[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     BIDENOMICS & LAND MANAGEMENT:
              THE MISGUIDED NATIONAL STRATEGY TO DEVELOP
                   ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC 
                           DECISIONS
=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 
                               INVESTIGATIONS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                      Thursday, February 15, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-98

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________
	  
	             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-898 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
	            
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		Grace F. Napolitano, CA	
Robert J. Wittman, VA		Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		  CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			Nydia M. Velazquez, NY                                 
Jen Kiggans, VA			Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                                

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                        PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
                      MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
                MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member

Matt Rosendale, MT                   Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA                     Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
                                 
                               ---------- 
                               
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, February 15, 2024......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Arizona.................................................     1
    Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New Mexico....................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Wykowski, Henry, Advisor, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 
      Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     9

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

        Susie Feliz, Asst. Sec. for Legislative and 
          Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
          Statement for the Record...............................    25
                                     


 
    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BIDENOMICS & LAND MANAGEMENT: THE MISGUIDED
     NATIONAL STRATEGY TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC DECISIONS

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, February 15, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins, 
Westerman, Hageman; and Stansbury.

    Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
Bidenomics and land management: the misguided national strategy 
to develop environmental economic decisions.
    I ask unanimous consent that all Members testifying today 
be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee, give their testimony, 
and participate in the hearing from the dais.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority 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 
3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 
Ms. Hageman, and the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Boebert, be 
allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Dr. Gosar. Good afternoon, everyone.
    First off, I want to thank the Department of the Interior 
for showing up today to discuss their contributions to the 
Administration's strategy to develop a national system of 
natural capital accounting. Regrettably, the Office of 
Management and Budget, OMB; the Office of Science and 
Technology, OSTP; and the Department of Commerce were not 
willing to come before the American people and stand behind 
their work on the National Strategy to Develop Statistics for 
Environmental Economic Decisions, a U.S. system of natural 
capital accounting and environmental economic statistics, for 
short, the national strategy on natural capital accounting, 
tongue twister there, which could fundamentally change the 
management of our public land and water and the environment for 
years to come.
    The Department of Commerce refused to testify, but 
committed to submitting testimony for the record. Well, as of 
this hearing, the Committee hasn't received any testimony from 
Commerce. They are now saying they will send the testimony next 
week, after the hearing. We will have to see about that. Don't 
hold your breath. Overall, it is clear the Biden administration 
has a complete aversion to accountability.
    The congressional oversight is not a choice. These 
bureaucrats in DC need a shock to the system because they have 
forgotten who they really work for, who are the American 
people.
    Additionally, this is not the first time OMB has obstructed 
the Committee's oversight efforts. In fact, during the 118th 
Congress, OMB has refused to discuss any of their work under 
the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Natural Resources. 
OMB's repeated refusal to testify sends a clear message from 
the Biden administration to the American people that we are 
above the law, above Congress, and accountable to no one.
    The refusal to testify also allows us to draw the inference 
that OMB, OSTP, and the Commerce cannot justify, defend, or 
even explain this bizarre and radical scheme. The brazen 
defiance of congressional oversight by OMB, OSTP, and Commerce 
is unacceptable. The people deserve transparency and 
accountability. Regardless, this Committee stands ready to use 
every tool at its disposal to administer effective oversight of 
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce in reining this out-of-control 
administration in.
    Now, turning to our testimony hearing today, as many of you 
know, the United States is a resource-rich nation unlike any 
other. In many ways, we already account for our nation's many 
priceless natural assets like minerals, timber, and oil and gas 
production on Federal lands. However, as governments around the 
world, international organizations, and the private sector 
attempt to formulize the treatment of natural resources as a 
form of capital, we must take great care so that our natural 
capital accounting system will best serve our nation, rather 
than serve as a weapon to achieve partisan goals.
    I am also concerned that the United States will defer to 
international authorities to guide the development and 
implementation of a national system for our natural capital 
accounting, following standards set by organizations 
unaccountable to the American people such as the United 
Nations, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and the 
World Bank.
    Unfortunately, but as expected, the Biden administration 
plans to use their national strategy for natural capital 
accounting to advance harmful mandates under the guise of 
climate stewardship, exclusionary and legally impermissible DEI 
initiatives, and radical anti-use priorities, rather than for 
the benefit of the American people.
    Notably, the national strategy underpins numerous related 
initiatives for the Biden administration to include the America 
the Beautiful 30x30 Initiative; the Bureau of Land Management, 
BLM, proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule; and a 
recently withdrawn New York Stock Exchange proposal to list 
natural asset companies.
    The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule represents a 
seismic shift in public land management that will fundamentally 
upend BLM's multiple use mandate, which has guided land 
management practice for nearly 50 years. This rule is a threat 
to rural communities across the West that depend upon the 
responsible use and development of our public lands. That is 
why I support H.R. 3397, the WEST Act, which will withdraw the 
harmful proposed rule.
    The Conservation and Landscape Health proposed rule also 
supports the development of Natural Asset Companies, or NACs, 
corporations that will control the rights and management 
authority of certain areas, including public lands, for anti-
use purposes. This is particularly concerning, due to the 
massive impact NACs could have on management of Federal lands, 
effective conservation of wildlife habitat, and responsible 
development of natural resources.
    As Members of Congress, we must ensure that the ideas 
endorsed by the national strategy do not become another tool 
for the out-of-control Biden administration, radical eco-
activists, non-profits, and the international organizations to 
control America's public lands.
    As we have witnessed over the last 3 years, President Biden 
is determined to lock up public lands and water across the 
country from a sort of resource development, causing tremendous 
harm not only to our economy, but to our national security, as 
well. Russia and China are laughing at us as President Biden 
repeatedly jeopardizes our national security and the security 
of our great allies in Europe by handicapping vital domestic 
resource development.
    We must determine a better path forward for the future of 
our land management and environmental policy for our nation, so 
I look forward to our conversation today.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Stansbury, for her 
opening statement. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
those who are joining us today.
    You know, I am all for oversight of our nation's public 
lands and conservation policies. I think it is important to 
review them and understand how they will impact our 
communities. So, for that, I am grateful for the opportunity to 
have this hearing. But I do have to say, as we were preparing 
for this hearing and trying to understand what exactly it was 
about, we were a bit confused about how it was positioned.
    In fact, it seems as though we have three unrelated public 
lands initiatives that are all designed to increase public 
participation and transparency and modernize the way that we do 
our natural resources management as a country. But in the 
casting of this hearing, many features of the kind of 
conspiracy theories that we hear about on social media, foreign 
actors, socialism, globalism, China, were all a part of the 
conversation. And it even cast the New York Stock Exchange as 
some extremist leftist eco-activist organization, if you can 
believe it. So, I want to just kind of clarify what these 
initiatives are, and talk about that before we get into our 
Q&A.
    The first is the National Strategy on Environmental 
Economic Decisions. This is a policy and a roadmap that has 
been put forth by the Administration to help address, really, 
an error in how we quantify the benefits of different uses of 
our public lands and natural resources. And it is based on the 
idea that if you essentially value the full value that a 
natural resource provides or a land provides, that you would 
make different decisions.
    So, a good example is, as we dammed and diverted various 
streams and rivers in the West, many of the fisheries that were 
in those streams and rivers were impacted by those development 
activities, causing both cultural harm to the tribal and other 
communities, but also significant economic impacts to the 
fisheries communities. So, if you were to consider the full 
economic, social, and cultural values of those resources in 
your decision making, you might have come to a different 
conclusion before going down a certain road. And this helps to 
create a framework for bringing those economic and social 
valuations into consideration of Federal decision makings.
    But it is not just some radical idea that the Biden 
administration came up with. It has been backed by the National 
Academies, Nobel laureates, economists, and in fact, 80 
countries around the world actually use this as a basis for 
decision making. So, this is really about bringing the United 
States into the mainstream in terms of how we do natural 
capital accounting in our own decision making.
    I also think it is worth noting that this was an initiative 
that began during the Bush administration. In fact, some of our 
great conservationists who served as political appointees 
during that administration, as well as the Trump 
administration, helped to try to advance the accounting of 
natural capital that we are now looking at as part of this 
policy.
    The second is the BLM Public Lands Rule. We have already 
had multiple hearings about this rule. Certainly, there are 
some wild conspiracy theories about trying to tie up public 
lands under this rule, but it is really about modernizing the 
Federal Lands Management Act and making sure that our 
communities and our tribes have a seat at the table and we 
consider the conservation impacts of development.
    But the third one, which, frankly, I was kind of shocked to 
see as part of this hearing, is a proposal that was pulled from 
the New York Stock Exchange that would allow, essentially, a 
new kind of corporate entity to be traded that allows for 
investors to invest in natural capital, so in natural assets to 
ensure ecosystem integrity. That proposal was pulled 
ultimately, and we are not sure what the final fate of that 
will be, but it was intended as an economic tool to essentially 
invest in conservation and improvements, and I think many 
people would find it hard to believe that the New York Stock 
Exchange is a radical leftist organization.
    So, what all of these proposals really are about is about 
making sure that, as a country, as a nation, as an economy we 
are being responsible in our stewardship, especially as we are 
on the brink of a major catastrophic change with climate 
change, and that all of those communities, whether they are 
tribes or rural communities, have a seat at the table in 
deciding what happens to their lands.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the 
conversation, and I yield back.

