in fact, oil production and what we've seen is that in 2023 and some of these gas price increases, we saw knock-on effects across the entire economy before, right, with gas. mr. o'connor: yes. >> so, what i think we need to really hone in on here is what we are seeing is the trump administration saying one thing but doing another. and if the trump administration is promising to lower energy prices, it's important for us to ask why are they making decisions to do the opposite? mr. o'connor: i hope you are not asking me that question. i don't -- [laughter] >> i think we'll dig into it. so let's pause for a second, and i want to put a pin in that and let's talk about solutions because while preventing these short term spikes is important, we do need to invest in the long term infrastructure to actually

drive down energy prices. and what the trump administration is doing is not just doing tariffs, but they're also attacking expansion in energy production on renewable energy as well. and more energy means more energy across the board. so what would be also the knock-on effects of reducing renewable energy production while increasing tariffs on oil and gas? mr. o'connor: yeah, i think we will see higher electricity prices, higher oil and gas prices. i think ms. eversole mentioned the need for permitting reform. it's notable that one of president trump's first actions was to pause permitting for projects, wind and solar projects particularly, but not exclusively on federal lands. so i think we'll see the knock-on effects and consumers will unfortunately pay the price. >> so we're talking about an explosion in prices, but when we talk about also as well as permitting reform, i also just want to acknowledge mr. arnold and some of your statements you've made on geothermal energy. i think that one of the areas that we can find bipartisan agreement is the fact that we do want to make plenty of jobs in this country, especially for pipefitters.

i know that you are from colorado, but we work with our pipefitters in new york and in order for us to really invest in projects that will create jobs for not just your union, but -- not just your local but americans and locals like yours across the country is tremendously important, especially in areas where we can invest in those projects while also cleaning up our energy supply. so thank you. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan's 10th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. apparently democratic gaslighting produces zero emissions, but what does their radical agenda mean for constituents in my districts and your districts who pay more at the pump, who pay more for groceries? folks in southeast michigan have experienced their jobs being extinct, being shipped to other states, being shipped to other countries because green new deal woke policies do not work in the real world. let's look at this from a 30,000

foot view. over the past 4 years, every american has footed a higher gas bill, higher energy costs, and rising prices to keep their cars running and their homes heated. under the biden-harris administration, they totally bent over to the radical left. we stopped producing cleaner, affordable energy in america to fit a narrative that only serves coastal elites and the rich in new york and california. what did this lead to? our strategic petroleum reserves hit lows we haven't seen since i was a baby. that meant u.s. relying on energy that was unclean, energy that i would note, or from dictators and despots in moscow , and beijing, and tehran. here's the inconvenient truth from my friends on the left. energy produced and developed here in america is cleaner, it's safer, and it doesn't threaten our national security. in fact, it bolsters it. and what's worse, relying on our adversaries for energy means american jobs go down, not up. my constituents in the detroit area are all too familiar with this, seeing the reckless policy effects of the ev mandates. another failed policy billable

to the biden administration is importing sour crude, which has funded our adversaries, and we talk about infrastructure investments on the left side. well, how about shutting down the keystone pipeline which got rid of 11,000 union jobs. now the democrats' green new deal agenda is the grim reaper for american jobs and actually clean energy, being able to actually move forward into a future where we can all have cheaper, safer, cleaner energy is our goal. all of the above is the approach. line 5 pipeline is something that is a critical artery of energy for transporting crude and natural gas from western canada, which goes through michigan through the great lakes, and line 5 is not just an economic driver from michigan, but also provides energy to the east side of canada. unfortunately, radical environmentalists and ambitious politicians in both lansing and ottawa have become obstacles to common sense. they're banding together to shut down line 5 in violation of a treaty that we have with our canadian neighbors. ms. eversole in your expert , opinion, do you believe that restrictions like those, restrictions on line 5 and having an all of the above energy approach continuing to

trade with our canadian allies makes us weaker or stronger? ms. eversole: indeed, these restrictions make us weaker. >> thank you. two weeks ago, michigan state regulators approved 217 million rake height on the dte energy power provider in southeast michigan. according to mpsc, the state regulator, dte must charge consumers more to upgrade old power lines and continue maintenance to improve reliability. now we know that michigan is now ranked 38 out of 50 for having the highest energy costs. stringency name -- mr. mccown in your expert opinion, is this , a recipe for success? increasing costs and price without also having permitting reform and allowing an all of the above approach to include natural gas to smooth our way away from coal and smooth our way toward nuclear, or do increased regulations increase costs on consumers? mr. mccown: mr. james you're

, spot on. increased regulations, increased costs, and far too often utilities are more than happy just to pass that along to the consumer instead of investing some of their profits back as well. >> thank you. last year i spoke on the house floor about how biden's war on lng was going to harm michigan specifically. we have 1.1 trillion cubic feet in underground storage, which is 1/8 of the entire nation's natural gas storage capacity. given dte and and consumers' base load requirements that are increasing over the years. -- increasing over the years versus the regulations in michigan. we've been dealing with heavy-handed restrictions on building additional natural gas facilities and the supporting infrastructure requirements that we need to convey that safely with less power outages across the state. with a republican house, republican senate, and white house, what can this congress do to scale up natural gas as a reliable source again, mr. mccown? mr. mccown: well there are , several things we can do. number one is we can stop the war on fossil fuels. we can have revised permitting. we can evoke public-private

partnerships, loan guarantees. some of the very same things that have been done for the renewable industry could be done to expand our natural gas or other fossil fuel industry too, it should be a level playing field for everybody. >> we all want clean air. we all want clean water. we all want to reduce pollution, but we also don't want to send our country into the poorhouse trying to pay for sunshine and rainbows before our infrastructure is ready for it. the former president's lng war is top -- well, i'm running out of time, so i'll just say we need to have something that's environmentally, economically friendly, and i plan to work on an all of the above energy approach with my colleagues on the left and right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. the chair now recognizes a gentleman from massachusetts' 4th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, chairman. we have heard during this hearing about an all of the above energy strategy, and the chairman himself talked about not picking winners or losers in our energy policy, and yet the president came into office and

immediately picked a loser in the energy approach, which was to say issuing a moratorium on offshore wind production. this not only is going to raise costs for consumers, particularly in massachusetts where up to a million homes could have been powered by offshore winds and in a reliable and affordable manner. it also, in my own district, cost hundreds of good jobs. the company prism, a cable manufacturing company, was supposed to build a $300 million manufacturing plant in somerset at brayton point. they had negotiated all the permits. they had signed all the deals, and they walked away after donald trump took office because they could not deal with the uncertainty that he had engendered. now, ms. eversole i know that api has actually worked on offshore issues with the offshore wind industry, and i must ask you, well, this moratorium itself is not problematic for you and your constituency. do you think it's a good

press a tent that a new chief executive -- a good precedent that a new chief executive can walk in? and based off an eo drafted by one member of congress who hates offshore wind, do you think it's a good precedent that one new chief executive can come in and target a specific industry with a moratorium? given what you've said about the need for rule of law and certainty, and investment? ms. eversole: congressman thank , you for your question. i think this is the perfect example where we see that policy has real consequences. our industry representing oil and natural gas, of course certainly felt this in the last administration when there was an all-out ban on lng exports. >> nothing that happened in the last administration even approaches a moratorium on an entire sector of energy production. you can imagine, right, that despite what donald trump says, he ain't serving a third term. a democratic president can take office in 2029, and how would apis feel if a democratic president acted towards the petroleum offshore production in the same way that donald trump has just acted towards offshore wind production? is that something that would engender business confidence in

your constituency? ms. eversole: i'm actually really reassured because of the substance of what we've talked about today, there's a lot of agreement. you know, -- >> i'll reclaim my time. what i'm not hearing from you is any full-throated support of this precedent, because i think you recognize that empowering one individual to cancel an entire industry is not good business for api, and i would just caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that what goes around comes around. moving towards an area where i think there could be more bipartisan consensus is geothermal. what's clear is hot rock geothermal in particular, which is the ability to drill 5, 6, 7 miles beneath the earth's surface, has the tremendous potential to unlock clean, reliable, high base load power, and it can be a bipartisan issue. we can drill. we can drill clean energy. we can reindustrialize big segments of the united states, and in terms of energy security, we can be an exporter of a technology that can retrofit

many of the coal-fired power plants that china and india are currently building, getting us closer to 1.7 degrees celsius by 2050. this is a triple win issue. mr. o'connor what would be the , effect on repealing the robust suite of tax credits, the tech neutral tax credits in the ira for our ability to do next generation hot rock geothermal? mr. o'connor: thank you for the question. i think you've kind of answered it in the question, which is the technology neutral tax credits incentivize geothermal production. and so if you were to repeal the ira, you would necessarily be undermining that industry right at the time that it's really poised to take off. >> i yield back my time. chair latta: thank you very much. the gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from florida's 15th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman for , holding this important hearing and to our witnesses for being here today. today's hearing makes clear for

all of us that energy independence is critical for our national security and our economic strength. on day one of his administration, president trump made clear that he will restore the united states to a position of energy dominance, reversing dangerous and failed anti-energy policies of the biden-harris administration that forced us to rely upon our adversaries for energy needs while driving up costs for everyday americans. i appreciate the testimony and insight from our witnesses today about the actions congress can take to help unleash our energy production, restore national security, and lower costs for my constituents in florida and americans across the nation. mr. mccown i'd like to return to , your testimony. the biden administration's fixation in particular on ev mandates ignored the economic realities and geopolitical considerations of the manufacturing supply chain. we know that china expects.

-- china exploits their dominance over critical mineral processing facilities in the supply chain for ev manufacturing. we've also seen firsthand in my district and other places how disastrous and inadequate these vehicles can be in the event of extreme weather. last year you penned a letter to president biden along with 16 former military and national security experts highlighting concerns about how the rush to electrify our transportation industry will further deepen our nation's reliance on an adversarial nation like china. mr. chairman, i'd like to ask for unanimous consent to include this letter into the record. chair latta: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. mccowan, would you expand on the purpose of this letter and why a substantial community of national security experts maintain concerns about domestic policies that effectively mandate electric vehicles?

mr. mccown: sure, ms. lee, thank you for the question. yeah, look, it's i'm not anti-ev. i own one. but it works in some instances better than it works in other instances. it is a great around the town car. it is great if you have a wall box in your house that can charge overnight. but that that ev battery came from china. the raw materials came from china. we're at a huge deficit when it comes to being able to produce outside of the chinese supply chain the rare earth materials, critical minerals that we need, number one. number two, while they're an important component of our overall transportation fleet, it's not the only answer, and evs are not the only answer for everything. they just don't work in circumstances. i've operated them in alaska. i've driven them across country, longer conversation for a different time. they're just not quite ready for mass application. and further to electrify the energy system, the electricity

grid, as mr. peters has pointed out, we've been unable to add power to the grid for decades. the grid is not ready to handle that load, and the fixation about banning gas would even -- natural gas, would push even more onto the electric grid. it's just not smart policy. >> i also noted in your written testimony you included the statement that, attempts to demand an energy transition cannot be willed by policymakers. physics beats policy every day. tell us what you mean by that statement. mr. mccown: sure, you know there are promising technologies. we talked about geothermal, a gentleman from massachusetts that has strong promise. we have not yet talked about hydrogen. that also offers some strong promise, but you know these technologies take time. i'd like to have a fusion reactor tomorrow. it's not ready yet and we can't mandate the deployment of fusion where it doesn't exist. we can't mandate the deployment of certain technologies by picking winners and losers through tax credits, incentives, or straight up taxes.

-- or straight up taxes to change the real world. we need to invest in r&d and we need to be patient, and we can keep moving toward a cleaner future while not losing affordability or reliability. >> you also mentioned twin goals of supply and resilience as being part of energy security overall. i'd like to ask specifically about the resilience piece and what you can share with us on the types of cyber threats that pose a risk to the security of our energy infrastructure. mr. mccown: yes, i mean it's obvious that the more interconnected we become, the more vulnerable we are to outside actors and malicious threats. we've seen that with the colonial pipeline system. we've seen that with other infrastructure systems. and yeah, another reason why we need a -- i'm sorry, we need not only resilience but backup

systems, secondary systems. we can't put all of our eggs in one bag and electrifying everything is putting all your eggs in one bag right now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. chair latta: thank you, very much. the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the general lady from virginia's 4th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member castor for holding this hearing and to the witnesses for being here. i want to start with saying that the dismantling of the federal government agencies that we are seeing right now is alarming, and the trump administration's unprecedented attacks, with the help of elon musk, on our federal workforce and critical programs harm all americans regardless of who they voted for. this damage affects every industry in our nation, including the energy industry. as a state senator, i led the passage of the virginia clean economy act in 2020, making the

commonwealth the first southern state with a 100% clean energy standard, and it has spurred economic growth as clean energy jobs in virginia have grown more than 3.5 times faster than overall employment, with over 100,000 clean energy jobs in 2022 alone. and it's driven major projects like the coastal virginia offshore wind project, which supports nearly 1000 jobs and $143 million in annual economic output. similarly, the commonwealth's fusion systems have recently announced that they're going to build the world's first commercial fusion power plant in my district, and in over 5 years this facility could generate enough clean energy to power 150,000 virginia homes. and given the increased energy demand that we have heard so much about in this hearing today, i am perplexed by the trump administration's plan, as outlined in project 2025, to kill homegrown wind and solar and clean energy, illegally rob

thousands of energy projects across america of billions of dollars of investment, and declare a nonsensical energy emergency that simply doesn't exist. and the administration's sole focus on building more fossil fuel infrastructure that locks us into decades of harmful emissions that not only hurt our environment but our national security interests as a member, a former member of the armed services committee, as we have seen how climate change impact s our military readiness , operations, and our service members as the largest naval base in the world sees more and more storms and rain that bisects the bases in half. when it floods, people can't get from one side to the other as just one example.

now i also want to address the trump administration's posture towards liquefied natural gas. in december, the department of energy released a study on the impacts of lng exports, and secretary granholm made clear that allowing unconstrained lng exports would increase domestic wholesale natural gas prices by 30% and cost households well over $100 a year. this, in addition to the climate impact and environmental harms to overburdened communities near export facilities. and so mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to enter secretary granholm's statements into the record. chair latta: without objection so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's also worth noting that last year house republicans tried to pass a bill to eliminate the requirement for the department of energy to review whether lng exports serve the public interest, even though the public interest standard has been used for over a century for just about every energy project ever

done. and so, i want to ask mr. o'connor if you could explain the importance of the natural gas act's requirement for the department of energy to ensure that lng exports are in the public interest. mr. o'connor: sure, thank you for the question. so as you noted, the natural gas act requires the department of energy to evaluate whether an lng export application is in the public interest. it's my personal view, and i think something that's probably consistent with mr. mccown's view that lng exports to nato allies, for instance, is in the national interest because we're supporting critical allies. i think at the same time it's also important to evaluate the impacts to domestic to americans and domestic gas prices. and i think the public interest test that's performed or public interest analysis that's performed, i think reasonably credits the national security benefits and the investment benefits that lng exports might bring to the united states and to our allies while also balancing concerns against the impacts to consumers, which i think we'd all want to know before making any decision.