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. I just want to 
recognize some of her comments. Oversight is not debatable. 
This Committee is about these different rules. And what we are 
talking about is not about visitor participation on our public 
lands, it is about leveraging our public lands on the 
international stage.
    When you start talking about the New York Stock Exchange, 
this was real. This isn't hypotheticals. They turned that down.
    I also want to remember to tell everybody that our Federal 
lands are held in joint tenancy by the Federal Government on 
behalf of the states, so they are already leveraged. So, if we 
are trying to look at leveraging these parcels of land again, 
wrong answer.
    On that, I am going to turn now to introducing our witness, 
Mr. Henry Wykowski, an Advisor of the Bureau of Land 
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, DC.
    I want to say thank you for coming on behalf of the BLM and 
the Interior. As I said, the others did not show up.
    Let me remind you that under the Committee Rules, you must 
limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, as you know since being 
here. It starts green, then it goes yellow at the last minute, 
and red when you want to terminate.
    Just press the ``on'' button for your microphone, and you 
are now recognized, Mr. Wykowski, for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HENRY WYKOWSKI, ADVISOR, BUREAU OF LAND 
  MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you. Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 
Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony on how the Bureau of Land 
Management's lands and programs directly and indirectly benefit 
the health, wealth, and well-being of communities across the 
United States.
    On a personal note, it is an honor to appear before the 
Subcommittee today on this side of the witness table. I spent 
several years on the House Natural Resources Committee staff, 
including time as a professional staff member working on public 
lands issues, and I truly respect and appreciate the work this 
Committee does to support American communities and protect the 
health of our shared natural resources.
    As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am appearing today as an 
Advisor at the Bureau of Land Management.
    On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages 
approximately 245 million surface acres and roughly 700 million 
subsurface acres. Much of our work is governed by the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, which sets out the 
Bureau's multiple use and sustained yield mission. Under that 
dual charge, the BLM manages public lands to support a wide 
range of uses while protecting the health of those lands to 
secure the resources and benefits that they provide for future 
generations of Americans. Balancing these priorities, ensuring 
appropriate use while protecting the health of the nation's 
public lands, guides the Bureau in all of our work.
    Activities related to the BLM's management of public lands 
have been and continue to be a driver of the nation's economy 
and a critical source of revenue and jobs for communities. BLM-
managed public lands and waters supported roughly $262 billion 
in economic output and 1 million jobs across the country in 
Fiscal Year 2022. Resource uses authorized by the BLM generated 
substantial revenues for the U.S. Treasury, as well as for 
state and local governments.
    The importance of the sustained yield component of the 
Bureau's dual mandate is coming increasingly into focus as the 
BLM grapples with changing conditions on the landscape. Much 
like communities across the nation, the BLM is responding to 
extended droughts, increasingly large and intense fires, and 
influx of invasive species and extreme weather events. These 
changing conditions, largely driven by a change in climate, are 
making it more difficult to manage the public lands for the 
uses communities rely upon and wildlife require, from healthy 
forage to fire resilient ecosystems.
    BLM-managed public lands are also experiencing 
unprecedented use and visitation as Americans flock to the 
world-class outdoor recreation opportunities that these lands 
provide. In fact, our public lands hosted more than 82 million 
visitors in Fiscal Year 2022. These changing conditions and 
uses pose challenges for the management of public lands and for 
the BLM's capacity to deliver a sustained yield for future 
generations of Americans.
    Under the Biden-Harris administration, the BLM is using 
every tool available to meet our multiple use and sustained 
yield mission, leveraging the best available science and data 
and investing in land health while updating our regulatory 
frameworks to meet the needs of 21st century land management. 
The BLM is investing $161 million from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act in targeted 
restoration projects across 11 Western states to repair 
degraded or damaged public lands resources. These projects, 
which are collaborative and partnership-driven, will restore 
wildlife habitat in the sagebrush steppe, re-create wetland 
meadows, and repair watersheds.
    Additionally, the BLM is engaging in several key planning 
and regulatory updates that aim to guide future decision making 
in order to balance uses on public lands while protecting land 
health. This work benefits from accurate data on the conditions 
of public lands and the potential impacts of management 
actions.
    When finalized, these proposed rules will help provide a 
more consistent framework for project applications, minimize 
potential conflicts with sensitive resources, and ensure 
healthy landscapes, abundant wildlife habitat, clean water, and 
balanced decision making.
    While the BLM was not directly involved in the development 
of the Biden-Harris administration's National Strategy to 
Develop Statistics for Environmental Economic Decisions, the 
BLM welcomes efforts that will contribute to a better 
understanding of the value of BLM-managed public lands and 
waters at the national level. Continuing to ensure the best 
available science and information as well as public input are 
included in Bureau decisions helps improve BLM management, and 
helps protect the important resources and values communities 
expect from their public lands.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. 
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wykowski follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Henry Wykowski, Advisor, Bureau of Land 
              Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on how 
the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) lands and programs directly and 
indirectly benefit the health, wealth, and well-being of communities 
across the United States.
The Value of Public Lands

    On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages approximately 245 
million surface acres, located primarily in 12 western states, and 
approximately 700 million subsurface acres, roughly 30 percent of the 
nation's onshore mineral resources. The BLM is charged with stewarding 
a diverse array of resources for the benefit of all Americans.
    Much of this work is governed by the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA), which sets out the Bureau's multiple use and 
sustained yield mission. Under that dual charge, the BLM manages public 
lands to support a wide range of uses, such as renewable and 
conventional energy development, livestock grazing, conservation, 
mining, watershed protection, hunting, fishing, and other forms of 
recreation, while protecting the health of those lands to secure the 
resources and benefits they provide for future generations of 
Americans. Balancing these priorities--ensuring appropriate uses while 
protecting the health of the nation's public lands--guides the Bureau 
in all of our work.
    Activities related to the BLM's management of public lands have 
been and continue to be a driver of the nation's economy and a critical 
source of revenue and jobs for communities across the nation. BLM-
managed public lands and waters supported $262.7 billion in economic 
output and 1 million jobs across the country in Fiscal Year 2022.\1\ 
Resource uses authorized by the BLM generate substantial revenue for 
the U.S. Treasury, as well as for state and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For more information, please see: https://www.blm.gov/sites/
default/files/docs/2024-01/Valuing%20America%27s%20Public%20Lands.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The importance of the sustained yield component of the Bureau's 
dual mandate is coming increasingly into focus as the BLM grapples with 
changing conditions on the landscape. Much like communities across the 
nation, the BLM is responding to extended droughts, increasingly large 
and intense fires, an influx of invasive species, and extreme weather 
events. These changing conditions, largely driven by a changing 
climate, are making it more difficult to manage the public lands for 
the uses communities rely upon and wildlife require, from healthy 
forage to fire resilient ecosystems. BLM-managed public lands are also 
experiencing unprecedented use and visitation as Americans flock to the 
world class outdoor recreation opportunities these lands provide. Our 
public lands hosted over 82 million visitors in Fiscal Year 2022, an 
increase of 9 million visitors since 2020. These changing conditions 
and uses pose challenges for the management of public lands and for the 
BLM's capacity to deliver a sustained yield of these lands and 
resources for future generations of Americans.
Managing for Land Health & Balanced Use