>> thank you. again, i would note after spending 25 years as a little regulatory lawyer, the public interest standard has been used in every single energy electric project component at the state level and the federal level for over a decade, and i think any effort to roll it back is dangerous indeed. with that, i yield back. chair latta: the gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio's 6th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, chairman. this question is for ms. eversole. ohio 6 produces 90% of the state's natural gas and utica wells and are breaking oil production records. i understand intangible drilling costs represent 85% of the cost of just drilling a brand new well.

and this would, in turn, affect wages for workers like mr. arnold. the inflation reduction act attacks blue collar workers period by taking away oil and gas companies' ability to deduct idcs under the block minimum tax. why do other industries get to write off their businesses' expenses while the oil and gas industry does not? ms. eversole: it's a great question. we hope that this is something that can be addressed in this congress, because what we need to do is encourage continued investment here in this country , and that provision, which is not unique to oil and gas, we are simply asking that it be fairly up -- fairly applied across all industries, including mine. >> thank you so much. i have a second question for mr. o'connell. the biden administration showed that tomorrow's energy production. and that the united states' position as a global leader can be hurt by policies put in place today. in your opinion, what is the single most important policy that we can champion to ensure america's energy dominance and

national security going forward? mr. mccown: i think we can ensure a level playing field that understands that we need. the best of the above, which includes most of our energy resources while helping research and development for emerging sources. but at some point these commodities need to stand on their own. they need to be commercially viable. we have to look at the cheapest, most reliable sources possible to power our base load energy. >> excellent answer. and in my opinion, so in ohio 6, we have enough for you to come -- we have enough summer shell to supply the earth for about 500 years. and in reality, when you take that into consideration, we could put an end to middle eastern wars where none of our boys or girls ever die again. no middle eastern war, we have no business being in. i thank you for your opinion. with that, chair i would yield , my time back. chair latta: the gentleman yields his time. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from texas's 11th district -- i'm sorry, 33rd district for 5 minutes for questions. >> mr. chairman thank you very , much and i want to thank the panelists for being here. what i'm worried about right now is the hell that is being unleashed on the american public, the hell that is being unleashed on employees all around the country that have anxiety about what is going to happen next. news about the cia today. this stuff is unsettling and none of this stuff is good for energy production in this country. i'm glad were having this hearing, because we do need to figure out ways we can talk about this subject and it not be so divisive. i like the comments ms. eversole made earlier today. it doesn't have to be this huge us versus them type of deal. this is not the cowboys versus the eagles, because if it is the cowboys versus the eagles i'm telling you who i will root for every time. this conversation doesn't need to be that way.

but i'm worried. one of the things that honestly really worries me as a texan who has been to the permian basin and knows how it works is the hell that has been unleashed when it comes to the area of immigration. anyone who has been there knows that it's no secret. anyone who has been down there knows that if you were really to do a mass deportation in this country and clean this country out, and send everyone to punt on about -- and send everyone to guantanamo or wherever else, you ain't pumping a dang thing out of the ground in the permian basin. because several of those jobs in that area, particularly some of the more dangerous, some of the jobs that are the more entry level jobs are done by people in this country who are undocumented. but we're not talking about that. we're not talking about that at all and how we can work together to pass some sort of comprehensive immigration bill so we can have a more stable employment base when it comes to

upstream energy production. it's crazy. in the texas legislature last session, they had a bill. the republicans had a bill that would have put this really strict e-verify, because everyone knows what's happening down there. they use these third party companies to bring in these workers, and so it gives the larger companies cover to have these people working down there that are undocumented here. and they get them papers and they give them everything. but instead of trying to actually fix this problem and make people not have to worry about how they're going to do that and cause uncertainty in the markets, we play this game on immigration instead of us actually coming together. and the republicans here who serve on this panel with me from texas, they know that that e-verify bill was killed because of industries like construction and energy that didn't want to touch the topic because, like dr. p raymond -- dr. perryman

said, who's one of our state's leading economists that used to work for rick perry, who was a trump appointee to secretary of energy that if you deport all of these people the way that they're saying and you unleash this mass chaos that it would actually bankrupt texas and bankrupt this country. but no, we're not really talking about that, and that's really unfortunate. look, i want to work with my republican colleagues on this issue. i've agreed to work on this to be a part of this bipartisan caucus that's being created on. -- that's being created on energy security because i think that it's important, but some of these other overarching issues around these tariffs and immigration and this madness that's been unleashed, we really do need to address those and the brief time that i have left, i just wanted to ask mr. arnold, your testimony highlights some great work that's been done in louisiana and colorado, and i commend you for the work that's been done there, but i did want to get

your impressions on what repealing ira tax credits like 45q would do for these future projects? shouldn't we if we're really for , all of the above and really concerned about energy dominance in this country, shouldn't we be working to expand those opportunities? mr. arnold: thank you very much for the question. absolutely, as included in my written testimony, fully supportive of 45q tax credits. i think they're critical to the support of carbon capture, sequestration systems, and projects moving forward, and certainly appreciative to any support for nuclear power generation, as well as the other alternative energies that we've listed. blue hydrogen biofuels, , geothermal. i just think we're asking for support of all those good jobs. and let's look at the number of jobs and the quality of jobs and make sure we have policies that are supporting where those good jobs are created, where they exist. >> thank you.

mr. chairman, i hope that we can continue to have some discussions on how we can really unleash america's energy dominance in this country by addressing some of these overarching issues and coming up with some real solutions on things like immigration reform in this country and doing away with this silly talk about these tariffs, which looks like they're paper paper tiger talks on tariffs. thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon's 2nd district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chair. so, when i looked at this hearing title today, i saw it was unleashing america's energy. i thought it should have also included the word keeping america's energy. i say that because i'm from oregon and we have bonneville power administration, which was mentioned earlier by the congresswoman from washington, and it has about 18 hydroelectric dams, 4 of which have been targeted by the biden administration to be removed, about 1000 megawatts of firm

power, but it can go up to 3000 in a pinch. and the dams could actually be increased in size to add considerably more generation capacity. yet the biden administration through the ceq had decided that it could cause these dams to be removed for reasons having little to do with fish and lots to do with politics. this is a huge part of the bonneville power administration's firm power arrangement which acts as a balancing thing for all kinds of intermittent power producing things that have been put in , solar and wind and the like. my question to you though has to do with refineries, because refineries are integral to how we keep this country going. yet, i understood several years ago that we were dramatically short on diesel refineries. in fact, when they shift shifted our fleets, all of our fleets over to cleaner fuel, we thought

there would be a huge shortage. apparently we were able to avoid that in some fashion. but what i'm most concerned about when it comes to unleashing our energy is making sure we have a way to actually make it work for us. before you answer, and i want to ask this because you can answer that, and then there's also an attempt in oregon and california under the clean air act, california's clean air act, to ban diesel trucks. so having lots of diesel doesn't do you much good if you don't have a place to use it. so unleashing all this energy is no good if you can't get your hands on it and use it. so first question, what are you doing to maintain the refining capabilities of america? and secondly what do we do about , this attempt to destroy our markets by banning diesel fuel? ms. eversole: congressman, thank you very much for your question. unfortunately, there has not been a large scale refinery built in this country since 1977. it just doesn't make any sense. the technology, the way that our energy markets were set up in the late 1970's does not reflect how the energy realities are of

today. and unfortunately, what we're seeing is the signals that are being sent to the marketplace is that, gosh, we shouldn't do this in the united states. i completely disagree. we need to add refining capacity here in the united states. we do a lot of work through innovation, and that's great, but that only takes us to a certain point. so we need to critically address permitting reform. it's important for our refining sector. and then i'm sorry, the second, question? >> well, it doesn't do much good if you have refining if you have no place to sell your product. so i think the concept was, well, we'll ban the use of diesel in heavy trucks. and that way it won't matter if you have refining capacity. so my question to you is, when we talk about unleashing energy, shouldn't the conversation be broad enough to address how we can use it? ms. eversole: absolutely. specifically, you know, banning certain forms of energy, it just doesn't make any sense. we're in a position right now where it's about energy addition. diesel literally powers our

economy. it is a reason why we are able to move things around this country efficiently. and we need to continue to be able to do that. what we also need to be able to do is think about emissions reductions from the context of the maximum reduction of emissions from the atmosphere for the minimum cost to society . that unlocks an entirely different set of choices rather than we look at things in kind of in isolation. >> so you mentioned earlier many people talk about the need to do something about permitting, and i think your phrase was these types of activities receive a "high level of scrutiny," which is the understatement of the entire morning or afternoon. what would you specifically state that we should be doing in the permitting space, and i have a lengthy background in this area, but i want to hear it from you guys. what is it that we should be doing when it comes to making permitting work better? ms. eversole: yeah, three things in particular we need to avoid the further weaponization of

nepa of the clean water act because that those provisions are being used to stop -- >> you mean the abuse by lawyers taking this and bringing you into court and keeping you there for the rest of your life, through unending discovery and all of that. ms. eversole: that's one. the judicial reform, right? second, anyone, anywhere, any time can stop these projects. we have to, we have to end the ability of the courts to stop rational energy development both of oil and gas, but also of projects across -- >> so i hate to interrupt you, but you know, i left the judiciary committee to come to this committee. i'm now on this committee telling me to go back to. i'm not going to do it. ms. eversole: we need your help everywhere. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey's 8th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, chairman. mr. o'connor i want to talk , about the funding freeze that the president put in place for investments from the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure investment and jobs act. to be clear, the freeze is

illegal, and litigation has put a stop to it for now. but what should be problematic to all of us is the fact that this illegal freeze would prevent investments that would improve american families' lives, provide relief to our constituents with respect to their utility bills, and do exactly that which we are talking about here today. investing in america's energy dominance. further, we've heard a lot from our colleagues across the aisle , and from the president, about affordability being a top concern. but now, the president and republicans in congress are supporting actions that will make people's monthly bills more expensive. additionally, there are reports of companies that were set up to take advantage of these investments having to lay off employees because of the freeze. mr. o'connor could you talk , about the negative impacts of this freeze in terms of the direct impacts to americans? mr. o'connor: yeah, thank you for the question. it is directly impacting americans and it's directly impacting american companies. i think as folks have noted in the course of previous

questions, a number of efficiency rebates, weatherization programs, and there's a number of programs that directly benefit americans by helping. -- by helping them save on their electricity and other costs. we're also seeing the impact to american companies now, and that's going to have a slowdown effect to american consumers. we don't bring new generation online if we put pauses on hydrogen hubs, which i know i think ms. fletcher has one in her district. if we put pauses on other sources of federal funding, then there's going to be fewer jobs at these projects, fewer carbon capture projects, fewer staff projects, and people are going to feel it directly in their pocketbooks. >> i appreciate that. you mentioned in your testimony that you represent energy developers, the ones actually going out and building the infrastructure that we rely on, but i'm worried about the message that has been sent over the last week. if energy developers are hearing that they can't trust a contract with the federal government for a federal obligation, will that make them more or less likely to invest in the united states? mr. o'connor: less likely.

>> thank you. will that drive prices up or down for consumers? mr. o'connor: it will drive prices up. >> thank you. throughout his first few weeks in office, president trump has issued multiple executive orders to establish the united states as the global leader in energy dominance. these executive orders largely focus on fossil fuels while gutting key programs that invest in renewable energy such as wind and solar. mr. o'connor if we truly want to , seek energy dominance, wouldn't we want an all of the above strategy that would require investments in clean and renewable energy? mr. o'connor: yes. >> thank you. and as we move forward, should energy dominance come at the expense of ongoing investments environmental justice? mr. o'connor: no. >> thank you. because i'm concerned that certain communities like the ones that i represent in elizabeth and the ironbound of newark, which has suffered the environmental injustice that has existed for far too long, are no longer part of the equation as we think about how we move forward. i want to ensure that their interests are continuously of

consideration and in mind as we move forward. switching gears slightly. just this week, the new jersey board of public utilities announced they will not be awarding a bid on new offshore wind development, citing uncertainty in federal actions as part of their reasoning. now the timeline for offshore wind projects in new jersey is uncertain due to the president's executive order that halted the issuance of approvals, permits, and loans for onshore and offshore wind projects. mr. o'connor, how can uncertainty during administration changes like the one we are seeing right now impact our ability to plan long term for energy projects? mr. o'connor: i think one consistent theme that you've heard from the witnesses here is that large-scale energy infrastructure projects are time intensive, they're resource intensive, and you need to have some element of regulatory certainty. it certainly doesn't help when you have an administration come in and pull the rug out from under companies. and so i think with respect to the offshore wind industry in particular, this is an industry that has invested over $6

billion at this point in manufacturing facilities in the united states to make cables, foundations, and other components. they've invested more than $2 billion in shipyards, including in florida, louisiana, michigan, mississippi, pennsylvania, texas, and wisconsin. and created 24 new u.s. offshore wind vessels. so i think we're seeing the direct impacts of pausing offshore projects, but there will also be slow down impacts to a lot of these communities because those shipyards and those manufacturing facilities are relying on this industry, many of whom frankly, are in the oil and gas industry and making investments in offshore. >> and those investments go directly into our communities. they employ our constituents. is that correct? mr. o'connor: correct. >> so in the last few seconds, what long term impacts could that have on our ability to be a global leader in energy? mr. o'connor: it's going to have a deleterious impact. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado's 8th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

methane seeps, does that reduce the methane that seeps into the atmosphere naturally? >> indeed, it does. chair latta: the chair now

recognizes the gentleman from texas's 12th district for 5 minutes for questions. >> >> thank, mr. chairman, very much. thank you, panelist, for being here. you talked about permitting. in four years of being the house chair of energy i never heard of that being a problem in texas. what can we do better, federally, to help with the permitting process? ms. eversole: i would commend the api five point policy roadmap which articulates in great detail some of the changes to permitting reform. in particular focusing on stopping the weaponization of the clean water act, war we have to stop using the courts as a way to stop these energy projects. we have to get shovels in the ground. it helps american workers and this unfortunately is not unique to oriole and gas.