    The nation is increasingly aware of the benefits healthy public 
lands provide, and how important these benefits are for communities and 
our nation's economy: fire resilient forests and rangelands help 
protect homes, communities, and businesses from the impacts of 
wildfire; wetlands and healthy riparian areas keep water on the 
landscape; and habitat that supports pollinators is essential for our 
agricultural economy and food security--80 percent of the world's 
flowering plants need a pollinator to reproduce, and those pollinators 
are responsible for fully one third of the food we consume.
    As we come to better understand the important services healthy 
lands and ecosystems provide for communities and how those services are 
threatened by climate-driven impacts, it is imperative that the BLM 
continue to fully embrace and meet our sustained yield mandate and 
protect the health and productivity of the nation's public lands for 
the benefit of current and future generations of Americans. Under the 
Biden-Harris Administration, the BLM is using every tool available to 
meet our mission, leveraging the best available science and data and 
investing in landscapes and land health while updating our regulatory 
and resource management frameworks to meet the needs of 21st century 
land management.
Investing in Land Health

    As part of President Biden's Investing in America agenda, the BLM 
has identified 21 Restoration Landscapes across 11 western states and 
has invested more than $161 million to target efforts to restore 
degraded or damaged public land resources. This once-in-a-generation 
investment from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law will support collaborative and partnership-driven 
restoration work, coordinating investments from the Bureau's fuels 
management, range, wildlife, forestry, aquatics, and recreation 
programs where they can make the most meaningful impacts for 
communities and BLM-managed resources. Restoration Landscape projects 
will restore wildlife habitat in the sagebrush steppe of the high 
desert, re-create wetland meadows, and repair watersheds on former 
industrial timberlands.
    In Arizona, for example, the BLM is focusing on projects in the 
mountainous Sky Islands to reduce fuel loads, improve groundwater 
management in the San Pedro River drainage (in partnership with Cochise 
County and the Department of Defense), protect critical wildlife 
migration corridors, and support recovery of threatened and endangered 
wildlife. In New Mexico, the BLM is continuing its long-term 
restoration investment through partnerships in the Lower Pecos River 
landscape. Restoration efforts will remove mesquite, which has invaded 
this landscape and damaged fragile soils, reduced native grasses, and 
decreased groundwater recharge. Restoring this landscape will improve 
water quality, increase forage for livestock and wildlife, and enhance 
recreation and hunting opportunities for rural communities in southeast 
New Mexico and west Texas.
Policy & Planning Updates

    The BLM is engaging in several key planning and regulatory updates 
that, when finalized, will help guide future decision-making in an 
effort to balance uses on public lands while protecting land health. 
This work benefits from accurate data on the conditions of the public 
lands and how management decisions will affect natural resources and 
different uses. Efforts like the proposed update of the Western Solar 
Plan and the ongoing Sage Grouse Planning Amendments will help the BLM 
more effectively manage the public lands, driving development to the 
most appropriate areas while avoiding conflicts with sensitive habitats 
and resources that might delay or derail projects. Helping guide 
development will allow the BLM to maximize agency resources to review 
appropriate projects while responsibly stewarding the public lands. 
Similarly, regulatory updates like the proposed Fluid Minerals Leases 
and Leasing Processes Rule covering onshore oil and gas, and the 
proposed Rights-of-Way, Leasing, and Operations for Renewable Energy 
Rule will help meet BLM's statutory obligations under the IRA and 
provide a more consistent framework for project applications and 
reviews, while avoiding development conflicts.
    The BLM's proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would 
update the Bureau's regulatory framework, ensuring balance through 
multiple use and sustained yield management. The proposed rule would 
acknowledge conservation as being on an equal footing with other public 
land uses, thereby enshrining Congress's direction in FLPMA, while 
establishing a framework to ensure healthy landscapes, abundant 
wildlife habitat, clean water, and balanced decision-making on our 
nation's public lands.
    The concepts of the proposed rule are consistent with strategies 
used by other state and federal land management agencies to ensure the 
federal government has tools and direction to identify areas in need of 
restoration or protection, as well as the ability to encourage 
investments in public lands to help balance the impacts of development. 
The proposal would direct land managers to make management decisions 
informed by empirical assessments of land health conditions. The 
proposal would also give the BLM new tools to work with appropriate 
entities interested in performing restoration or compensatory 
mitigation work on public lands.
    The proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would also 
further improve the BLM's use of science and data, supporting the 
expanded application of land health requirements and better 
incorporating the best available information into decision-making on 
the ground.
Incorporating the Best Available Science & Data into Land Management

    Across all its work, the BLM gathers and considers the best 
available science, data, and information to inform decision-making. 
Ensuring that robust information and public input are incorporated into 
Bureau decisions helps to inform and improve BLM management, and also 
helps protect the important resources and values communities expect 
from their public lands.
    On January 19, 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration released the 
National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic 
Decisions (National Strategy), which initiated a multi-year effort to 
help the federal government understand and consistently track changes 
in the condition and economic value of land, water, air, and other 
natural assets, which underpin businesses, enhance quality of life, and 
act as a stabilizing force for economic prosperity and opportunity. 
Ultimately, the National Strategy will help bridge the gap between 
economic statistics and the environment, with an emphasis on better 
data to understand nature's critical contributions to the U.S. economy 
and to guide policy and business decisions moving forward.
    While full implementation of the National Strategy will take a 
number of years, its key, foundational concept--gathering the best 
available science, data, and information to make reasonable decisions--
is something that the BLM has been doing for decades. Moreover, as 
conceived, this effort will help ensure greater consistency across 
agencies in the collection and use of environmental data, which could 
help improve inter-agency coordination and decision-making.
    While the BLM was not involved in the development of this National 
Strategy, the Bureau welcomes efforts that will contribute to better 
understanding of the value of BLM-managed public lands and waters. 
Nature has delivered natural assets to us for millennia. It is our job 
to ensure those assets are available to future generations. By 
continuing to collect and improve data and information on these 
resources, and by incorporating that information in all of its 
decision-making, the agency will be better equipped to ensure that 
public lands continue providing the exceptional resources that 
Americans know and love for generations to come.
Conclusion

    The BLM is committed to managing America's public lands in a 
balanced, science-based manner for the benefit of current and future 
generations. The decisions we make about how we manage public lands 
will have a profound impact on Americans across the country, and the 
BLM takes that responsibility and its multiple use and sustained yield 
mission seriously. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. 
We look forward to working further with Congress on this issue, and I 
am happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Henry Wykowski, Advisor, 
       Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Wykowski did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar

    Question 1. What influence did natural capital accounting standards 
from the United Nations (UN) or other international bodies, such as the 
World Bank, have on the Biden administration's National Strategy to 
Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions: A U.S. System 
of Natural Capital Accounting and Environmental Economic Statistics 
(National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting)?

    Question 2. How do the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) use standards designed by the UN to align 
their work implementing natural capital accounting and ecosystem 
services valuation into agency decisions and actions?

    Question 3. Did anyone at DOI and/or BLM consult with Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Science and Technology Policy 
(OSTP), or the Department of Commerce (Commerce) regarding the 
development or implementation of the National Strategy for Natural 
Capital Accounting?

    Question 4. Can you provide the Committee with the list of people 
at DOI and BLM who consulted with OMB, OSTP, and/or Commerce on the 
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting? Additionally, provide 
the names of the respective OMB, OSTP, and Commerce officials and a 
list of topics and issues discussed.

    Question 5. OMB has issued a number of directives on how Federal 
agencies should develop and enact policies to incorporate and 
institutionalize natural capital accounting and ecosystem services into 
Federal decision making and actions. These include Memorandum M-16-01, 
Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making, and 
Memorandum M-22-15, the Multi-Agency Research and Development 
Priorities for the FY 2024 Budget.

    5a) How are DOI and BLM adhering to the OMB directives to 
incorporate and institutionalize natural capital accounting and 
ecosystem services into Federal decision making and actions?

    5b) Specifically with regard to OMB Memorandum M-22-15, how are DOI 
and BLM identifying and prioritizing R&D investments that advance 
ecosystem services?

    Question 6. What are the next steps for DOI and BLM in the 
development of a system for natural capital accounting, ecosystem 
services valuation, and environmental-economic statistics?

    Question 7. What further developments can we expect to see over the 
next year from DOI and BLM on developing and implementing a system for 
natural capital accounting, ecosystem services valuation, and 
collecting environmental-economic statistics?

    Question 8. How will the implementation of National Strategy for 
Natural Capital Accounting potentially affect oil and gas leasing on 
federal lands?

    Question 9. Has BLM conducted any sort of outreach to the oil, gas, 
and energy industry to hear their perspective on how the National 
Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting could affect oil and gas 
leasing on federal lands?

    9a) If not, does BLM have plans to do so?

    Question 10. The National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting 
states that not having a natural capital accounting system impairs our 
nation's ability to fight climate change. What additional abilities BLM 
intends to gain from the National Strategy on Natural Capital 
Accounting to ``fight climate change''?

    Question 11. Given President Biden's terrible track record with 
resource development, how can you assure the American people that DOI 
and BLM will not abuse a national system for natural capital accounting 
to lock up public lands and waters from resource development?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Hageman

    Question 1. In a January 19, 2022 Press Release, Secretary Haaland 
is on record as promoting the non-profit organization ``Foundation for 
America's Public Lands.'' That Foundation integrates public and private 
partnerships to promote conservation of BLM lands, and is reportedly 
led by BLM Director Stone-Manning, former BLM Director Kornze, and 
former Montana Governor Bullock.

    Would you please share with this Committee how the Foundation for 
America's Public Lands implements Executive Order 14072 and the 
Administration's Natural Asset Capitalization program being promoted by 
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy?

    Question 2. If adopted by the Department of Interior, the 
Conservation Leasing System in BLM Conservation and Landscape Health 
Rule would impose--through regulation--the targets of the Paris 
Agreement, the economic objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, 
and the monetized Natural Asset Inventory Policy being promoted by the 
White House.

    Would you please share with this Committee why such transformative 
policy changes are needed, and how changes in BLM Regulations would 
affect the current Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Inventory system 
required of the Secretary under the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act?

    Question 3. Has the BLM begun incorporating ecosystem services 
impacts into their environmental analysis under NEPA or any other 
program such as land health assessments, evaluations and 
determinations?

    3a) If so, what accounting system/framework is the BLM using to 
calculate this value?

    3b) If not, when does the BLM anticipate adding these impacts into 
their assessments?