we have herded across the energy spectrum. at the end of the day we need more energy, not less, and i think we ought to build it here in the united states of america. rep. goldman: i know if an 18-year-old graduates high school and gets a job in the oil fields what that salary pays. what are they paying in colorado? if you are an 18-year-old, if you graduate high school, you move out to where your world is, what is the starting salary job and work in a be in five to 10 years? mr. arnold: thank you for the question. if you grew up in our part of the country you are going to start as a first year apprentice making $23 an hour, plus health benefits, and access to free career training. at the end of that five-year program right now a journey woman or man pipefitter his

going to make 27 dollars an hour, plus health and retirement benefits on top of that. which means nothing is coming out of the paycheck to provide those things. typically we are going to be in the 90th percentile for hourly wages, so it is truly a path to the middle class. rep. goldman: and beyond. west texas, five to 10 years you can be making well over six figures. it certainly pays to be in the industry, there is no weston about it, especially in texas. mr. o'connor, i'm not bashing any of these worlds, but you talked a number of times on several things. i just want to ask, solar panels, those are 100% dependable? mr. o'connor: you mean do they have a one half percent capacity factor? rep. goldman: know, do they work all the time? mr. o'connor: like almost everything else in the world, no. rep. goldman: wind turbines, do they work 100% of the time? mr. o'connor: same answer. rep. goldman: when natural gas

flows, or we 100% dependable on that? mr. o'connor: no, natural gas power plants have outages as well. there are freeze-offs at the wellhead. the answer is no for probably every technology. rep. goldman: what about nuclear energy? mr. o'connor: nuclear has a very high capacity factor but the answer is also no. rep. goldman: to kind of dispute what some people have said today, if we had more pipelines, if we had more gas production, more oil production would gas -- would prices be lower or higher? mr. o'connor: there would be higher. rep. goldman: i yield back the balance of my time. chair latta: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chairman now recognizes the gentlelady from north dakota for questions. rep. armstrong: thank you, and to our esteemed guests, thank you for your time and patience in being here for a long time

without a break. my name is julie fedora check. i'm very honored to be from a state that is home to nature first energy storage system, called. the third-largest producer of oil, has the lowest gas and electric utility rates in the country and also gets 30% of our utility usage from renewables. i have been a utility regulator in my state, which means i oversaw the rates and service of five monopoly utility providers. permitted $15 billion worth of new pipelines, wind farms, gas processing facilities, you name it, we installed it, $15 billion worth. i'm very familiar with permitting challenges. and also worked in the energy

markets. the one thing that 12 years taught me is that this is a heck of a lot more complicated than anybody sitting up here or down there realizes. and the people we ought to be listening to are the people running the electric grid. those people are telling us we have a problem, a big problem. two thirds of our country is at an elevated risk for not meeting power demand today. that does not mean, like, in 15 years and we have electrification or when we have a i. that is today. we could be sitting here without lights on. so, we have to get real about this issue and i have a couple of questions. mr. o'connor, in your written testimony you called the inflation reduction act and the infected -- and the infrastructure reduction and jobs act bedrock of our in an -- our country's energy dominance agenda. based on what i just told you i

do not share that perspective. you cite a study that estimates between 146 and 308 gigawatts of renewable capacity will be added to the grid by 2030 as a result of tax credits. the region with which i am intimately familiar is expected to see a net 50 gigawatts increase in installed capacity by 2042. but a net 30 gigawatts decrease in accredited capacity. in your work are you focusing on accredited capacity or installed capacity, and what should we be focusing on? mr. o'connor: thank you for the question, and of course i was going to get a question like that from the former head of nu ru. the referenced study, i believe, was not capacity, not accredited. i did not apply the values and

derive what percent of the capacity would be based on anything like that. rep. fedorchak: do you think people generally understand the difference when you talk about gigawatts of capacity coming online, whether it is installed or accredited? and what the differences? mr. o'connor: i have never mentioned accredited capacity and had anybody other than an and it -- energy industry professional pay attention, so i would say no. rep. fedorchak: is that part of the problem, do you think, and why we are facing the challenges today that we are at risk in two thirds of the country of not having enough cap headed -- enough credited pacitti -- accredited capacity? mr. o'connor: it is not difference between accredited and capacity. people understand that different generation resources have different attributes. there has been discussion about that here today and in general. generally it is a concept people understand. i do think it forms the basis of concerns we might have in other

regions. rep. fedorchak: the ira was passed in august 2022, and we have had cumulative additions in 20.7 gigawatts since then and cumulative retirements of 42.9 gigawatts. this is a path that is not sustainable. the installed capacity versus accredited capacity or going in opposite directions and we simply will not have enough power to meet demand if we do not fix that, so i thank you for your time. there is 15 seconds. mr. o'connor: i was going to note that the ira passed in 2022 and it takes years to develop projects, so i'm not sure we can look at the first two years after passage of the bill as reflective of long-term capital investments that take a few years to interconnect. tangk you. rep. fedorchak: thank you. chair latta: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from

new york's 23rd district for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a lot has been said about the need to take a whole of government approach to meet the rising demand of energy. instead of arbitrarily picking winners and losers. unfortunately my state, new york, has gone in the opposite direction, imposing its version of the green new deal, the climate leadership and community protection act. to shut down natural gas generation and use for years. my state has prohibited large-scale hydraulic fracturing, despite sitting atop my district the marcellus shale which is estimated to contain 214 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. new york is further recognizing its regulatory apparatus to block much-needed infrastructure projects like the northern access pipeline, which would have provided nearly 500 million cubic feet per day of

appalachian gas to the northeast. ms. eversole, how can we utilize the president's executive orders to unleash energy in areas of the country like the northeast desperately need it, and how do we ensure that bad energy policies in one state like new york do not stand in the way of reliability for the rest of the country? ms. eversole: thank you for your question. the contrast in state energy policy in particular is really not as stark as could be between what you see in dr. joyce's district versus across the border in new york. pennsylvania enjoys the benefits of having a pro-energy state and a pro-energy environment in new york is the exact opposite. but we could do is build pipelines into the state of new york, bringing that gas to market. energy prices, electricity in particular are 42% higher than the national average in the state of new york. it does not make any sense.

it is also impacting the environment, because we are having to get that energy from other sources that are higher-emitting. so, we need to get back to our principles here, which is a diversified source of energy, is better for american consumers, and i would continue to point out that america's oil and natural gas industry stand ready to be part of the solutions. rep. langworthy: thank you very much, ms. eversole. mr. arnold, with several states like new york attempting to ban natural gas use, what impact does this have on jobs in this sector? which wykle down effect does this have on housing affordability and issues that are front of mind for americans right now? mr. arnold: thank you for the question. the very simple answer is anytime you take project opportunities off the table, then you lose the job those projects provide. in our local 110 of our members do nothing but gas distribution work all day everyday.

whether that be pipeline work, gas meter replacement, that is their job, and if you move the ability for the utilities to provide that gas we lose those jobs and the economic and if provide. -- economic benefit they provide. rep. langworthy: i would like to note i have been hearing about a data center project in new york that appears to have been held up by my state's regulatory agencies. i would like to know that the environmental activist have already become scapegoating new energy-intensive technology like ai and artificial intelligence as standing in the way of their green new deal agenda. do the opponents have it wrong? can we develop energy infrastructure and do so in a way that meets sustainability goals but also the needs of energy-intensive industries like ai? and can we do it competitively if we have the right regulatory framework? mr. mccown: absolutely. they do have it wrong because we

can walk and chew gum at this time. and expanding the tax, quite frankly. one of the frustrating parts was this is a direct assault on interstate commerce. there is a direct question whether your can prohibit interstate transportation of commodities to other states. it is the tail wagging the dog. rep. langworthy: ms. eversole? ms. eversole: i would argue that developing ai and other types of technologies is a geopolitical and strategic advantage. have seen the headlines, we have seen the market reaction of some of the announcements from the chinese. america should own ai, america should lead. it creates jobs and the energy industry will be there to support the load growth required to meet that technology. rep. langworthy: thank you for all of your thoughtful testimony. i look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve these goals and i think the witnesses for their time today.

chair latta: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are at the end of a long day. i think dr. joyce will wrap it up. that is ok. ms. eversole, in what ways did the biden administration weaponize jack -- weaponize our government against energy producers? ms. eversole: unfortunately we saw in the last administration that there was an all of government approach to really favor certain forms of energy but disfavor others. what we have all discussed today on a bipartisan basis is that what we really need is all of the above. we have such increasing demand not only from the technological growth, but the fact of the matter is for the next couple of

decades we are going to have 2 billion people to this planet. there are 750 million people in this world that live in energy poverty and it does not have to be that way. rep. fry: in the document you submitted recommendations. they reference the biden-era rules. what were those and how did they impact the industry? ms. eversole: this is an example of where the congressional intent was not follow-through in the regulation. we need to go back and as part of fundamental permitting reform we really need to revise the statute so they cannot be weaponized in the courts. they are a check to ensure these projects, regardless of the type of energy, meet high environmental standards, but at some point when we get through that they have got to be given the green light and we have to get shovels in the ground. it helps 11 million men and women who work in this industry but also the american consumer. rep. fry: mr. mccown, the administration paused the

pipeline, they canceled thousands of acres of oil leases. did actions like these harm our energy production? mr. mccown: they absolutely do. we have heard a lot about the temporary pauses or moratoriums that have been in effect for a couple of days. when you get disruptors you are going to get disruption. you are going to get chaos and it is going to level out pretty quickly. it is different from what we were talking about doing the biden administration. that the export pause -- it was a de facto ban, we all know that, right? the keystone pipeline will as pipeline was studied to death. we cannot figure out whether it was in the national interest or not. let's be honest, if people are against pipelines, then fine, they are against pipelines. talk about using levers of government for politics, i think we have good examples. rep. fry: that is a prime example of that. similarly president trump in his early days did an executive

order that streamlined procedures for permitting and construction of interstate energy transportation. will that help boost energy production in this country? mr. mccown: it can help, with the caveat being president george w. bush put in an executive order to facilitate the cross-border construction of an for structure facilities, and that was what was used to hold up the keystone pipeline instead of what it was intended to do, which was streamline and accelerate the process. rep. fry: mr. arnold, you in your testimony said that coal-fired plants, the permitting takes months, while in the united states it takes years. however it is clear we must move faster on permitting. have you seen this in colorado in your industry? mr. arnold: thank you for the question. yes, we have seen projects,

unfortunately, run into a lot of uncertainty, and typically one that has happened the chances of it being realized and our ability to have pipefitters go on-site -- rep. fry: you are not actually working, right? that is the challenge in your industry, that when these occur you are not working, your main, and women, are not working. who are these people who come up and who funds these individuals who come up at the permitting process? mr. mccown: have different truths in our country. one, if you don't like a particular energy product you cannot keep it in the crowd. keep it in the ground was the modality for many years, then you try to attack the infrastructure. during north dakota access -- speaking of north dakota, we saw people from all over the country showing up there. not exactly sure who is funding this. rep. fry: it is usually not the aggrieved party, at least on the

paper of the permit challenge, right? somebody else is funding this, is that correct? mr. mccown: it is not the local opponents, it is much larger. rep. fry: i see my time is out. i will probably submit questions to you on how we go about specific actions in preferment is reforming the probing process. -- the permitting process. chair latta: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the vice chair of the full committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, five minutes for questions. >> thank you. the title of this hearing, powering america's future, unleashing american energy, could not be more appropriate for the first hearing of the energy subcommittee. we are now living in the new golden age of america. where american energy production can finally reach the possibilities that we have so often discussed in this committee. with this gross in production and unlocking the energy sources that are under the feet of my constituents we can provide

affordable energy and cut the unbearable inflation american families continue to endure. we can continue to have a large and robust chemical industry so that we have products that we need in the 21st century. we can expand well-paying, highly-skilled jobs in the energy sector so that americans have great economic opportunity. we can ensure that our country has the power to prevail in the emerging competition and artificial intelligence. finally, we can become not just energy independent, but energy dominant on the global stage by providing reliable and cleaner energy to our allies and stifle america's enemies under president trump's strong leadership. we talk about unleashing american energy. we have to take an overview.

yes, drill, baby, drill, and it also includes build, baby, build. we have to have the infrastructure to transport and refine the energy that is produced right here in america and get that energy to market. ms. eversole, my constituents are facing an effort to limit their choice of vehicles. california has tried to abuse its waiver process in the clean air act to institute a ban on internal combustion engines so that 40% of americans will ultimately be affected by their choice in the automobile market. why is it that the california acc two waiver issue is a problem for all of america? rep. joyce: this is a huge problem. not only does what california chooses impact consumers in california, but it was also more than a dozen states that follow the lead of california. this is bad for american consumers. i'm not sure why california gets to be the de facto regulatory

body for so many states in this country. those citizens did not get to vote for the elected individuals in the state of california, and what we saw in the last election was a full and complete rejection of these heavy-handed mandates. the american consumer should be able to choose. we support free markets in this country and this should not be an exception to that rule. rep. joyce: how significant is that that action by the epa constitutes a rule? in the biden administration's ep -- epa and gao they have tried to declare that the granting of a waiver be a dictatorial order to prevent the use of the congressional review act. in this specific situation do you agree that the biden administration should have submitted the action to congress and that it is here in congress and congress alone that the

power to decide whether the epa action is a rule should be subject to resolution or of disapproval? ms. eversole: absolutely. this is certainly the jurisdiction of the congress and the courts are currently disputing the efficacy of the rule under the prior administration. we appreciate however president trump's executive order on day one to roll back those ev mandates. rep. joyce: i agree. i look forward to working with our new epa administrator to overturn this waiver. mr. mcallen, if the commonwealth of pennsylvania were a country we would have one of the largest proven natural gas reserves in the world. yet we run into issues getting this energy to market. the lack of pipeline construction in the northeast and a lack of significant lng export facilities restrict did natural gas production. how would ling link the proper infrastructure unleash the power

of pennsylvania? unleash the energy sources under the feet of my constituents? mr. mccown: absolutely. energy is that critical component to our country, to the economy next to raw materials and the cost of labor during it is the winner or loser when it comes to creating an economy, to creating industry. we need pennsylvania's gas. we need it throughout the country and it needs to be made available for export. that requires additional infrastructure. it requires pipelines. and as i mentioned earlier, we have some states that want to thwart, prohibit, stop, halt lawful interstate transportation of commodities. in this case, natural gas. that needs to be stopped. rep. joyce: think of comets. mr. chairman, thank you for allowing me to waive on and i yelled the balance of my time. chair latta: the chair, seeing

no other members wishing to ask questions, on behalf of all of the members of the subcommittee we want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. members may have additional written questions for you all. members are advised they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. i asked that the witnesses submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record documents included on the staff hearing, documents list, without objection. that will be the order. and without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. [gavel]

nchecked development of artificial intelligence. this is about half an hour.