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman for his testimony and, 
once again, thank you for coming. I appreciate seeing you. I am 
going to recognize myself for my next 5 minutes.
    As you are aware, the Foundation for America's Public Lands 
is the official charitable partner of the BLM. My question to 
you is, would you please share with the Committee how the 
Foundation for America's Public Lands implements Executive 
Order 14072? This is the strengthening the national forest 
communities and local economies executive order.
    Mr. Wykowski. Mr. Chair, the Foundation is a separate 
entity from the Bureau, acting as a non-profit, so I couldn't 
speak to their activities. But I don't believe they are under 
any obligation to act on executive orders by the President, as 
they are not part of the executive branch.
    Dr. Gosar. My understanding is they are in there to support 
the Administration. And in use over the parks and that aspect.
    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admittedly, 
representing the Bureau, don't engage directly with the 
Foundation. They do act as a partner chartered by the Congress 
to support some of BLM's activities, but I couldn't speak to 
exactly how they carry out that mission.
    Dr. Gosar. I am going to ask you another question. How does 
this work interface with the Administration's national strategy 
for natural capital accounting?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Mr. Chairman, apologies. I am not 
engaged directly in the operations of the Foundation. It is a 
separate entity, so I couldn't speak to how they carry out that 
strategy.
    Dr. Gosar. Now I am going to switch gears. If adopted by 
the Department of the Interior, the Conservation Leasing System 
and BLM's Conservation and Landscape Health Rule would impose 
through regulation the targets of the Paris Agreement, the 
economic objectives of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, and 
the monetized National Asset Inventory policy being promoted by 
this White House.
    Mr. Wykowski. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, can you repeat the 
question? I am sorry, apologies.
    Dr. Gosar. Yes. Would you please share with the Committee 
why such transformational policy changes are needed, and how 
changes in the BLM regulations would affect the current 
multiple use and sustained yield inventory system required of 
the Secretary under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act?
    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, the 
proposed public lands rule is really driven by our multiple use 
and sustained yield mission. We believe that there is an 
opportunity to continue to build on the great work that BLM has 
done for the past 50 years to ensure we are protecting the 
health of public lands to ensure a sustained yield for future 
generations of Americans.
    And although the proposed rule isn't finalized, we believe 
that tools within it like the proposed conservation leases will 
be an effective tool to help better support that sustained 
yield mission.
    Dr. Gosar. So, you do know that these lands are held in 
joint tenancy for the states with the Federal Government, 
right? You do understand that.
    Mr. Wykowski. Mr. Chairman, I think that I would defer to 
the Department's solicitors on the appropriate relationship 
between the Federal Government and the states on the legal 
status of those lines.
    Dr. Gosar. So, states like Arizona were actually coerced 
into the States, they joined the Union, and we were coerced by 
Taft to actually accept those Federal lands aspects. And a lot 
of our budgetary aspects are determined, on BLM lands, by the 
way, on energy and mineral development, as well as grazing 
leases, right?
    Mr. Wykowski. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, as I noted in my 
testimony, the Bureau has a significant economic contribution 
to both the Federal Treasury and state and local government 
revenues.
    Dr. Gosar. So, let me ask you, how do you amortize 
something like participation, the Ranking Member used this 
aspect, around the world, how do you monetize that?
    Mr. Wykowski. While the BLM was not involved in the 
development of the national strategy, as I noted, we definitely 
support opportunities to better understand the value of these 
resources and how we can use them to support the Bureau's 
sustained yield mission.
    Dr. Gosar. So, do you actually develop them? Is this 
process going to allow others to develop these resources when 
we can't develop these resources?
    Mr. Wykowski. Are you referring to the conservation leasing 
process? Sorry, I just want to make sure I am understanding.
    Dr. Gosar. I am talking about this asset program.
    Mr. Wykowski. The national strategy? Again, the Bureau was 
not involved in the development, but my understanding of the 
strategy as I prepared for this hearing is that it is a 15-year 
phased approach, so I think it would be probably a little bit 
premature, exactly, to speculate on how it might, if it all, 
impact land management decisions in the future.
    Dr. Gosar. OK. Well, it seems very awkward to me that we 
are amortizing these lands when first in line is our states, 
because we utilize those, as you know, in minerals in Arizona; 
there is oil and gas and coal and Wyoming. So, these are all 
very important aspects of the budgetary process that tries to 
maintain a balance of conservation with multiple-use doctrines, 
whether it be energy, mineral, timber, and also leasing 
processes.
    With that, I have run out of time, so I am going to give 
the Ranking Member her 5 minutes so she is on a plane too.
    Ms. Stansbury. OK. I do want to just take a few moments to 
try to clarify a little bit about history, land tenure, 
leasing, and what we are talking about with natural capital and 
some of these rules.
    First of all, I think it is important just to understand 
the history of the West. The lands that are now currently in my 
state, in Arizona, and in the rest of the West are Indigenous 
lands. They have been stewarded for thousands of years by our 
Native communities, and they were then a part of Spain and 
Mexico. They were invaded by the United States in the 1840s and 
came into the United States' public land holdings in 1848 under 
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was actually decades 
before either of our states became states.
    So, while the states have state lands that are administered 
and owned by the states and administered for the purposes of 
getting value out of them, the Federal Government holds tenure 
to Federal lands. So, there are two systems there, and they are 
managed under two different governance systems, and this is 
really about Federal lands. These rules, this framework would 
only pertain to Federal lands, not state lands. So, let's make 
sure that we are clear on that.
    In terms of the use of natural capital, it is kind of a 
really nerdy concept, so I think it can be difficult for folks 
to understand. It really comes out of environmental economics 
from the 1960s and 1970s, and it was this idea that when you 
are valuing natural resources, if you have a commodity like, 
say, minerals or oil and gas, it is already traded on a market, 
so you are able to put an economic value on it. If you are 
doing a cost benefit analysis, you can say, all right, if we 
develop this resource we are going to get this value out of it, 
and ultimately we can provide a monetary value.
    But I think over the last four or five decades, we have 
really understood that by only considering the economic value 
of commodities that can be sold, that you undervalue other 
assets on these public lands that may have also economic 
benefits, things like protecting forests that are part of our 
vital watershed, other ecosystem benefits like fisheries, for 
example, of our rivers and streams. And by providing an 
economic value, then when you do a cost benefit analysis you 
can put on equal footing and more transparency to say is it 
worth developing this mineral or this particular natural 
resource at the expense of this other resource which we didn't 
previously value? So, it is really an economic concept.
    And as I understand it, Mr. Wykowski, I know you have 
already said here today that you weren't involved in the 
development of the framework, but the valuation framework that 
the Administration has put forward and would ultimately become 
a part of how agencies do evaluation would be in the context of 
things like NEPA, public land set-asides, things like that. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Wykowski. Certainly, and we would definitely follow the 
law, even as we work through how to implement this strategy.
    Ms. Stansbury. But at the end of the day, it really is a 
way to value resources that were not previously valued, 
correct?
    Mr. Wykowski. That is my understanding of the strategy 
assets, as you mentioned, to expand the consideration of assets 
that are not adequately valued currently, so----
    Ms. Stansbury. But it would still happen through a public 
process. So, that valuation, whether it was done through an 
administrative process of public land management policy, or the 
creation of a new monument, or a deciding whether or not to 
open a specific area for leasing would still follow the same 
public process whereby those who have an interest in the land, 
tribes, others would participate in that process. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, as the strategy is a 15-year approach, 
I think we are still a long way from considering directly how 
we will participate in these processes. But that said, we 
certainly welcome opportunities to better understand the value 
of these resources so that we can build them into things like 
those NEPA processes, and allow opportunities for adequate 
public comment and help better inform decisions.
    I think that there is a great potential there for that 
process to work closely with many ongoing processes at the 
Bureau.
    Ms. Stansbury. I know I am going to run out of time here, 
but I just want to clarify for everyone out there who is 
listening. This doesn't replace existing processes. This is a 
way of bringing another factor into cost-benefit and to 
decision making so that we don't undervalue resources that our 
communities depend on and our ecosystems depend on. So, I think 
it is just really important that people understand this is 
about leveling the playing field, creating transparency, and 
making our decision making more robust.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Dr. Gosar. Just a quick question, Mr. Wykowski. In this 
system, you have nothing. You don't have something that you can 
show. When I mine something, I have something to show and I can 
sell. Now what we are putting forward is a value on what 
conservation, or what we are looking at, clean air or whatever. 
You are not giving anything. You feel good about that aspect, 
but you have nothing, right?
    Mr. Wykowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, while we were not 
directly involved in the development, my understanding is that 
the accounts would cover a wide variety of values, including 
energy and mineral resources, fisheries, timber, as well as 
some of these harder-to-measure resources, like the value of 
clean water and fire-resilient forests.
    Dr. Gosar. I would have a hard time believing that we are 
going to leverage our current mining, which doesn't exist very 
much. I mean, it takes over 20 years to get a mining permit, 
actually, to a position, and I doubt it, it even takes longer 
than that.
    But from that standpoint, I think we are pigeon-holing this 
Ponzi scheme because all you are doing is you are making it 
feel good because you don't own anything. That is the basis of 
a Ponzi scheme, you keep going down the road trying to invest, 
but there is nothing there for you to inherently say this is 
what I did, right?
    Mr. Wykowski. I am not familiar with the structure of Ponzi 
schemes, but my understanding is that the strategy is driven by 
the Office of Management and Budget; Science, Technology, and 
Policy; as well as our colleagues at the Department of 
Commerce, and that it is a whole-of-government effort to 
capture the value of these resources that we are currently not 
adequately valuing in our national economic considerations.
    Dr. Gosar. I see this very problematic all the way across 
the board, and----
    Ms. Stansbury. Some people actually value clean air, 
though.
    Dr. Gosar. Oh, and I think our clean air is actually 
cleaner than it was----
    Ms. Stansbury. And addressing our climate crisis.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I would actually like to debate that, too, 
because I think current policies don't show us that we are 
actually embracing climate change. We are actually doing it 
worse off, because we are actually utilizing more oil and gas 
that are dirtier than what we produce. So, I think we could 
argue that back and forth.
    Ms. Stansbury. I think you just made the point of why we 
need this. So, that is a great place to end----
    Dr. Gosar. I don't think I did, I don't think I did.
    The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member Stansbury, for holding the hearing today.
    It is no secret that the Administration has used our 
Federal lands to try to implement their most egregious climate 
and environmental-focused policies. Their actions over these 
past 3 years have done nothing to help Americans who rely on 
this land for their livelihoods and also, despite their claims, 
have done nothing to keep our American landscapes clean and 
beautiful.
    Take, for instance, the Judith Gap in central Montana. Once 
a pristine expanse, it is now marred by towering wind turbines 
that disrupt local wind patterns and frequently fail to 
generate energy during Montana's harsh winter conditions. I 
have posted online just 3 weeks ago this very event. It is 30 
degrees below zero, I drove through the middle of the wind 
farm, and not a single one of the turbines was turning.
    It is extremely concerning how an administration whose 
apparent goal is environmental protection could force such a 
visually intrusive and unreliable energy source onto the 
American people. And this is just one example of the 
shortsighted and poorly-thought-through policies concerning 
Federal lands and enacted by this Administration.
    Consider the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule 
proposed last summer, which initially seemed like another 
instance of the Administration appeasing the climate zealots. 
However, subsequent developments revealed a much more 
concerning agenda: the Conservation Lease BLM Rule, which 
clearly violates the Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM's mandate 
for multiple use, appears to pave the way for leasing parcels 
of land to Natural Asset Companies.
    While public outcry and this Committee's intervention 
compelled the SEC to retract its plan for Natural Asset 
Companies, recent information suggests that the group behind 
this scheme is undeterred. The notion of commodifying public 
land for foreign entities and prohibiting the resources that 
are located on the land from being developed, allowing them to 
profit from taxpayer-owned resources while treating water and 
air as commodities is truly dystopian.
    With all this in mind, and while it should be no surprise 
that the other three witnesses did not come here to defend 
their decisions by testifying today at this Committee hearing, 
I have several questions for you, Mr. Wykowski.
    First and foremost, thank you for your willingness to come 
in to testify before this Committee and showing the courage 
that, unfortunately, the other witnesses lacked. However, with 
that in mind, how do you square your agency's Conservation 
Lease Rule with its blatant violation of the Taylor Grazing 
Act?
    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The 
public lands rule is really driven by our multiple use and 
sustained yield mission, and will help us to better manage the 
resources across the landscape while ensuring a sustained yield 
for future generations of Americans.
    I think we might have to agree to disagree on its 
interaction with other laws, but I personally am not an 
attorney, and would refer to the Department's attorneys on the 
relationship between the Taylor Grazing Act and----
    Mr. Rosendale. So, what I will tell you is that the Taylor 
Grazing Act, it calls for, and it is in statute, that the 
priorities are for agricultural purposes, much of which is to 
sustain food sources for people across the United States. This 
was put into place back in the 1930s, and that is when they 
were focused on that.
    And now, the BLM rule is literally taking conservation 
measures and placing it above that food production, that 
agricultural use, which is completely in contrast to the 
statute itself. So, that is why we have had so much of a 
problem watching BLM propose a rule that truly is in conflict 
with the statute itself.
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, as I noted, the proposed rule 
really derives from our obligations under FLPMA. It doesn't 
elevate conservation above other uses, but ensures that we are 
providing for adequate conservation use alongside other 
multiple uses so that we can deliver a sustained yield for 
future generations of Americans across our public lands.
    Mr. Rosendale. Regarding the SEC and New York Stock 
Exchange recently-withdrawn rule regarding the Natural Asset 
Companies, do you see any issue with allowing foreign countries 
or entities to invest in and control U.S. Federal lands, and 
profit from prohibiting the use of the resources that are 
located on those lands? Do you see any problem or conflict with 
that?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, I am only familiar with the 
SEC's proposal from what I have read about it in the popular 
media, but the Department has been quite clear that we were not 
involved or engaged in the SEC process. So, I would hesitate to 
speculate on how that might play out if it were adopted.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK, Mr. Chair, I would yield back. Thank you 
so much for the opportunity.
    Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In October 2023, the SEC proposed a rule to approve the New 
York Stock Exchange's request to list Natural Asset Companies. 
I led on a letter to the SEC with 31 other Members in the 
House, expressing strong opposition to the process and the 
proposal itself. Thousands of stakeholders across the country 
wrote to the SEC in opposition to this proposal, due to the 
surrendering of local control to elite investors, radical 
environmental groups, and even foreign governments.
    Briefly, NACs would have prohibited the ``unsustainable 
activities'' on public and private lands. In bureaucratic 
language, this is code for blocking all legitimate economic 
development, including energy development, food production, 
grazing, logging, and access to other raw materials needed for 
housing and industrial construction.
    In short, what NACs would do would be to allow someone like 
Bill Gates to buy the natural assets of, say, Shoshone National 
Forest in the state of Wyoming and block essentially all access 
management and use to that resource. But not just someone with 
billions of dollars, such as Bill Gates. It would also allow 
China, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and other malign actors from 
purchasing the natural assets of these lands, both Federal 
lands, BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service lands, but it also would apply to private lands or any 
private lands who had conservation easements on them. So, those 
farmers and ranchers who had placed conservation easements on 
their property could wake up one day and be in partnership with 
the Chinese Communist Party.
    Obviously, this is something that was one of the most 
dangerous rules I have ever seen, and I am pleased that the New 
York Stock Exchange saw the light and withdrew it.
    But Mr. Wykowski, I just have a couple of questions for 
you. I know you weren't involved in the SEC's proposal, but I 
am highlighting these concerns because the BLM is responsible 
for the management and mismanagement of these resources on 10 
percent of this country's acreage, and I can't even imagine 
that the BLM would think that the SEC's or the New York Stock 
Exchange's proposal was appropriate or that it would be a good 
thing to do. Do you know whether the BLM weighed in with the 
SEC, challenging the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange's 
ability to sell the natural assets of BLM lands?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, my understanding is that the 
Department has been clear that we had no engagement with the 
SEC on this proposal.
    Ms. Hageman. So, you had no engagement with the SEC at all? 
The SEC never contacted the BLM and said, ``We are going to 
sell your''--or the New York Stock Exchange, they didn't 
contact you and say, ``We are going to sell the natural assets 
to the BLM lands?''
    Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I would have to refer you to 
the SEC for how they go about their----
    Ms. Hageman. No, I am asking the BLM.
    Mr. Wykowski. Well, as I noted, the Department has had no 
engagement with the SEC on this withdrawn proposal.
    Ms. Hageman. Interesting. Did you call them up and say, 
``We don't like this idea?''
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congresswoman, we have not had any 
engagement with the SEC on this proposal.
    Ms. Hageman. So, why don't you think that the BLM should 
weigh in on this proposal that would have sold all the natural 
assets to the BLM lands, to say, China?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, I am not familiar with the content of 
the proposal----
    Ms. Hageman. So, the BLM is just not taking a position.
    Mr. Wykowski [continuing]. Only from what I have read in 
the popular media, but we, in all our land management work, are 
committed to following the law and meeting the tenets of our 
multiple use and sustained yield mandate.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Wykowski, do you believe that just 
perhaps our foreign adversaries would have a reason to cripple 
our access to raw materials needed for legitimate economic 
development? Don't you think that would be something that our 
foreign adversaries would want?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I am here today to represent 
the Bureau of Land Management, so that is outside of my area of 
expertise.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, the BLM is where we access coal and oil 
and gas. It is where we have grazing rights, and trona. It 
can't be outside of your expertise. That is what we do on our 
BLM lands.
    Mr. Wykowski. And certainly we are committed to meeting all 
those multiple uses on the public lands through our management.
    Ms. Hageman. In the case of the New York Stock Exchange's 
proposal, they didn't include any kind of investment exclusion 
for foreign adversaries. In fact, the Intrinsic Exchange Group, 
who worked closely with the New York Stock Exchange, explicitly 
stated that foreign governments could invest in these NACs. 
They are not just OK with it, they actually extended the 
invitation.
    I think that that is of grave concern, and something that 
the American people should understand, that the New York Stock 
Exchange, along with the SEC, were inviting foreign governments 
to come in in purchasing, for example, the natural assets 
associated with all of our BLM lands.
    But I also think it is important for the American people to 
understand that the BLM did nothing to push back on that kind 
of a radical idea.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Arkansas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the 
witness for being here today.
    And I do want to make a clarification here. The idea of 
valuing our natural assets I don't think is a bad idea, and I 
think the United States is probably behind in that, in creating 
standards. And my understanding is that some foreign entities, 
even China, are working on international standards that could 
be used against us, be used against products produced in 
America.
    My first question is, and I want to make the distinction 
between developing standards and using those standards in a 
nefarious way. So, can you tell me where we are on the 
international stage as far as the United States leading on 
developing standards for valuing our natural assets?
    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question. My understanding, 
although the Bureau was not directly involved in the 
development of this proposal, is that it is an opportunity to 
participate in an ongoing process that, I believe 80 countries 
globally are developing standards, so this is an effort by the 
U.S. Government to coordinate across several agencies to 
develop these standards in a cohesive manner to support 
interagency engagement.
    This is a 15-year phased strategy, and we are very early in 
the beginning stages of that strategy.
    Mr. Westerman. I am concerned that we are getting behind, 
and we are allowing people who don't have our best interests at 
heart to develop these standards, where the United States has 
generally been a leader in standards development around the 
world.
    Now, with that said, the Committee has heard concerns from 
every corner of the country that the proposed Conservation and 
Landscape Health Rule could be used to restrict currently 
permitted activities on BLM lands such as grazing, energy 
production, and recreation. So, how would a national system for 
natural capital accounting potentially affect conservation 
leasing, as outlined in the proposed Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, as I noted, we are relatively 
early in the development of this strategy. It is a 15-year 
phased approach, so it is potentially a little early to 
speculate on how it might be used. But as I noted in my 
testimony, we welcome opportunities to use better data to 
understand the value of these assets to inform our decision 
making.
    Mr. Westerman. In the proposed Conservation and Landscape 
Health Rule, why did BLM decide to allow foreign entities to 
apply for conservation leases?
    Mr. Wykowski. Thank you for the question, Congressman. That 
was a comment we heard loud and clear during the comment period 
on the proposed rule, and it is one that, as we move towards 
finalizing the rule, we are certainly mindful of and hoping to 
address as we move forward.
    Mr. Westerman. That doesn't really answer why we allowed 
them to do that in the first place.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. But in the interest of time, the poster 
behind me, which is taken from an April 2023 presentation from 
the Department of the Interior, outlines how natural capital 
accounting aligns and supports DOI and BLM priorities in the 
Biden administration, which, that being said, it is ironic, 
with Ms. Hageman's questioning, that BLM or DOI had no contact 
with the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange throughout this 
process.
    Can you explain how DOI and BLM will use natural capital 
accounting to advance your DEI and environmental justice goals?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, this is a 15-year 
strategy, so I think it would be early to speculate how, if at 
all, this might impact land management decisions on the ground 
at the BLM.
    Mr. Westerman. You didn't talk about DEI and environmental 
justice goals. How are you going to use that?
    Mr. Wykowski. As I noted in my testimony, the Bureau was 
not involved in the development of this national strategy, but 
we look forward to working with our colleagues across 
government to figure out the appropriate implementation, to 
work within the multiple use and sustained yield mandate 
provided by Congress.
    Mr. Westerman. So, this presentation and meeting behind me, 
you are saying basically it didn't happen, that you are not----
    Mr. Wykowski. I am here today as a representative of the 
Bureau of Land Management. I would have to refer to the 
Department of the Interior for questions about other agency 
priorities.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, my next question is how will DOI and 
BLM use natural capital accounting to advance the America the 