>> ladies and gentlemen, excellencecies, welcome to one of the highlights of our annual meeting. it is an honor and pri ledge to welcome back to das have -- davos the general of the united nations. you said one of the purposes was to bring multilateral. i back from the brink. that it was a pivotal minds to focus minds and attention on our collective response to changing the world. this year, the united nations celebrates its 80th year. a testament to the vitality of the organization and its centrality for multilateral corporations. united nations is more needed than ever, and thank you for your leadership. it is clear that global cooperation is stagnating. but the most pressing issues

that we are faced with still need us to collaborate because they are trans-boundary. we do live in a world that's less predictable and more chaotic. we are grateful in this respect also for your personal efforts to maintain global dialogue and we remain steadfast in our commitment to work together toward a better future. at the beginning of this year, i invite you to share with your -- with us your assessment of the state of the world. welcome. [applause] mr. guterres: ladies and gentlemen, friends, it's good to be back in davos. your focus this year is on collaborationer in intelligence

age and it is a noble vision. but let's face it, when many people look around the world they don't see much collaboration. and perhaps to their minds not enough intelligence. despite progress on in fronts, investment in renewables, ecological leap, health advances, many of our world's problems are getting worse. we are living in an increasingly rudderless world. last week, i delivered annual priorities speech to the general assembly and i said if our world is facing a pandora's box of troubles, we face widening geopolitical divisions, rising inequalities and assault on human rights. we see a multiplication of conflict, some of which are leading to the reshaping of different parts of the world, not least the middle east. and there is finally a measure

of hope when a ceasefire and hostage release teal in gaza takes place and we are working to surge up needed humanitarian aids. i was just in lebanon where the cessation of hostilities is holding and a new government is taking shape after two years of stalemates. from the middle east to ukraine to sudan and beyond, we still face and uphill battle. but we will never give up in calling for peace. but peace grounded on values. the u.n. charter, international law, including international humanitarian law, and the principles of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of states. meanwhile, developing countries are an -- are in economic dire straits. some are facing double digit

inflation rates while interest payment are up 27% of all government revenues. on every front, our system of governance are often ill-equipped to deal with these challenges. many were bill for a different era, a different economy, a different world. we are working to reform institutions for the 21st century from the global financial architecture to the u.n. security council. to basic aspects of our summit of the future. but reforming institutions requires reforming mindsets, because we face big challenges, existential challenges, and i'm not convinced others get it. yes, we all understand the nature of an existential threat. those of us who lived through the cold war remember living under the constantia doe of

nuclear annihilation. of course the nuclear threat is still with us. but when it comes to existential threats nuclear is no longer alone. today we face two new and profound threats that demands farmer global attention and action because they threaten to end life as we know it. first, climate chaos. i recently awe saw and analysis that exposed the green irony. certain of the world's biggest ports for oil super tankers will be overwhelmed by rising sea levels. rising seas. which are caused by rising temperatures. and rising tells which are overwhelmingly caused by burning fossil fuels. our fossil fuel addiction is a

frankenstein monster sparing nothing and no one. we see clear signs that the monster has become master. we just endured the hottest year and hottest decade in history. 2024. likely to be the first calendar year that pushed 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. breeching this limit does not mean the long-term goal is keeping the rising global temperature to 1.5 degrees is shot. it means we need to fight even harder to get on track. especially when we are seeing the sea level rise, heat waves, floods, storms, droughts, and wildfires and that's just a preview of the horror movie to come. a world where every economy feels the pain, infrastructure

destroyed, where premiums go up. at the same time a farmer hopeful story is unfolding. cheap, plentiful energy provided by renewables is an extraordinary economic opportunity. one that will benefit people in every country. and will make the end of the fossil fuel age inevitable, no matter how hard vested interests try to stop it. a number of financial institutions and industries are back tracking on climate commitments. and here at davos, i want to say loudly and clearly that this is short sight and paradoxically it is selfish but also self-defeating. you are on the wrong side of history. you are on the wrong side of science. and you are on the wrong side of

consumers who are looking for more sustainability, not less. these warnings certainly also i aye ply is to the fossil fuel industry in advertising, lobbying and companies who are aiding, abetting this. we cannot afford to move backwards. and governments must keep their promise to produce new economy-wide national plans this year well ahead of cops 13 brazil. this must align with limiting the global rise in temperature by 1.5 degrees including by accelerating global energy transition. we also need a surge in climate in developing countries to adopt global -- to adapt to global heating.

to slash emissions and seize the benefits of the renewables revolution. we need to tackle high capital costs that are leaving developing countries behind. i also urge all businesses and financial institutions to create robust, accountable transition plans this year. these too must align with 1.5 degrees and recommendations of the united nations group on net zero. to the corporate leaders who remain committed to climate action, your leadership is needed now more than ever. do not back down. stay on the right side of history. now is the time to shift our collective efforts into overdrive and make 2025 the biggest year yet for climate action. the second area of existential

concern is ungoverned artificial intelligence. yes, ample inch holds untold promise for humanity. revolutionizing learning. helping health care. supporting farmers with smarter tools to boost productivity. clearing land mines, better targeting in times of crisis. these are real results happening right now. but with these problems comes profound risk especially if ample i. is left ungoverned. a.i. can be used as a tool of deception. it candice respect economies and labor marks and undermine trust in stewings and have chillingesques on the battlefield. a.i. could help those without the resources or tools to benefit from its promise. once again collaboration is critical. the global vehicle compact in

september at the united nations offers a road map to harness the immense potential of technology. it also brings the world together around the shared vision for artificial intelligence. one where this technology serbs humanity not the other way around. the concept establishes the first universal agreement on the governance of a.i. that brings every country to the table. it includes the creation of an independence international scientific panel on a.i., pulling expertise to bridge knowledge gaps and help every nation make the most informed a.i. policies. the compact also calls for periodic global dialogue on a.i. governance, as an inclusive space for stake holders to come together under the us a piss of the united nations. it also foresees a network of capacity building initiatives

for developing countries which have the most at stake as a.i. driven systems grow and expand. and we must collaborate so that all countries and people benefit from a.i.'s promise and potential to support development and social economic progress for all. by investing in digital literacy and the infrastructure that allows every country to harness a.i.'s potential. by helping developing countries use a.i. to grow small businesses, improve public services and connect communities to new markets. and by placing human rights always at the center of a.i.-driven systems. the united nations is committed to leading these efforts. we are working with governments, industry and civil society to ensure that a.i. becomes a -- an opportunity for inclusion and progress for all people.

ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to wake up to these existential challenges and face them head-on. and transform them as sources of progress and wealth for everyone. as a global community, we must live up to these great responsibility and let's do so by working in collaboration as the model of the world economic forum. thank you and i look forward to our discussion tonight. [applause] >> mr. speaker secretary general, great to have you back. one can look at the world as like a glass half empty or a glass half full. let's start with the latter and then come back to the first.

you just came back from lebanon. it is now president elected, there is a ceasefire as you mentioned in gaza. the start of releasing hostages. there is a new government in damascus, we know your special envoy is there to -- today. working on that. currently there hasn't been an escalation leading to a war between israel and iran that would have huge impact. so where do you see the meas in a year when you come back to davos? mr. guterres: well, i know it will be different but i do know

exactly in what direction all the different aspects will be changed. first, gay savage i think it's important to recognize that the ceasefire in gaza is the product of the work of many, and i will praise the united states, qatar, for their efforts for months and months to obtain the release of hostages, that it be immediate and unconditional and also to obtain the ceasefire. but the negotiations were dragging, dragging, dragging. and then all of a sudden it happened. i think there was a large contribution of the robust diplomacy of the, at the time president-elect of the united states. i feel that when we had the

position of israel still reluctant to the ceasefire, just two days before, then all of a sudden there was an acceptance, i think that we have witnessed an example of robust diplomacy that is something that we must recognize. >> do you expect more robust diplomacy? mr. guterres: i see more examples of robust diplomacy. but what is not yet clear is what is the future of the relationship between israel and the palestinians. one possibility is to move into annexation of the west bank. probably a kind of limbo situation in gaza which of course is against international law, there will never be peace in the mete. the other possibility is to --

with a realized palestinian authority, an open approach by the israeli government to still be able to look into a two-state solution. it's not yet career how things will be done. in lebanon, i believe that the ceasefire is holding. and my hope is that we will witness a lebanon that will be able to finally have an effective government and we know that the lebanese, if the war ends at noon, at 1:00 they start to build. the lebanese people have an enormous potential. i'm optimistic about lebanon. but we are still not yet -- there's still not yet a guarantee that this ceasefire will hold and will lead to final peace. i think syria is the big question now. we have a new government that is

saying all the right things. but at the same time it's a government that still corresponds only whatever -- organizations that have a tradition that is in the exactly of members of the part of a church. so there are many questions. and we see some signals that the openness and tolerance that is -- that translates itself into reality. so we hopefully will have a syria with a government that relate represents all the communities in syria. which means if the problem in kyiv is resolved, and that allows for full integration of syrian -- syria in the

international community, but we still have a strong risk of fragmentation and a strong risk of extremism in at least parts of the syrian territory. syria is still a question mark. but it is in the interest of us all to engage in order to make things move in the direction of an inclusive form of government in syria. and i think some gesture must be made regarding the sanctions to help make it possible. >> incentivize? >> i think it's a quid pro quo. but i believe the first step now must be to create some relief in the sanctions that is causing a lot of suffering to the syrian people. >> and we're already seeing the00,000 syrians coming back to syria. but we also, as you said, as --

there's a lot at stake. we have seen in the past that walking the talk has not necessarily been happening. and it's really a lot at stake now, inclusiveness, you have the kurds. you have christians. you have shiites. it's complex. mr. guterres: as i said we might have a good solution in which all feel represented and contradicks or overcome. or a fragmentation with resisting parties. let's hope it's the first option that wins. and then you have the most relevant question which is iran and realizations with the united states. my hope is that the iranians understand that it is important to once and for all make it clear that they will denounce to

have nuclear weapons. at the same time that they engage constructively with the other countries of the region to have a new security architecture in the region with full respect of independence, territorial integrity in the region. and to with that, having so-called great bargain that allows them to be fully integrated in the global economy. this is my hope. but it's still possible that things do not go in this direction and that we might have an escalation and an ex-escalation that could be -- lead to dramatic confrontation engulfing the whole region. >> that wouldn't only affect the gulf region or the middle east that would have huge global impact. but you mentioned robust diplomacy related to gaza. we also heard that president

trump has said that he wants peace and stability. that was a readout from the conversation he also had with xi jinping on saturday and we were very close to full fledged war between israel and iran in the fall. so i guess also on the israeli side, they will ned to work very closely with the new administration on their approach to iran. and i -- there's also different camps in the republican party when it comes to how to deal with iran. mr. guterres: my feeling is that the first step now must come from iran. because if not, we risk and escalation. i hope iran understands that it is useful to have this first step.

and that it doesn't make sense at all to bet on the possibility, because it's not even a reality, or the perception that iran is aiming at having nuclear weapons. i think to make it clear once and for all that that will not happen and to engage as i said constructively for a new security in the region, respecting the independence and all the other countries would be a step that would allow the full integration of iran in the global economy and i hope once and for all pacify these -- one of the most serious risks in global security. >> coming back to gaza, implementation of the first phase is happening now. but there's also a second phase. there's still things that have

modalities that have to be negotiated. but when you look at risks also, we see currently a deterioration of the situation in the west bank. so of course it's seen to play a role in the next phase of the implementation of gaza. so it of course will be interesting also to see this new administration's view on two-state solution. the abraham accords. saudi arabia having said that there is no joining of the abraham accord without a path toward a two-state solution. but the immediate challenge is now really on the best wang -- west bank. because we have seen deterioration of the security situation there and -- and then the path for reconstruction of

gaza. mr. guterres: i think there's a win-win solution. that win-win solution is that the ceasefire holds. hostages are -- go on being released. and the message takes place. first 130 trucks, second 900 trucks. it was shown when restriction disappeared aid was provided. this is important. it is a successful story. now this success story must resolve itself into a success story in the next phases. and the next phases leading to a situation of permanent ceasefire in gaza and the situation in which a transition can be established in gaza, allowing for the unification of the occupied palestinian territories. and allowing for a serious

negotiation, a political solution, based on the two states. this is the win-win situation. but there is another possibility. and the other possibility is for israel feeling emboldened by military successes to think that this is the moment to through the annexation of the west bank and to keep gaza in a kind of limbo situation with an unclear form of governance. it is clear for me that israel is not fundamentally in gaza. it's fundamentally in the west bank. now that would be a total violation of international law and that would create a situation in which i think the abraham i think accords would be undermined completely and that would mean that we would never have stable peace in the middle

east. >> one of the challenges we are faced with is in a more fragmented, polarized world is also this notion of proxy wars. proxy wars, i'm thinking about what we're seeing now in africa, sudan, somalia, mosul, and the sahal. i guess that this is something that keeps you up at night. it's hard to address. it's hard to attribute. but also for syria, this is probably one of the real impasses. also if you don't have an integration, then you can have a war going on for decades. mr. guterres: we live in a situation where the geopolitical divides are deep. the superpowers are deeply

divided. with russia's invasion of ukraine of course the most serious problem but with china-u.s. relationship being, as you know, very deteriorated. could have worse with the trade issues that appear on the horizon. so this huge geopolitical divide has created a situation in which there is total impunity. as the superpowers are not able to formulate their action in relation to global peace and security. in any part of the world, anyone feels they can do whatever they want. and we are seeing this in due hsu dan. two groups, killing each other. fighting each other. creating a situation for the people in sudan. and nothing happens to them. total impunity. now this is the situation that i

believe we need to correct. because this is what makes these wars by proxy happen. and you see that in each of the situations, four or five countries that intercede. be it in sudan or -- >> somalia, the presence here on the first row. mr. guterres: i mean, it is absolutely essential to independently of the geopolitical divide that exists, to create a situation in which there is real accountability in relation to the dramatic violations of human rights and international law we are seeing in the world. >> so, coming to a close, it's imperative still, isn't it, that

in a world where more and more of the challenges are trans-boundary, be it future pandemics, climates change as you mentioned in your speech, making sure that technology works in the interest of humankind. also with cyber crime. but also in all this original conflicts that are so interconnected. we do have the the security council. there's criticism that it is not the best mood in the security council but it is a place where the big powers still meet. and it's a paradox that in a situation where all these challenges are only sold in a multilateral complex, the appetite is not always there. so it first makes your job even

more complex but do you feel there are a few opportunities and silver linings now not coming years to tissue to even -- to 9/11 a world where each nation follows mainly their national interests, there are areas where there's strong overlap of the interests that you can push things through? mr. guterres: first of all, let's look at the security down tough. he problem with security council is is a problem of effectiveness but also losing power. the security council is the five members, france, u.k. and russia are european countries. three in five on a continent that is what it is doesn't make any sense anymore. it is absolutely essential to

have reform in the security council to make the security council more representative of today's world and make it more effective. this is one of the central questions at the debate. but beyond that, what i believe is that there are things that will tend in my opinion to unite. and i have a lot of hope of the positive impacts of science and the positive impacts of technological development. we can have different positions. but renewables are the cheapest way to produce energy. so independently of the opinions that people might have, those

that are now invested in fossil fuels, in my opinion, are invested in something -- i'm convinced that oil and gas that exist in the world today, independently of new discoveries, will never be spent. and so sooner or later, i believe that the realities created by the scientific and technological evolution, will make it inevitable, even for reasons of selfish analysis, will make it inevitable for people to take the right decisions. and that is one of my hopes. the second hope is that the use of -- this youth of today has a different perspective and different version -- vision of the world than the youth of our generations. they are more cosmopolitan and they are more sensitive to the questions related to the well

being of our planet and well being of the intermarble community -- of the international community. >> so there are sill venn linings. mr. guterres: the question is not to be optimistic or pessimistic. the question is to be determined. we need to be determined in making the values and principles which we live with. if we are materialed to fighter in right thing if we are on the right side of history, i believe in the end we will get what we want. >> thank you so much. thank you so much, mr. secretary general. [applause] most.

>> charter communication support as a public service along with these other providers to the front row democracy examining the ongoing drought in the river basin and the built help native american tribes implement drought and water management projects. the house and natural resources subcommittee on water wildlife and fisheries held a hearing to address legislation relating to water policy. this is one hour and 50 minutes.

i want to welcome the members, the witnesses and our guest in the audience for today's hearing without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time. under committee rule 4 f any opening statements and hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. i therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with

committee rule three oh. without objection, so ordered. i also ask unanimous consent that the congresswoman from idaho and the congressman from georgia be allowed to participate in today's hearing. without objection, so ordered. we are here to consider for legislative measures. hr 2031, the colorado river basin system extension act of 2025 sponsored by myself, hr 261 the cable protection act of 2025 sponsored by representative carter of georgia, hr 3312 amend the aquifer recharge flexibility act to clarify a provision where they needed conveyance for recharge preference of idaho and the water smart access sponsored by representative stansberry of new mexico.

i now recognize myself for a five minute opening statement. again, i want to welcome everybody to the committee on natural resources first legislative hearing of the 119th congress. there are several new faces at the subcommittee and for those of you that do not know me my name is harriet hagman and i represent the great state of wyoming. i am a litigator by trade and have spent my career challenging federal overreach protecting water and property rights exposing federal land and wildlife mismanagement and fighting back against the unconstitutional and unlawful acts of unelected bureaucrats. i am very honored to serve as the chair for the subcommittee on water wildlife and fisheries. i also want to thank congressman betz for his leadership of the subcommittee during the past two congress is. today the subcommittee will consider cell -- four bills of the center of bureau of reclamation's work in the west.

first we have hr 231 which i sponsored and reauthorized the colorado pilot program. through fiscal year 2026. the colorado river basin is one of the most developed rivers in the united states and in our history. i know i've done a lot of work in that basin had numerous divergence. multiple compacts, laws, regulatory guidelines, contracts , court decisions and decrees. experiencing a long-term drought conditions. many actions have been taken to address the basin might legislation seeks to reauthorize a program that has re- water conservation projects conserving water for colorado system storage to help mitigate the impacts of the drought. to be clear, this program is not

and should not be viewed as a permanent solution to addressing the drought conditions in the basin. however, at this time, it is a tool that the upper basin states can use to reduce risks to test new water management strategies. while we are not discussing broader colorado basin issues today, i do want to say that this committee is committed to working with the trump administration, the tribes, the seven basin states, the delegation to find a post 26 solution. sponsored by congressman fulcher clarifies the intent of the aquifer recharge flexibility act to ensure that the bureaus of land management understands that third parties such as the idaho resource board which was testifying for us today can utilize a way to transport water for aquaphor recharge purposes.

our third reclamation bill is sponsored by congresswoman stansberry and would allow the secretary of the interior to reduce or waive cost share requirements for tribal governments underwater smart program. this program which is already oversubscribed helps fund infrastructure improvement projects such as canal mining or piping to conserve and use water more efficiently. our fourth bill hr 261 sponsored by congressman carter would prevent the secretary of commerce from requiring additional permitting for fiber-optic cable that goes through the marine sanctuary if they have already been authorized by a federal or state agency. these networks are major component of our global connectivity enhancing the city of these cables and promoting rather than deterring their deployment and maintenance will protect our national and economic security and ensure

that we are connected to the rest of the world. again, i want to take the time to thank our witnesses for being here today and i look forward to a robust conversation. i now recognize ranking member for her opening statement and i want to say that i look forward to working with you during the 119th congress as we move forward on these important issues. >> thank you, chair. good afternoon, everyone. it is not afternoon, is it. it is morning. good morning, everyone. i am excited to serve. i look forward to working with the chair on protecting america's natural resources.

this is what the three water bills in this hearing today do. hr 231 the colorado river basin system conservation act would reauthorize the pilot program to support voluntary water conservation projects to address drought impacts in the upper basin through 2026. i'm also really happy to see representative stansberry's water smart access for tribes act which authorizes the secretary of the interior to reduce or waive the non-federal cost share requirements for tribes receiving water smart grants including on today's

agenda. this legislation will help remove the financial barrier for tribes to increase drought climate change resiliency. i hope we can work together to quickly advance this legislation and tribal water settlements through the committees to support tribes access to reliable water resources. hr 331, the aquifer recharge flexibility act amendments would make it harder for communities and tribes have input on water management while it allows third parties to use an existing right-of-way or other authorization for aquifer recharge without further authorization from secretary not a major action all by guaranteed these are aquifer recharge projects exempt from either review. working with us to address the concern. one bill that we feel needs

major changes is hr 261 fantasy cable protection act. we need to make sure the purposes of the marine sanctuaries in the cultural and historical resources are considered when permits are approved. these areas are some of the most cherished ecosystems and helpful thousands of small businesses nationwide including the very robust and important commercial industry in oregon and the pacific northwest. national marine sanctuaries are nations marine national parks. i recognize fiber-optic cables are less destructive than many other activities necessary for our economy and national security and i believe we can find a solution that we all agree on that balances the need for fiber-optic cables and protecting and preserving our ocean ecosystems. we need to make the language less ambiguous and allow know what to continue to charge fair market rate a necessity and

protect the authority to carry out the national marine sanctuary act. if we get it right, it will help ensure the buildout of critical infrastructure in america and protect the sanctuary resources that local economies and small businesses depend on. i look forward to finding the health and sustainability and thank you to the witnesses for participating in today's hearing i look forward to hearing from each of you. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i now recognize ranking member hoffman for his opening statement. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. congratulations to you and to the ranking member. i know the majority was eager to get us started with this first subcommittee hearing. it is happening on a shorter timeline than a standard for regular order. democrats agreed to this in the spirit of cooperation. we do expect that going forward the majority will work with us

on the traditional schedule and the norms of the committee will continue to be honored. the majority means that there are no administration witnesses. none were invited. that would've been nonnegotiable for the majority over the past few years. i hope that, too, is not a new precedent. i am glad to see the representative bill included today. this is a good bail. providing essential tools help tribes compete for grants for water conservation and resiliency. i have significant concerns about one bill. hr 261 the cable protection act, we have to make sure the marine sanctuaries which are some of america's most cherished places continue to be protected. this bill prohibits from requiring an authorization for the installation and maintenance or recovery.

the activity was previously authorized by any federal or state agency. national sanctuaries act drives a collaborative process for developing and designating these sanctuaries that encompass protection for ocean resources, that ocean users local communities and tribes can all be proud of. they help support coastal economies in a big way and i know because i have a couple of these marine sanctuaries in my district. they generate a billion dollars annually to local economies and support tens of millions of jobs businesses include fishing, diving, tourism, recreation, scientific research sectors and most of that activity is driven by small businesses. activities in the sanctuaries have to be compatible with the purpose of the sanctuary. solo businesses such as diebold operators, whale watching tours, all of these must make sure that

their activities comply with the rules. but in this bill, house republicans making it clear that billion-dollar companies get a free pass from all of the rules. this bill lets them ignore any assessment impacts of their activity on the marine sanctuary such as whether the route will destroy its features. it allows them to escape any fees or liability if a disaster occurs. disasters do occur. in 2020 and facebook subsidiary bundled and operation off the coast of oregon leaving their drilling pipes, fluids and other construction materials on the seafloor creating two sinkholes. why would we give a billion-dollar tech borough, donors and pals that have been exalted a little too much, lately a free pass knowing that our small businesses are playing by the rules and will be the ones to take the hit if a

construction disaster occurs. i think that there is nothing inherently incompatible between these cables and national marine sanctuaries. they exist in a bunch of existing sanctuaries including the ones in my district. but they do not need special statutory giveaways and if the bill is needed, we need to be thoughtful and careful and targeted about the way we do that. hr 331 the flexibility act making it easier for third parties to use federal rights for aqua charge projects sponsors of this legislation have made progress to ensure that the bill complies with the directives of the federal land policy management act and other key environmental laws, it still contains an unnecessary exemption and that is bad. it will make it difficult for tribes and communities to weigh in on projects that could significantly impact them.

i hope the sponsors will work with us to fix that language and they do not place additional burdens on these local communities and if they can do that i think that is a bill that should a broad bipartisan support. with that i want to thank the witnesses. welcome everyone to washington and i look forward to discussing these bills further. i yield back. >> thank you. i will now introduce our first panel. the bill sponsors are recognized for five minutes each to discuss their bills. to testify on my own bill i recognize myself for five minutes. i think it is important to give some background to hr 231. covering seven states, arizona, california, colorado new mexico, utah and wyoming. wyoming is a headwaters with the green river. it also covers the republic of mexico. in the u.s. providing water for

irrigation of nearly 4.5 millio, municipal water supply to 40 million people and supports hydropower facilities that can generate more than 4200 megawatts of electricity within the basin there are seven national wildlife refuges and 11 national park service units. in 2014 the bureau of reclamation, the river basin states and the water users explored ideas that could mitigate the impacts of the ongoing drought in the basin. the system conservation pilot program or sep pa for your pilot program designed to explore solutions to address declining water levels in lake mead and lake powell and the potential for long-term drought in the upper colorado river basin. the program implemented and tested on the ground voluntary water conservation opportunities that may help manage ongoing record drought conditions in the basin. the sep originally concluded in

2018 from 2015 until 2017 the upper basin funded 45 projects for a use reduction of approximately 22,000 acre-feet at a total cost of $4.5 million. in 2022, this program was reauthorized until september 30, 2024. hr 231 would extend the programs funding authorization until september 30, 2026, and required the secretary of interior to report to congress on the continued list of the program by september 30, 2027. it allows the secretary to provide grants to public entities for water conservation, pilot projects if the entity uses water from the colorado river basin for municipal purposes and for new water conservation agreements or for renewing or implementing water conservation agreements.

this is a good bail and i urge its passage. the chair now recognizes congresswoman stansberry for five minutes. >> good morning, everyone. thank you, madam chairwoman and ranking member. it is wonderful to be with you here today and i'm excited to serve on this committee. having worked on water much of my life and career and also because we have great leadership and i know madam chairwoman have a long history working on land and water issues as the representative said. i am delighted and honored to have the opportunity to present the bill that we have in front of you here today. it is called the water smart access for tribes act. i would like to welcome mr. witherspoon. thank you from traveling from window rock arizona. the navajo nation. i know our other guests are traveling from all over the west thank you for being here today. as we say new mexico, water is life. water is sacred.