Beautiful Initiative and 30x30 goal to lock up 30 percent of 
America's lands by 2030.
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, it is early in the 
development of this natural capital accounting strategy, so I 
would hesitate to speculate on how it might be implemented on 
management on the ground.
    Mr. Westerman. Speaking of 30x30, Congress has been asking 
this question for a long time, and I hope we can finally get an 
answer today for the American people: How much progress has 
been made towards the 30x30 goals so far?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, at the BLM, we are working hard 
to support the vision of the America the Beautiful that the 
President has laid out for supporting locally-led conservation, 
for protecting the health of our natural resources, and 
engaging with communities across the country.
    Mr. Westerman. Do you make a distinction between 
conservation and preservation?
    Mr. Wykowski. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Westerman. What is that distinction?
    Mr. Wykowski. It depends on the context, but certainly 
there are a variety of definitions we use to help govern our 
land management in different situations.
    Mr. Westerman. I have seen preservation cloaked as 
conservation many times, and I have a real problem with that.
    It has been over 3 years since President Biden took office. 
When will DOI provide a report on the metrics being used to 
measure progress and exactly how much land and water has been 
locked up in the 30x30 Initiative?
    Mr. Wykowski. I don't have an answer for you today on that, 
Congressman, but I would be happy to take a question back for 
the record and get you an answer from the Department.
    Mr. Westerman. If you could do that, and I am out of time, 
but I will submit some more questions for the record.
    I appreciate you coming over today, and I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you want a second round?
    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just 
wanted to say the rookie in me came out. I should have 
acknowledged that you were the Chairman of the Full Committee, 
and I didn't.
    We are going to entertain a second round of questioning, if 
you would like. The Chair is going to recognize the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, again for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you for that opportunity. I have 
so many questions for the BLM.
    Forty-eight percent of the surface estate in the state of 
Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, and about 65 
percent of our mineral estate is owned by the Federal 
Government. So, when those resources are mismanaged, it has an 
enormous impact on my state and the citizens of my state.
    And when you have programs such as the 30x30, what you now 
call America the Beautiful, which I would vehemently disagree 
with because I don't believe that that is ultimately what will 
happen with those efforts, I think you will see what we have 
been seeing over the last several years, which is the 
continuing of catastrophic forest fires for failure to properly 
manage our National Forest Service lands. Removing grazing from 
our BLM lands is going to have very serious impacts not only on 
the economy throughout the state of Wyoming, but it will impact 
the quality of those lands and the grasses, as well.
    So, I am going to talk to you specifically about some of 
the things that the BLM has been doing in the state of Wyoming. 
In mid-August of this last year, the BLM Rock Springs Field 
Office introduced their draft Resource Management Plan for 
revision for the Rock Springs Planning Area, which makes up 3.6 
million acres of land in the state of Wyoming. In total, under 
the preferred alternative, about 2.5 million acres would be off 
the table for consideration for new rights-of-way, and about 
1.6 million acres would have been denied any type of access for 
grazing, oil and gas development, trona, those sorts of things.
    By the way, Wyoming is the largest trona producer in the 
nation, the largest coal producer in the nation, and one of the 
largest oil and gas producers in the nation. So, these issues 
are extremely important to us.
    That would have been an increase of more than 480 percent 
in acreage off limits to important things like power lines, 
pipelines, and maintaining roads. And this proposal would also 
heavily restrict trona mining, as well as oil and natural gas 
development, which are key contributors to our economy.
    We learned from a former BLM employee that this proposed 
alternative took a very short time to develop. It was 
alternative B, and he said all of their efforts and the $8 
million that they spent on this effort was actually focused on 
developing alternative D, as in dog, compared to alternative B, 
as in boy. In his words, he said, in coming up with 
alternatives B and C, B basically denying access, management, 
and use to the vast majority of these lands, ``We sat down and 
in 1 week they developed them together.'' So, over the years 
they spent years developing alternative D and about a week on B 
and C. Yet, because of this Administration, alternative B was 
the one that was chosen by the BLM.
    And having been someone who has dealt with NEPA for decades 
now, NEPA requires you to take a hard look at the alternatives 
and the decision that is going to be made. Would you agree with 
me that spending years on alternative D, as compared to 1 week 
on alternative B, demonstrates that the BLM never did take a 
hard look at alternative B before deciding that that was the 
plan that they were going to go forward with?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congresswoman, I am not aware of these 
assertions by a former BLM employee, but certainly agree that 
NEPA requires us to take that hard look, and we will do that 
across all land management planning efforts, including the Rock 
Springs RMP.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, would you agree spending years on 
something would be considered a hard look, and spending a week 
on something probably wouldn't qualify?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congresswoman, I am not aware of the 
assertions by this former employee, so I would hesitate to 
speculate, but I am certain that on the Rock Springs RMP we did 
take that hard look that NEPA requires, in compliance with the 
law.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. And really, in large part you are avoiding 
my question because you recognize that spending a week on 
alternative B isn't most likely going to pass court muster, 
especially when the $8 million in the years were spent on 
studying alternative D.
    So, I just want to make sure that the BLM truly understands 
the implications of what happens when decisions are coming out 
of Washington, DC rather than the local offices, and rather 
than in conjunction with the state and the stakeholders that 
actually know how to manage the resources in Wyoming. It is 
extremely damaging when you have an environmental agenda coming 
out of DC that folks don't understand how to manage those 
resources, what it can do to not only a state like Wyoming, but 
actually the country as a whole.
    The war on coal, the war on oil and gas, the war on 
affordable energy is affecting everyone in this country. It is 
why I have introduced the Energy Poverty Prevention and 
Accountability Act, because I want to make sure that agencies 
like the BLM are actually having to quantify the costs 
associated with the decisions that they make. I think the 
American people deserve that.
    And I will again say I think that the BLM needs to come to 
the table with the state of Wyoming and come up with a 
legitimate resource management plan for not only the Rock 
Springs district, but the remainder of Wyoming that BLM 
controls.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. All right, the Chair now recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wykowski, I know you have answered a lot of what I am 
going to ask you, because I have heard it throughout your 
testimony, but I just want to go through it again just so that 
I get it on my record as what we are doing.
    And I have spent some time reviewing the National Strategy 
to Develop Statistics for Environmental, Economic Decisions and 
natural capital accounting. Since you referenced it throughout 
your testimony, you are familiar with this document, the 
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting, correct?
    Mr. Wykowski. Although the Bureau was not directly involved 
in its development, in preparation for this hearing I 
familiarized myself, certainly.
    Mr. Collins. You can say yes.
    Mr. Wykowski. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. OK.
    Mr. Wykowski. Certainly.
    Mr. Collins. Now, according to the strategy itself and 
information from the White House, the lead authors of the 
National Strategy for Natural Capital Accounting are the Office 
of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, and the Department of Commerce. Is that your 
understanding, as well?
    Mr. Wykowski. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Collins. OK. So, as the sole representative over there 
for the Biden administration, can you explain to me why the 
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce all refused to come here today to 
discuss their work and explain to the American people just what 
the heck the natural capital accounting and ecosystem service 
valuation is all about?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, I can say that the Department of 
the Interior does its best to accommodate witness requests from 
the Committee at every opportunity, and I am pleased to be here 
today to talk about the work we are doing at the BLM.
    Mr. Collins. Let me just ask you point blank, then. Why are 
OMB, OSTP, and Commerce refusing to testify in front of 
Congress on this important issue?
    Mr. Wykowski. Again, Congressman, I can only speak for the 
Department of the Interior that I know the Department does its 
best to accommodate witness requests from the Committee. And I 
am pleased to be here today to speak about the work of BLM.
    Mr. Collins. Do you think it is fair that OMB, OSTP, 
Commerce, and, frankly, the White House just left you here all 
alone, stranded on that island over there, just to answer 
questions about a national strategy document that was authored 
by other agencies? Do you think that is fair?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, again, I really can only speak 
to the Department. I know that at the Department of the 
Interior we do our best to accommodate witness requests from 
the Committee at every opportunity.
    Mr. Collins. So, do you think it is fair OMB and OSTP 
authored a strategy and issued directives on how the Department 
of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management should 
implement the strategy, but then left you here to answer all 
the questions about their strategy and the directives? Do you 
think that is fair?
    Mr. Wykowski. Congressman, again, I really can only speak 
to the Department of the Interior's considerations for 
witnesses, but----
    Mr. Collins. Well, I will tell you what, I will answer it 
for you. No, it is not fair. It is absolutely a shame that the 
Biden administration left you here all by yourself to answer 
the questions about a major national strategy that was written 
by three other agencies who refuse to testify in front of 
Congress here today.
    And I will tell you what. We may have different views on 
policies and politics, but I kind of feel bad for you sitting 
over there, with the OMB, the OSTP, and the White House tossing 
you out here to the wolves alone while they don't show up. And 
I don't blame you if you decide to leave the Biden 
administration, call me, we will help you get a job somewhere.
    But let me just finish by saying this. It is absolutely 
outrageous that the Office of Management and Budget, the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Commerce, 
and the White House sent you here today by yourself to answer 
for stuff that they have done. But it is not surprising. I 
mean, it speaks volumes, and it is a complete lack of 
accountability from this Administration.
    And as we know from the elderly man with poor memory in the 
White House all the way down, that the Biden administration 
doesn't like getting questions. But we are going to keep asking 
questions, and we are going to keep getting answers whether 
President Biden likes it or not.
    With that, I yield back, and seeing no other Members asking 
questions----
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I will just make one final 
comment, which is that we are grateful that the Bureau of Land 
Management and Department of the Interior came and joined us 
here today. I think it was an educational hearing for my 
colleagues who are newly being introduced to the concept of 
natural capital.
    I especially appreciate Mr. Westerman's comments about how 
the United States is behind other nations, and needs to 
standardize the way in which we do economic accounting of our 
natural resources, and grateful that we have a forester in the 
Majority who serves on this Committee, who understands the 
value that our natural resources have as we are making 
decisions. So, I think that is important.
    And I do thank you, Mr. Wykowski, for coming to testify 
today. I think the policies that this Administration is 
continuing, which were begun decades ago by other 
administrations, including conservative and Republican 
administrations, are vital to the modernization of our public 
lands, our natural resources, and our competitiveness 
internationally. So, I appreciate your work on that.
    With that, I think we are done. Thanks.
    Mr. Collins. All right. I thank the witness for his 
testimony and Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witness, and we ask you respond to these in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on 
February 22. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                              Susie Feliz
   Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
                      U.S. Department of Commerce