water is essential to everything we do and for many tribal communities, access to water, infrastructure and funding needed to maintain that infrastructure is out of reach. in fact, across the navajo nation, it is estimated that 30- 40% of homes do not have access to running water, piped water inside of their homes. for example, which used to be in my district but is a community near and dear to my heart near albuquerque, the people have lived for many years without safe drinking water. thankfully, the issues around water are finally being addressed. however, there are still many homes that have to haul water from miles away that is used in homes, public buildings and even across public buildings. this is sadly a common story across many communities. across new mexico that have long

gone without sufficient funding to address water infrastructure needs, not only for drinking water but also for irrigation and other needs. as much of the west continues to face drought conditions and changes and water supply, it is unconscionable that we have not summoned the moral courage and the political will to address these issues. that is why this is crucial. years of underinvestment and tribal water infrastructure have impacted the ability of our tribes to address water needs. it is estimated that nationwide almost half of tribal homes lack access to adequate water or sanitation and tribal communities are 19 times more likely to not have access to clean water overall. make no mistake, tribes have lived on these lands for countless generations since time and memorial. practicing both traditional cultural ways of life and resource stewardship as well as economic activities. but as communities have grown, infrastructure has aged, drought

and water security have intensified the need to address water security has grown more acute. this water smart access for tribes act as one tool to unlock critically needed resources to address tribal water security. for over a decade the department of the interior is water smart program has provided hundreds of grants to communities across the west as one of the nation's premier water conservation programs. yet tribes have received fewer than 5% of these grants due to some cost-sharing requirements which have acted as a significant barrier to accessing funds. this bill would authorize the secretary of interior to remove those barriers and what unlock millions of dollars in investment and tribal water programs and projects. this includes projects for addressing drought, water conservation, efficiency, reuse and recycling. water is fundamental to the social economic and cultural needs of indigenous communities. this legislation will help to break down economic areas to

addressing those needs and will help to unlock the funds to support tribal communities in building out infrastructure. including this bill in today's hearing. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony today. we do have several members also participating in other hearings on the capital today. they will be coming in and out. as the bill sponsors arrive, we will have them make their statement at that time. to move forward with this and make sure we are standing on time, we will go ahead and introduce the second panel. they will be testifying today. mr. nathan, owner and green river utah, ms. denise toombs advisor to the international connectivity coalition in san francisco, california, mr. dwight witherspoon, unit

attorney for the navajo nation window rock, arizona. i was just with your president a few days ago. wonderful to have an opportunity to meet him again. and water project section manager of the idaho water department of water resources and boise, idaho. let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules they must limit their oral statements to five minutes but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. to begin your testimony please press the button on the microphone and we use timing lights. when you begin the light will turn green. you one minute remaining the light will turn yellow and at the end of the five minutes the light will turn red and i will ask you to please complete your statement. i will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. i now recognize for five minutes >> thank you, chair and ranking

members and other members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to present to you today. my name is nathan. i'm a fort generation farmer from green river utah. i great-grandfather started farming in 1880s. we lived along the price river and lived in the late 70s to the green river in central south utah because there was a lot more water there. my father who sits behind me, 85 years old acorn barn to play pickle ball. very active art of our family and operation. i also have two sons working with me on the farm and plan to continue our heritage of producing corn and alfalfa and melons. i am here today to testify in favor. legislation would reauthorize the system conservation by the program. as committee members know the upper colorado river system conservation rs cpp is an important opportunity for temporary voluntary and

compensated reduction use of agricultural water in the upper colorado river basin. projects typically involve four or partial following where farmers forgo irrigation. also use for the use of excess water reservoir areas. per acre foot of conserved water to replace income lost by not using their water. typical purpose. my family farm operates about 1600 acres of river bottom along the east side of the green river above the town of green river, utah. our best money crop is corn followed by melons and alfalfa. we produce projects, we put milk , beef and melons on the tables of american families especially throughout our region over the years we spent a lot of money investing in infrastructure. we have went from flood irrigation on that acreage to pivots and sprinkler irrigation 's to conserve and use water more efficiently. we introduce the sec program in

23 as we had feels that had some poor drainage. we use this as an opportunity to introduce projects to help those fields drain better. in 2024 we did a much larger conservation project. if you only think about farming, it is a lot about gambling. he spent a lot of money up front and seed and fertilizer and machinery and other things and hope that you have a good market after you finish your crop with everything that applies. whether and what not. get your money back and return a profit. introducing us to the idea that we can conserve water. leave it in the river, generated better financially, too. less productive grounded restore the productivity of fields where we have pulled water out to help with soil, health, drainage issues and nutrient management. we have traditionally, we —-dash there is very little incentive to do so. you put a lot of money into

having your fields in use in the water and use, use it or lose it law in addition to the economic hit that you take a not using your water. this is kind of the first stab at thinking seriously about conservation and all the benefits that could be put with it. we are learning that our water could be viewed as another kind of cash crop that would allow us to implement the rotation which could be very beneficial. the sec program has opened our eyes to the fact that water we are saving and leaving in the rivers benefiting utah and also meeting our obligations they are and allowing water to be put in lake powell downstream. the summer, the users, excuse me , appreciate your support of this program. it is working. it has changed our minds. it is change some of the attitudes we have towards conference rate -- conservation

and is also helping our state and downstream neighbors in providing a little extra water for the fish in the environment. we have no interest in selling out. we love what we do. my kids go to classrooms where there are four kids that graduate and they love it and they want to come back. they like the rural area and the setting. i encourage you, the committee to pass hr 231 quickly to ensure that the program is reauthorize. an important tool for farmers at that same time i would encourage the committee to work with states and farmers like me to make ways of making even better design a more flexible long-term policies that will provide water users a tool to conserve energy. our farm alone has allowed over 2000 acre-feet of water to return to the reservoirs. we look forward to working in striving to conserve even more. i think the chair and the other members in this committee for this opportunity. if there any questions are be

glad to take a stab at them. >> thank you for your very helpful and informative testimony. i see we have now been joined by congressman carter and i'm going to have him testify about his bill for five minutes and then we will come back to the panel. so, mr. carter. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak about hr 261. the cable protection act. the reason i introduced this bill was to introduce a redundant process that is impeding the deployment of cables. the department of homeland security has designated the cables as critical infrastructure. when you think about it, they are. we rely on these cables more than any of us realize because they are the backbone of the internet and are critical for intercontinental communication and transactions that are necessary to support the increased data loads that are

product of the growth in ai, supercomputing and everyday dependency on the internet. if you do not hear anything else i say, listen to this. it is estimated that in the financial sector alone, undersea cables theory, $10 trillion of financial transfers daily, $10 trillion of financial transfers daily, anybody who has read the news in the past six months know our adversaries have been targeting these cables and cutting them in order to cripple the economic and economic security of countries around the world. this underscores the importance of redundancy and resiliency on our own cables and the diversity of rounds that are needed to ensure we limit our own vulnerability to such activity. the permitting process for cables is robust and goes above and beyond to protect the marine habitat that is particularly near and dear to the hearts of members like me who are from the coast. represent the entire coast of georgia. so it is important to me. the army corps of engineers,

noel, local agencies all involved in a process that requires route planning coordination, multiple environmental reviews and archaeological assessments to ensure surrounding habitats are preserved and protected. i understand the importance of this process in my bill does absolutely nothing to change that. what i am looking to address is the additional special use permit process that prompts a secondary request additional environmental reviews and the delays that come with such bureaucratic process and the instances where submarine cable is being laid in a marine sanctuary. in some instances, the marine sanctuary came after the cables were laid. they have to seek permission just to stay. the issue is limited to five years which is in stark contrast to the 25 year license they get from the fcc. it takes longer than five years to plan the laying of these cables and as soon as you get

them, it is already time to start another environmental review. we already know what the review will say which is all they always say. cables do not cause environmental harm. the investment to deploy these cables is significant and certainly, certainly expect a greater return on that investment than five years and they deserve more regulatory certainty than this black box process. i am told by folks in the industry that marine sanctuaries are de facto no go zones because of this regulatory uncertainty. he sanctuaries are not just as rare as you may think. over 400 miles of the coast of california has designated as marine sanctuary. that is half of the coast of the entire state which also happens to be the most strategic place to lay cables given the position globally and its proximity to data centers. limiting the ability to lay cables to less than half the coast of california limits their

resiliency and the redundancy of these cables. this limitation increases the risk of external events like landslides, ship dragging an anchor, these things do happen intentionally or not. would damage, multiple cables at the same time and in communications which is detrimental to our national economic security. they are pausing the requirement for sep for these cables and marine sanctuaries for two years to determine a process going forward. however, the process will only be patchwork of inconsistent rules depending on the sanctuary and when it is designated. my bill will provide regulatory certainty. you know businesses need that. now, without jeopardizing any environmental concerns or responsibilities that have to be addressed before perceiving a permit.

this is a balanced approach to protect the marine environment while ensuring our national and economic security as well as our global leadership in technology. once again i want to repeat what i said earlier. i think that it is very, very important. it is estimated that in the financial sector alone undersea cables carry $10 trillion worth of financial transfers daily. this is important. thank you very much for considering this, madam chair, and thank you for the opportunity to address and i yield back. >> thank you. very interesting testimony. very helpful. i assume you will be reiterating some of the information that is providing and providing more detail about the importance of this bill. we you please go ahead and begin your testimony for five minutes.

this timely legislation is needed to address permitting national marine sanctuaries to ensure environmental concerns are addressed with direct consultation with noah while providing regulatory certainty for a cable network investment and development in the national interest. with 25 years of experience permitting labels in the u.s. representing companies that design and operate fiber optic cable networks which are the backbone of global communications. these cables transmit 99% of intercontinental data enabling essential global activities from commerce and financial transactions to secure government and military operations. a study estimates the industry's substantial investment in these global networks contributes nearly $650 billion annually to

the global economy and supports our national security. with exponential growth and the demand from technologies like ai and supercomputing, the need for cables continues to rise. in order for the u.s. to maintain global leadership in technology, investment and deployment and label certainty. the current framework for the permitting cables is already robust. requiring permits for multiple federal or state or local agencies. required studies in general, this is not an sanctuaries per se include essential fish habitat assessments, biological assessments, cultural and archaeological studies and forceful mitigation plans. environmental impact studies and monitoring that are integral to these permitting processes and permit conditions continue to show that the environmental impact of cables is minimal and

short-term. environmental protection is managed in part through intense routing analyses and engagement with resource agencies and local marine users during the design phase. establish and -- best management practices during installation in cooperation with resource agencies during and after installation. the current permitting process can take up to three years before moving onto installation. the legislation being considered does not change or limit any of these requirements. what the bill is looking to address is the additional permitting framework for commercial sub ck labels and national marine sanctuaries. special use permits administered by noah add another layer permitting and substantially increases the regulatory uncertainty for cable projects. the requirement for special use permits is redundant to the existing robust permitting process is already overseen by federal, state and local authorities. moreover, if it is issued it is

only good for five years with uncertain prospects for renewal. a five-year term is incompatible with critical infrastructure investment and expected operating life of these systems. in contrast with the 25 year license issued by the fcc for these cables and the 20-25 terms of most states. these restrictions discourage cable routes through sanctuaries making them no go zones as mentioned. for example, approximately 400 of california's 800 miles of coastline is in areas designated as national marine sanctuaries. this matters because network resiliency and security required diverse cable routes. if networks are forced to work in these areas, they are more vulnerable to becoming a single point of failure during natural disasters or other events. the undersea cable protection act would streamline the process by eliminating the extra requirement of the special use

permits while obtaining the oversight role through a consultation process. this would have no effect on the existing federal, state and local regulatory requirements for these cables. the change would retain both the protection of sanctuary resources and the continued development of this critical infrastructure. labels are essential to the u.s. economy and national security and this legislation represents a balanced approach to safeguarding our marine environments while enabling investment of vital communication networks. thank you for the opportunity to testify, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you will. i now recognize mr. weatherspoon for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee. thank you for this opportunity to testify on the water smart

access for tribes act. my name is dwight weatherspoon and i am an attorney for that navajo department of justice. today i'm here on behalf of navajo nation president. to express our strong support for this legislation which will make the water smart program more accessible to tribes by allowing the flexibility with a nonfederal cost share requirement. while this bill does not address the full scope within the nations water needs, it provides a useful tool to help the nation and other tribes address water infrastructure challenges and move towards a more sustainable future. the water needs are immense and urgent he had our nation spans over 27,000 square miles across the arizona, new mexico and utah and many of our citizens live in remote areas without access to clean drinking water. at a rate that is more than, roughly 30% of our households lack clean reliable drinking

water. a rate that is 67 times more than the national average. this dark statistic is not just a number. it represents thousands of families who are forced to haul water for drinking, cooking and bathing. the lack of access to clean water has led to a cascade of public health challenges. including higher rates of waterborne illnesses and other preventable diseases. it also places an undue burden on women, children and elders who are often asked to be able to haul the water for long distances. unlike states and municipalities , the navajo nation does not have a original tax base. since tribal lands are held in trust and restricts our ability to generate revenue, through property taxes. and ever communities remoteness limits other economic development opportunities.

as a result, we must rely on federal funding to build and maintain critical infrastructure programs like the water smart are helpful, but the current and cost share requirement often put these funds out of reach for tribal nations who need them the most. the water smart program has an opportunity to fund impactful projects for the navajo nation. the nation could apply for water system efficiency upgrades at the alamo chapter. a satellite reservation in central new mexico. the nation in the past struggled to successfully apply for these funds simply because they cannot meet the nonfederal matching requirements. the water smart access for tribes would address this hardship by allowing the secretary of interior to waive the nonfederal cost share requirements increasing the

likelihood that tribes like the navajo nation would be able to access the critical funding. it is crucial to understand that while this water smart access for tribes act as a step forward , other larger investments in drinking water infrastructure are needed in indian country. for instance, the nation continues to advance several water rights settlements before congress. this would resolve the nation's outstanding water claims in arizona and a majority of the claims in new mexico as well as address the massive infrastructure needs on the navajo reservation. access to water is not just a matter of infrastructure. it is a matter of health and economic opportunity. our schools struggle with inadequate water supplies. it affects our ability to attract business, create jobs and perpetuate cycles of poverty building a sustainable future for the navajo people. water smart access recognizing

these realities and offers a practical immediate solution to help address the various tribes face in excess of federal resources by waiving or reducing the cost share requirements they power tribal nations to undertake projects to conserve water improve efficiency and enhance water delivery systems. we urge the subcommittee and congress to support the water smart access for tribes act while continuing to prioritize tribal water rights elements to gather with these efforts we can help turn the tide of water insecurity in indian country while honoring the federal government's trust responsibility for tribal nations. in closing i want to thank the subcommittee for its attention towards our travel needs. we look forward to advancing this legislation. we thank you for the opportunity to testify and we are happy to answer questions. >> thank you.

the chair now recognizes for five-minute spirit. >> my name is wesley. i am the watcher project section manager for the idaho department of water resources. i am here today testifying on behalf of the idaho water resource board had formulating a comprehensive state water plan for conservation development, management and often use of the resources. along with undertaking and financing projects and programs to help meet those needs. idaho is a headwater state. with significant water resources but also includes fast regions where water supply is very significant from year-to-year. as with other western states, water supply shortages and water use conflicts occur across the state. most notably is the eastern lane in the southern portion of the state home of one third of idaho's population. this plane is underlain by the eastern snake lane aquaphor.

this aquifer covers an area roughly the size of lake erie. and supports about 1 million acres of irrigated farmland, municipal water supplies and thousands of domestic wells for drinking water. they discharge spring flows into the snake river supplying water to the additional 600,000 of irrigated acres. many municipalities, hydropower generation and a multitude of other uses. the values of goods and services exceeds 10 billion annually. with a strong support of governor brad little in the idaho legislature, making significant investments in water management drought resiliency expanding water supplies and impairing and improving critical water resource infrastructure. since 2019 more than 500 million has been appropriated by the legislature to the board for these water management improvements.

the water levels are declining at an unsustainable rate. the water resource board was tasked with the development of the esp a comprehensive aquifer management land to stabilize recovered this crucial aquaphor. a key component of the plan is to develop estate recharge program. this program diverts excess service water and wet years to stabilize and recover this aquifer. to date have invested approximately 60 million on recharge infrastructure. this does not include program operations or expenditures made by private parties. development of the recharge program includes the use of existing irrigation canals for the transportation of her coloration of the water into the aquifer. a significant number of the irrigation canals cross lands owned by the u.s. bureau of land management. these canals have existing right-of-way's using the existing infrastructure is hugely beneficial for idaho to

reach its goals in stabilizing the aquifer. to ensure flexibility in managing this recharge over federal land, the 116th congress enacted section 1105 of the recharge flexibility act. in part the act states the right-of-way, easement or men or other authorization to transport water cross public land administered by the bureau of land management transport water for recharge purposes without requiring additional authorization from the secretary where the use does not expand or modify the operation of the right-of-way easement permit or other authorization across public land. the act was intended to allow the board to move and infiltrate water for recharge through existing irrigation canals that cross lands without obtaining additional right-of-way's. despite the plain act, taking

the position that the act does not apply to third parties only to the right-of-way owners of record. the interpretation requires support to maintain new right-of-way's to conduct recharging canals that already have existing right-of-way spirit the right-of-way process can be onerous and will add significant time to development of recharge projects. this could severely delayed the board's ability to reach the goals of saving lives in the esp a. insisted that the board obtain new right-of-way's to utilize existing irrigation canals to offer recharges and conservation of the plain language act and we believe it is contrary to the intent of congress passing the act. being sought in the legislature would address erroneous interpretation that the act does not apply to third parties. the amendment will enable the board to more efficiently implement its offer recharge activities and reach its goal for the benefit of the citizens of the state of idaho. in conclusion i want to thank the subcommittee for considering this amendment to the aquifer recharge flexibility yeah and

providing opportunity to provide testimony. i would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you. i think the witnesses for their testimony and i will now recognize members for five minutes each for questions. i will begin with myself. and your testimony, you talk about your own experience with the upper colorado system conservation pilot program. given the current water challenges on that river and in that system, if this program were not to be reauthorized, how challenging would it be to access other federal opportunities? >> well, i do not know that i can speak exactly, it is challenging in the economic terms of being able to conserve water. the infrastructure that you have , we spent a lot of money to put down, to utilize water and

efficiently do it. as far as conservation, it is difficult to see much incentive to do so. i do not know that i can speak to how it would affect others, certainly others that are used for conservation seems kind of counter to me to what we are trying to do to conserve water although sometimes using it efficiently is sometimes what we need to do. utilizing it is the goal. you know, the idea that you will not fight somebody else for. they will give it to somebody else that they feel is more i do not know that i can speak to how it would affect other programs, certainly, conservation will not be as much or any incentive to do it. >> this is definitely a program that has helped your operation. >> oh, definitely.

there's a benefit to following any way and that was known. just the economic costs of following those plans when there is such scarcity and such demand for it had little interest. >> so, at the end of your written testimony you discussed the idea of congress working on more long-term solution to eventually replace the pilot program. can you expand upon what that program would look like and how building more flexibility into a long-term solution would benefit farmers like you? >> one thing that we are tied to as a state, the colorado compact , how much they get. having the state be able to show conservation, allow them to have that demand management gives, you know, protects their water share. i think that this program allows you to hold that in place at the same time, conserve water from downstream.

the second part of your question >> what i was curious about was whether you had any other ideas of how to build flexibility into the system for long-term solution to benefit our farmers. >> as long as it is measurable and accountable, the water we are using is efficient, i think that it will be important that that is recognized in conjunction with the conservation efforts. i think everyone is worried they will take their water. that is a big concern that that will happen. as long as farmers are doing their part, offered protection in the flexibility to do it in a rotational program where you can see the benefits of it without the worry of the loss or the lack of access. >> thank you for that information. ms. dumas, in your testimony you mentioned that commercial undersea cables are important to national security. could you please expand to how important these technologies are

both domestically and globally. >> yes. certainly. >> turn on your microphone. >> i apologize for that. yes. certainly. it was mentioned earlier and i will just reiterated the relay providing the backbone of the internet. i find that when i talk to people, it is actually where the internet comes from if you want to call it that. they think that it is satellite communications and it really is not. this is a submarine cable or piece of a submarine cable and they are just hiding in plain sight. they do provide us with secure and fast communications domestically, intercontinental he and globally. >> so, i will go on real quickly here. you stated in your testimony that the implementation of the aquaphor recharge flexibility act has made it harder to implement and manage aquaphor act to biddies in your area.

how would congressman legislation clarify existing law and how would it help idaho water resources more effectively manage its resources? >> thank you, madam chairman, members of the committee. to give you an idea, to get an easement in the past, it has taken me approximately two years to do that. and for those that do not know, if you happen to see the news last summer, the esp went through a potential curtailment last spring which was obviously a really big deal that would have, if we had to move forward with that, would have curtailed a large portion of farmland and the reason that i bring that up is the recharge program is working, we just need to do more

and, so, every year that we do not have the capacity to do excess water, the aquaphor is losing approximately to get an imbalance, we need to put in about 600,000 extra feet. and, so, currently the program is only doing about 250. on a really dry year, we can only do less than half of that. so we have to be prepared on those wet years to be able to put that water in the ground and we do not know when that will happen. so, every year that we do not have that in place presents a problem. >> okay. thank you for your testimony. the chair now recognizes mr. hoffman for his line of questioning. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. weatherspoon, thank you for your testimony. you explain what i think is the heart of the question with this stan berry spell. how the cost share requirements that we ask of state and local governments and other applicants may make a lot of sense but they

are different for tribes. it is a significant burden and i appreciate you explaining that. if we can get those cost share requirements wave so you can participate in the program, what are some of the specific things that you would be able to do? i am interested in the way that it may help you enhance drought resiliency planning and improve water management for communities that really are struggling. >> thank you for the question. the navajo nation has 110 communities and each of us has water projects. and being able to approach the navajo nation counsel as just one chapter two try to match the dollars needed to participate in the program is sometimes a very challenging obstacle because you have, you know, all of the other

109 chapters that also have projects. so, the limited amount of resources that the nation receives each year through its generation of revenue, it is trust fund and the interest earned is generally directed, a good portion of that every year and so there is a limited amount that can be directed towards roads or water or power or sewer it is difficult to be able to do projects, just like, you know, the united states has for the states, each state has water projects and would like to benefit from such. the navajo nation also has 110 chapters. just add a million dollars $110 million to come up with for

water projects. each chapter has water projects. it is difficult to get funds from counsel to try to make use of these programs. thank you. >> i know that that will be the same experience for a lot of the tribes in my district. i appreciate your testimony there. for your testimony, i would like to better understand the goals of your coalition had the icc, as you call it. with this legislation and i certainly do not think that there is anything incompatible as i said with the telecommunication cables and national marine sanctuaries, but i do want to understand the context for this discussion. do you know how many cables are present right now and national marine sanctuaries? no one tells me there's about 55 does that sound right to you? >> thank you for your question, by the way.

>> 55 cables presently and national marine sanctuaries? >> 55 cables including many telecommunication fiber-optic cables. does that sound about right? >> that sounds like more cables than i am aware of. >> that would probably be good for you and me both know. that is what noah confirms. do you know how many special use permit applications for fiber-optic cables including renewals noah has denied in the past 25 years? >> i do not know. i do not think there would be many, if any. >> so few that it is zero. ....

>> before i comment on that -- >> it's a yes or no question, do you agree that's what the bill does? >> one result would be to remove the fair market value requirement? >> right, on -- and on page 10 of your presentation to this committee dated january of this month you state that that is one of your objectives to avoid the imposition of fair market fees for special use permit and national sanctuaries, correct? >> that would be -- >> time has expired. >> i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes mr. wahlberg for 5 minutes of questioning.

>> thanks for the panel for being here and i will restrict myself from regaling with opportunities, my fishing hands start to change and you mention lake eerie in my direct and we can talk about wildlife but i won't do that, i want to focus on the act introduced by my friend from georgia, mr. carter. we agree it's important economic equities and leadership technology when considering the permeating of these cables and so ms thooms, lengthy kiting leg

process and the reason for that was that it was new, it was unfamiliar type of project, agencies and so so we did a lot of studies

resulted in a lot of mitigation carried through over the years and i would say the -- the experience more currently or more recently has been that industries have learned a lot over that time. >> have you seen any indication of cables being harmful to the environment, the way they are established? >> no. again, i have permitted cables,

many in the students and we take a lot of care to put them in places that will not harm the environment and a lot of monitoring and rigorous oversight that it caused any harm. >> technology needs are also considered when permeating cables, who at noa does this? >> pardon me? >> who at noa does this? >> that's really not part of the permeating process to consider the factors. >> which are important factors and i think that sponsor of the bill pointed that out and seems there ought to be some

consideration taken for that. i guess my final question to ms- >> yes, i can. one of the important factors of having diverse routes is that we don't have all the cables going into one location or congested into a location because of damage that could be caused that could really make our global networks susceptible to being vulnerable to losing communications with the rest of the world. >> sabotage could be one and could be international or unintentional? >> yeah. >> otherwise it's damaging to do our security. >> i appreciate it. i see my time has expired and i yield back.

>> thank you, the chair recognizes -- >> thank you madame chairwoman. thank you for being here. i think one of the benefits of hearings like this is to bring more information to us in washington, d.c. and to those that may not be familiar with the context on the ground and i was born in san juan county and grew up partly in farmington, new mexico and so and my mother works at the navajo nation for a while and drove and helped as she worked for services and helped people in communities go shopping and things like that and i think that one thing is really difficult for people who are not familiar with places like the rural areas and communities of the navajo nation is to understand that in the united states in the year 2025 communities across the largest tribal nation in the united

states, 27,000 square miles, the size of massachusetts, vermont and new hampshire combined do not have electricity or running water and that there are thousands of families as you said mr. whitherspoon that don't have water and have to haul water. i wonder if you can share because it would be helpful for what that looks like. what does it look like to have to haul water? >> thank you for the question. i've been able to do a number of presentations with my colleague at our chapters as well as a number of institutions, one of the pictures that we display is two elders that are using a wheel barrel and they have to go about a mile and a half and they have jugs in wheel barrel to be able to haul water for themselves and so for them to do

that and certainly both have white hair and certainly a challenge for them, i think it's gene and larry but there's also cost for those who use vehicles. i think the cost for a municipality for a hundred gallons of water is 20 to 30 cents but 15.30 for those who have to haul water and so there's certainly an economic burden on certainly using the vehicles and travel and that type of cost, thank you. >> i think it's not just economic cost but psychological cost and physical talk when you talks to family that have to haul water, people have to drive

20, 30 miles to have clean drinking water. like this is year 2025 and there are thousands of families in navajo nation that don't have pipe water in their homes and to the extent that the navajo nation is willing to have members of this committee visit, i think it would be very impactful especially as we are working to try to get the water that you recently approved across the finish line so i want to just make sure that when mr. whitherspoon says the needs the navajo nation are immense and urgent, like these are fundamental human rights issues. the fact that we have elderly members of these communities living in areas that don't have piped water in homes, should not be a condition with the navajo nation and the water program as you mentioned is one small tool but it is an important tool and the arsenal of addressing

immense water infrastructure needs and i am hopeful that not only this particular bill which will waiver requirements for specific projects where there's high economic needs but we can also advance the navajo water settlement to congress this year as well as the other settlement that is we are trying to get across the finish line because i think if the american people at-large really understood what it looks like and what the psychological spiritual, physical and just life stress it is to not have adequate water infrastructure, i think that people would be really shocked and so i'm grateful that you traveled here today to share your testimony and grateful that the nay joe nation is supporting this bill and i want to thank you and the president for being here today.

hr261, the underseethe cable act is necessary bill. i current undersee cable networks connects every continent except antarctica and imperative to maintainings national security. i believe in protecting national interest is par rant specifically true since we know regulations exist in state and local levels.

it would also prohibit any other noa authorization and future cables in marine sanctuary. ms. thooms, could you expand on the number of agencies and permits that both the federal and state level that are involved in permitting process for under siege cables? >> thank you for you question, question, i can. in terms of the types of permits we need to obtain -- there would

be minimum of six federal agency that is would need to be part of that process whether through permits or through consultations. at the state level, of course, that would vary from state to state but i would say at minimum four, different resource agencies or and agencies would be involved in permitting these and because it's not all under water, it does -- they do land and planning departments that could get involved and that can be a handful of agencies and more depending on the complexity of the landing. and if i may make a follow-up point about noa not denying any sup's, the reason for that is there haven't been any

applications and i can speak from experience that during the early phases of -- of route development, site development for new projects, we've often advised that that's -- that pathways is too risky from a project standpoint or development standpoint and one of the reasons there haven't been any permit applications denied is that we haven't submitted any. >> and roughly how long does this take? >> it's -- it's unclear. we don't really know because we haven't actually gone through the process, the in several years.