    Consistent with the Department's agreement with the Subcommittee's 
staff, I am pleased to provide this Statement for the Record on behalf 
of the Department of Commerce. The Department remains committed to 
cooperation with our congressional partners.

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) 
organized and co-chaired an Interagency Policy Working Group to develop 
the National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic 
Decisions (``National Strategy''). The National Strategy outlines how 
the U.S. Federal statistical system can better integrate economic and 
environmental data, with an emphasis on environmental-economic accounts 
as a means to understand nature's critical contributions to a 
competitive and sustainable U.S. economy. The National Strategy 
provides a roadmap for a multi-year effort to measure stocks of (and 
flows of value from) natural capital assets--such as land, water, 
timber, mineral resources, and other critical components of the U.S. 
economy--in a way that complements and aligns with our existing 
national economic accounts. The National Strategy recommends a 15-year 
phased approach for Federal agencies to develop natural capital 
accounts, charting a path from research-grade environmental-economic 
accounts to core statistical products that would eventually be 
presented alongside our core economic statistics.

    The main objective of the National Strategy is to improve the 
Nation's statistical infrastructure. The National Strategy does not 
have specific use cases or policy goals.

    At present, natural capital assets are largely absent from the 
Nation's balance sheet, effectively understating U.S. national wealth 
and distorting our asset position relative to countries that have 
already begun integrating these assets into their economic accounts by 
following the latest statistical standards. The United Nations 
Statistical Commission, which governs international statistical 
standards such as the System of National Accounts (SNA), approved new 
statistical standards in 2012 and 2021 (System of Environmental-
Economic Accounting, or SEEA) that provide a policy-neutral, rigorous 
accounting framework for developing environmental-economic statistics 
that dovetail with our existing national accounts. Coordinating 
international standards in this way mirrors the approach used for gross 
domestic product (GDP) and other components of National accounts. As of 
2021, 90 countries have already produced or have begun compiling SEEA-
based accounts. Indeed, the United States has moved to a leadership 
position, including signing a Joint Statement with Australia and Canada 
to exchange technical information in support of quantifying the value 
of natural assets. The United States, Australia, and Canada are large 
resource-rich nations that will be key players in the measurement of 
natural capital assets. Ultimately, however, the United States remains 
independent from other countries in how we implement our environmental-
economic statistics and reserves the right to implement differing 
approaches that better serve the needs of U.S. data users.

    The Administration is working within its existing authorities, 
making use of the substantial expertise within Federal departments and 
agencies, including by coordinating across agencies. Moreover, the 
measurement of natural capital is hewing closely to SNA and SEEA 
standards, which are internationally agreed upon standards, and not 
trying to exaggerate or undersell the value of natural assets.

    However, production of new national accounts does not occur 
overnight. The development of our existing system of national economic 
accounts has taken decades, given the technical, methodological, and 
data collection challenges of measuring the complex and evolving U.S. 
economy. Current work across the Federal statistical system is in the 
initial pilot stage to assess feasibility, data availability, and 
resource needs. The Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs 
has been coordinating Commerce's collaboration with the White House and 
technical work on the National Strategy.

    Within Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will play a 
leading role in the development of technical standards and compilation 
of statistics that are consistent with existing economic measures such 
as GDP. BEA's sister agency within Commerce, the Census Bureau, will be 
a key partner for much of this work, collecting the foundational data 
used to compile BEA's higher-level products. Initial research will 
focus on natural capital assets and environmental activities within the 
asset boundary of the SNA and SEEA's Central Framework (which is one 
part of the SEEA standards). The asset boundary restricts analysis to 
goods, services, and assets, whether natural or produced, from which 
owners may extract economic benefit, and valuation follows market 
prices. For certain environment-related activities, such as the 
emission of air pollutants, current standards only provide guidance for 
measurement on a physical flow basis.

    Initial research within BEA has focused on Phase I and Supporting 
Activities within the National Strategy. These activities include the 
production of pilot tables that ``restructure'' existing input-output 
data to quantify environmental activities in the U.S. economy, such as 
waste and wastewater management, production of renewable energy, and 
soil remediation. BEA has also produced experimental statistics on the 
total value of land in the United States (residential, commercial/
industrial, and agricultural land). For reference, other countries such 
as the United Kingdom and Australia have already added aggregate land 
value as a separate item on their national balance sheet and currently 
produce a detailed land account, among other natural capital assets.

    Also, as part of Phase I work within Commerce, the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will lead the development of 
pilots for marine natural accounts that are within the asset boundary 
of the SNA through FY 2026. Pilots were selected based on the following 
criteria: (1) they support one or more sectors in the Marine Economy 
Satellite Account (MESA); and (2) they are within the SNA boundary, as 
required for Phase I marine accounts. The selected pilots were offshore 
oil and gas exploration and production (a component of the MESA 
Offshore Minerals sector), and commercial fishing (a component of the 
Living Resources MESA sector).

    The offshore oil and gas research phase has involved identifying 
data for the development of physical accounts. Resource estimates 
published by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have been 
analyzed and combined into accounting tables, consistent with SEEA. The 
research phase for commercial fisheries has involved the identification 
of available fisheries data and selection of species to be part of the 
pilot.

    In addition to the marine natural capital pilots, NOAA is 
participating, along with other federal agencies, in the hazards and 
extreme weather natural capital accounting interagency working group. 
The goal of this account will be to capture the net costs of natural 
hazards to the U.S. economy.

    All of these research efforts will help identify viable methods to 
develop the accounts, as well as data-related and other challenges, and 
potential solutions.

    Thank you, again, for the opportunity to submit this Statement for 
the Record.

                                 [all]