>> so we really don't know. >> but you and i both know that this legislation simply removes one step, special use permit and process that involves several layers of review, can you talk about the difficulty the industry has faced in trying to navigate the special use permit process and how this legislation improve the permitting process for these projects? >> yes, and as i mentioned because we haven't been applying to for special use permits it's hard to say how we would navigate it. that's been one of the reasons that we have avoided doing that because it's in an uncertain task. it adds uncertainty and i'm sorry the second half of your question. >> that's all right. thighs projects can often be

decades long and require extensive leverages of investment, would that be correct to say that? >> yes, that would be correct? >> thank you madame chairman, i yield back. >> chairman recognizes ms. boyle or five minutes of questioning. >> thank you. first of all, i want to thank mr. thane and your father for coming out here really, really matters. i'm sure as a farmer you have a lot of things to do at homecoming to dc is quite a sacrifice and it's important to hear about stewardship and conservation if people that are utilizing these practices on the ground as opposed to people who hear about it or read about it from somewhere else, i just wanted to thank you so much for being here. secondly, for -- i want thank

all of the witnesses and mr. whitherspoon, would you care to share barriers or participating in water smart programs and how the challenges had impacted your water management efforts? >> whatever the challenges that the nation faces is capacity. in the department of water resources, we have four individuals hydrologists and we have 110 communities that each have water projects and so being able to apply sometimes for the federal water grant programs is a great undertaking and so a lot of times they'll look at large regional projects to be able to

address their time and capacity. >> with that, ms. thooms, i want to thank you for your testimony and then i'd like you to the address incidents where subsidy 5, optic cable installation was poorly and did result in environmental harm? >> thank you for your question.

i have-i've been involved in many projects as i mentioned in my testimony the and i have not had any projects where i would say it resulted in environmental harm. >> okay. >> so clearly you were not involved with the facebook undersea fiberoptic off the coast of oregon just north of my district which -- >> that is correct. >> yes. >> the facebook subsidiary, it created a mess on the organ coast and 11-inch diameter drill deep and 50,000 gallons to sink holes across pathway and facebook just left, did not tell anyone the about it, it was found and now we are working on addressing that issue and so my question is, isn't it reasonable

to ensure that companies continue to purchase general liability insurance and if a disaster occurs which, again, did occur just couple years ago off the oregon coast, that they pay for natural redamages and cleanup and this is the current policy of the office of national marine sanctuaries, what is your position on that. my concern is that this bill would remove the liability protection and that is very concerning. >> again, thank you for the question. i do understand your concern. i should also mention that the technique used is in itself considered a mitigation, it's a requirement to use that technique in oregon as well as california because it is considered to be more environmentally safe. >> sorry, ms. thoos, there's such a short time. >> my understanding is that the

national sanctuary act still would retain the component or the section that has to do with liability for damages. my understanding is it's not part of the sup. >> thank you so much. i yield. >> the chair now recognizes mr. crank for 5 minutes of questioning? >> thank you, madame chair. i'm very fortunate, i represent colorado springs, the home of united states space command. i also happen to serve on the house armed services committee and i will tell you i had a briefing the other day from the commander of the u.s. base command and pretty much all we talked about was how china is looking at ways particularly in space to disrupt the u.s. economy, that they see that as economic warfare that they could really shut this country down by using their assets in space

against u.s. assets and i think this is a similar situation here with the -- with the cables as the sponsor of the bill noted $10 trillion daily go to those cables can. i have to tell you, i think sometimes the chinese communist party laughs at the debates probably that we have here that we would not streamline a process here to -- to headache moore that our assets, our economic assets aren't protected. this is a -- this is a false choice that some people present that was either to protect our -- our marine preserves or have national security, you don't have to choose between those two, we do both, we do it every single day and i thing that we will woo the day, some day looking back if we ever do have

the chinese or another one of our adversaries use this against the united states, so i would -- i would suggest that. i mean, do you think that ms. thoms, the permitting timeline puts the u.s. in a vulnerable position? >> thank you for your question. i would say it's less permitting time itself but rather the uncertainty. it's not predictable and especially as i mentioned it's been mentioned here for critical infrastructure, i mean, a five-year term limit on -- on a permission is really not that long for that type of investment and so i would say that's one of the deal killers on it and not just the timeline but not knowing whether you can proceed on that timeline and -- and have

any assurance that they'll get a permit at the end? >> is it so difficult right now that the marine preserves are there that if somebody is going to put cable, they go around them, therefore, creatingpipeline where we have a vulnerability because they are all close together? >> it's difficult to commit to any invest men, capital, infrastructure project for that duration of time and so it's -- it's -- to redisk that -- >> yeah, thank you. madame chair, i was happy to see that western water remains a priority for this subcommittee. i know it would be with your leadership in the authorization an overnight plan it's no secret that western states have been facing a historic drought that's

affected the water availability in the colorado rivers. programs have been introduced at the federal and state and local levels to address these historic droughts and improve water conservation and the colorado water conservation program, pilot program has funded numerous projects in colorado to include voluntary water conservation and i would just thank you madame chair. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, and the chair now recognizes ms. alfred for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you madame chair. thank you for our panelists for being here today.

this bill also circumvent the fees that goes to sanctuaries. so can you tell me ms. thooms the companies you represent by circumventing that fee process? >> thank you for your question.

really the fair market value fee is not part of what i do, part of permitting process. i'm not only in the position to say how much that would be. fair market would be 2 to $7 million. my second question is around the type of the bill written. i'm concerned about the ambiguity here particularly the legislation is written again take my own state of maryland and represent chelsea bay, pardon me.

say a company in north carolina want today have an interest in -- my goodness. >> you're reminding know have some water. >> have an interest in -- i will get there, i promise. say a north carolina has interest in undersea cables in federal waters through sanctuary, could a state agency in north carolina kirstjen nielsen curve vent if we had concerns under this bill in the way the text is written? >> no. >> i don't see the way for that to affect any state regulations. >> okay, i would like to get

clarity the on that. madame chair, just the ambiguity of that particular line is concerning to me to make sure that we respect -- >> again we are balancing here national security interest, economic interest but the interest of protecting the sanctuaries. >> yeah, on a personal note, if i may, i wouldn't have agreed to be here if i felt that in any iowa -- the protections we have particularly in marine environment. >> the fair remaining time on that note, would you agree there's interest if this bill were to pass in special use permit would not be needed but still the fair market piece of this for the management of those

-- is it still important that the companies that you represent would still be paying their fair share and towards management to the sensitive areas? >> again, i can't speak to how funding works at the sanctuary but i would prefer not to speculate on that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, and there will be an opportunity to submit a written question if you have one and then procedure to provide responses so you will have an opportunity to follow up. the chair now recognizes. >> thank you, chair. >> i also want to thank representative carter for his introduction of hr261. the territories are very isolate and we rely heavily on undersea cables to remain connect today the rest of the country and the

outside world. and i can proud i will say the united states has some of the highest standards in the world when it comes to environmental protections, unfortunately we sometimes prioritize preserving the bureaucratic machine over communities that are supposed to benefit from these protections. my question is for you ms. thoms, in your testimony you mention the robust planning and permitting required to lay undersea cable in the first place even outside plans to pass through a marine sanctuary. could you please provide some more information on what is required and how safe the process is regarding protecting ocean life?

do you believe safeguards are enough to ensure ecologies of the sanctuaries won't be negatively impacted by any hypothetical future cables? >> thank you for your question and mentioning territories as well. resource protection is very important and the current regimes there are also very robust even though there aren't sanctuaries there. i lost my train of thought, repeat the last part of the question, please? >> i apologize.

[inaudible] >> yes. okay. i understand the question, thank you. yes. i would agree that -- there would not be an erosion of protections.

and i know that a lot of times agriculture gets a bad rap when we talk about conservation and people like to point the finger at you, but i know that the agriculture has been part of the solution for a long time. the population of utah has grown a lot 200 years. thank you for being part of the solution and thank you for traveling all the way here. i did this once, i was in your seat once and disappointing how many people were here listening. most of the things that i wanted to ask you've been asked and i want to put a fine point on it.

>> well, where we are is awful dusty. i think the northern part are doing a little better, certainly central southern utah there's, new mexico obviously california it's not looking good at the moment. >> and if i asked any of your neighbors what is the water looking like -- your livelihood is really tied to water and so you have a high incentive to try to conserve, be a gad restart of the resources and make sure that your farm lasts another generation and i just want to the make sure do you know we see them and appreciate them and everybody recognizes that the. i would like to see tribes taking advantage of it. i don't have a question, i just

want you to neglect that. you're looking a lit lonely and neglected here. i wanted to ask you a question and use my time efficiently but both of you are here talking about permitting processes that are longer and more onerous than they need to be and so my question for both of you is, do you have confidence that we could make permitting decisions good for the department, good for idahoans and good for the ocean in less time, less expensively than we are doing right now? >> i will go ahead and start off. yes, i do. thank you for the question and i will be brief about it. it's my understanding and i'm kind of the boots on the ground type of person but when we crafted this legislation, it was actually blm that asked for the nipa to waiver which makes

easement there, we are really not doing anything new so, yes, i think there is a way that people have worked in the field, the agencies have been fantastic, but they get somewhat tied around the legislation that's in place. >> thank you, i agree. i think sometimes our process has become to themselves and we forget the purpose of them. ms. toombs. >> yes, i would agree. i do think there's a way that we can balance environmental protection, resource protection with predictable and reliability processing that can be more shortened and clarified. >> how many applications have been denied but i want to know if you can tell me how many applications have been delayed and made unnecessarily more expensive?

>> i -- that's a good question. per not privy to who have submitted applications and what i can say it's more the opportunities lost applications that were never submitted because the process was really too the -- too unclear and unpredictable. it's loss opportunity.

>> the chair recognizes representative carter for five minutes of questioning? >> thank you madame chair, thank you for being here today. ms. toombs, the additional step for use permit and marine sanctuary but i think there's concerns from people that will cut noa out of the process, do you think that's the case, we eliminate noa from the permitting process altogether? >> thank you for your question and also thank you for bringing

the legislation here. no. the intent is not to cut noa out of the process. in fact, the process has already two different consultations with noa for any submarine cable project one under major species act and animal protection act and the other under madison stevens for habitat. this would, noa per sanctuaries would be consulted and it just officers, it would offer another opportunity for noa to -- to the have an input in that process and really it's useful for the project to get that expertise early on. >> i just want to make sure everybody understands, we are not trying to eliminate them, we value their input and we would still have their input. we talked about the environmental studies that are required and in the permitting of a cable regardless of where they're being deployed. can you explain briefly the

purpose of the environmental reviews? yes. the purpose of the environmental reviews is to help inform the agencies with permitting authority to make their decision. they can't make a decision until they've undergone these processes so they understand what the consequences of their decision might be and so that's why we conduct multiple studies because they go to different agencies for different decisions and different recommendations. >> so that's the additional information is gained by doing the environmental reviews? >> yes. >> so what's the purpose of the sup? >> the purpose of sup and i did not write it but the purpose of the sup, you know, i don't know. [laughter] >> well, it's just -- yeah. >> okay, thank you the. no, no, great answer.

great answer. >> do you believe that the existing permitting process outside of a sanctuary provides adequate protection for marine habitats? yes, i do. as i explained we have a number of studies and all of them factor into decisions that the permitting agencies make. >> okay, bear with me on this one. in august of 2024 noa issued to modify sup which includes two-year pause. while some may say that this involves this challenge in the permitting process we've heard concerns in our office that the process doesn't fully solve the challenge, do you think noa's announcement fully solves the problem or additional action needed? >> thank you for that referring to the pause, what it does and -- and the icci must say

appreciates noa's review or consideration of the regulations but it also. my mantra has been uncertainty. during two-year pause there's still some uncertainty as to what the outcome would be. >> thank you very much for your input and your expertise and madame chair again thank you for allowing knowway on and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. carter and final question of today is mr. mcdell, i recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, thank you for the witnesses for being here today to testify before the committee. ms. toombs one theme that members of this committee have talked about is the multiple use and stewardship of our nation's natural resources and given your extensive involvement and permitting and licensing of undersea cable projects, can you talk about how these cables interact with the marine

environment? >> thank you for your question. the interaction with the marine environment is -- is really mostly during the installation phase when the cables are being installed, but when we have done our job right and i think we do it right because we've done this a lot, there really isn't interaction with the marine environment because most of these cables are buried, so the purpose of not interacting -- >> you mentioned in your testimony that new technology has helped the cables avoid environmental impacts, can you expand on the technological advancements or other best practices that have allowed for these cables to exist in the way that respects and protects our marine resources? >> yes. the -- some of the practices and

technological changes come at different points of the cable's lifetime, probably some of the most important parts are right in the beginning, some of the analysis and surveys and data collection that take place so that we can put cables in places on the c bed that would be least harmful and protect today the cables, least harmful to the environments and most protect today the cables at the same time. some of this is protecty technical. it's really beyond me how some of the route engineers analyzed data and come out with some of the routing that they do that is input into the environmental piece during installation the -- the installation process has become better knowing, you know, being more precise on how cables are install and what the conditions are as they are installed but also community level we have a lot of best

management practice that are undertaken during the installation process especially at the shore and near shore and having to do with public safety making sure that we -- are they back homeworking on the farm? >> oh, yeah.

>> thank you. and i thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony. very thoughtful discussion and i think helpful in terms of assessing the four bill that is we are considering, providing with additional background information for us that will help us do better and do better at your jobs. the members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to respond those in writing if they're in fact, received. members of the committee must submit questions to the committee clerk by 5:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday january 28th and the hearing record will be held open for ten business days for such responses. without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourn.