Congressional Testimony
Congressional Testimony
Here's a look at documents involving congressional testimony and member statements
Featured Stories
Utah State Historic Preservation Officer Merritt Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following testimony by Christopher W. Merritt, state historic preservation officer for Utah, from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act":* * *
Hello, I am Dr. Chris Merritt, the State Historic Preservation Officer from Utah. I appreciate the opportunity today to speak briefly about the Federal cultural resources processes and how we have been able to save time and money by investing in collaboration, digital processes, and creative solutions ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following testimony by Christopher W. Merritt, state historic preservation officer for Utah, from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act": * * * Hello, I am Dr. Chris Merritt, the State Historic Preservation Officer from Utah. I appreciate the opportunity today to speak briefly about the Federal cultural resources processes and how we have been able to save time and money by investing in collaboration, digital processes, and creative solutionsto complex problems. I have been a professional archaeologist for more than 20 years, working with the federal government, academia, private consulting, and for the last 13 years for the great State of Utah. Every day I am excited to go to work, to help steer historic preservation in Utah, and share my passion for history.
I. National Historic Preservation Act Passage
First, a small history review. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government and its various initiatives sought to build new infrastructure such as interstate highways while also contending with urban decline due to post-World War 2 population and economic shifts. At the time there were few if any checks and balances to what the federal government projects would look like, where they would be located, or how they would affect our nation's historical places. Because of this many historic downtowns, neighborhoods, and places of archaeological heritage were unnecessarily destroyed with little to no consideration by the federal government. This changed in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act./1 which, in part, mandated that federal agencies take into account their actions on historic properties (legally defined as something eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places). The National Historic was amended four times in 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2016./2
Building on the Historic Sites Act of 1935, this Act recognized the importance of identifying and preserving places important to local, state, and national history, and built the modern Historic Preservation field as we see today.
II. State Historic Preservation Offices
Reacting to those unfettered federal actions that led to its passage, the National Historic Preservation Act established a federalist approach to historic preservation, empowering each State to create its own office to coordinate federal reviews and activities. Each state then created their own State Historic Preservation Office (or SHIP-O for short), to manage its preservation programming and be a voice for the Governor and citizens on these federal undertakings (see 54 U.S.C. Sec. 302303 and Sec.36CFR61). Creation of SHPOs was recognition that there needed to be a voice at the State level to review projects, offer advice and technical assistance that can only be provided by State-level experts in various fields such as architectural history or archaeology, and to be the nexus of all things historic preservation.
There are now 59 SHPOs (50 States, 5 Territories, 3 freely associated states, and the District of Columbia), in addition there are 208 Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO).
* * *
1 54 U.S.C. Sec. 300101
2 Pub. L. No. 94-422, 90 Stat. 1320, Pub. L. No. 96-515, 94 Stat. 2987, Pub. L. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4753, Pub. L. No. 96-515.
* * *
Due to this being a congressional mandate, SHPOs and their tribal equivalents, THPOs, are partially funded by the Historic Preservation Fund managed by the National Park Service, which mandates 60% federal funding and 40% state funding match. Utah received its first grant in 1969, thus creating its State Historic Preservation in that same year.
III. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
While the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 created many programs, I want to focus my comments on this legal compliance process, also known by the shorthand of Section 106, referring to that specific part of the Act/3 where there is the legal mandate to review impacts to cultural resources. As expressed in the preamble to the NHPA, Congress found that "the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage", and the "historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people".
It is with this direction in mind that Section 106 of the NHPA creates a step-by-step process to identify historic properties and then assess the effects of the federal undertaking to those resources. As one would imagine, there are many technical aspects of this type of review, of which I'm happy to explain in more detail, but ultimately this is a process law meant to have a beginning and end, ever churning for the good of both historic properties and undertakings. The Section 106 process is simplistic yet complex, depending on the nature, scope, and scale of the undertaking and the cultural resources impacted. Federal agencies lead the process, with the SHPO, Tribes, and other parties involved along the way in various capacities.
At its core, the Section 106 process has four steps, each with its own exit ramps.
1) Determine if the Agency has an "undertaking", which encompasses federal lands, funds, permits, or approvals. And then if they have a potential to cause an effect./4
2) identify historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects./5
3) Assess the effects of the federal undertaking on any historic properties./6
4) And in those rare cases, resolve effects to historic properties./7
Each SHPO and/or relevant THPO has consultation responsibilities throughout each of these four steps. Steps 1 and 4 are perhaps the most clearly defined in statute and process, with Steps 2 and 3 having the most variability due to the needs of each State, Tribe, or other consulting party. It is our opinion at the Utah SHPO that this process should be clear, reasonable, and as predictable as possible for not only the good of the agency and proponent, but also for historic properties themselves.
* * *
3 54 U.S.C. Sec. 306108 and its implementing regulations Sec.36CFR800
4 36CFR800.3
5 36CFR800.4
6 36CFR800.5
7 36CFR800.6
* * *
IV. Utah State Historic Preservation Office Overview & Efficiencies
Our team at the Utah SHPO completes Section 106 reviews for about 1,500 federal undertakings per year, ranging from small Army Corps wetland permits or mining exploration drilling programs to large-scale post-wildland fire rehabilitation, and everything in between. Our office reviews National Register eligibility determinations, findings of effect to historic properties, and other technical aspects of the Section 106 process. Of those cases, we average only about 34 adverse effects per year, or only 3.2% of all reviews. This low number, in my opinion, illustrates that the process is working. Proponents, federal agencies, consulting parties and others are finding ways to avoid or minimize effects to these historic properties while moving undertakings forward. Adverse effects could range from the destruction of a historic home renowned for its architecture during a road widening, piping of canals that were critical to a community's history and growth, or a construction through a Native American heritage site. All of these are permanent and lasting effects to community history, hence our efforts to minimize those conclusions to the process where possible.
Under regulations the SHPO has 30 days to complete a review of a properly documented undertaking from the federal agency. Utah is unique in that over the past 20 years, the SHPO has had a goal with the Governor's Office of reviewing all undertakings in under 15 days, half the statutory timeline. We typically go above and beyond that with an internal goal of 7 days or less, which in the most recent 2024-2025 year, we have seen 98% of all reviews take 7 days or less. This means that we have cut the regulatory review time by over 75%, helping undertakings move faster through the process and gaining efficiencies throughout the system. At the Utah SHPO we do not get mired in grammatical or editorial comments, instead focusing on our core mandates of reviewing determinations of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the finding of effects to historic properties. Laser focus on our statutory mandate in the Section 106 process realizes amazing efficiencies.
V. Digital Data and Workflows in Utah
We have accomplished the feat of obliterating regulatory review timelines by a wholesale investment in digital systems and workflows, helping ensure timely project delivery. With leadership from the Governor's Office and funding and support of the Legislature, utilizing the power of technology, we have been digital-only since 2017. This means that we have digitized our entire backlog of paper files dating to the late 1960s to the 2010s and made them available online for agencies, consultants, and where appropriate, the public. The investment made in our GIS (Geographic Information System) spatial database has elevated our process to one of the most comprehensive and efficient systems in the nation. And perhaps even more significantly Utah was one of the first SHPOs in the entire nation to go full-digital by moving from a paper and postal mail consultation process to a fully digital workflow in 2017. Utah has been able to realize an estimated $350,000 in savings per year from printing and mailing, let alone the immeasurable time savings in not handling paper. This digital process investment means that agencies and proponents can monitor our work in real-time, allows maximum flexibility for SHPO staff to complete compliance work anywhere and anytime.
Our digital cultural resource systems, split into an archaeological component (Sego) whose access is protected by both federal and state laws due to concerns with looting and vandalism if it was made public, and a historic building component (HUB) which is public and shared with dozens of communities throughout Utah, are nationally recognized examples for this type of technology. Per the National Historic Preservation Act,/8 the SHPOs are meant to be the center repository for cultural resource inventories, regardless of land jurisdiction. In Utah, we take this responsibility seriously and maintain the most comprehensive and complete database of archaeological and historic building resources in the state, that is used by all federal agencies, state agencies, and consultants. For instance, we are the data stewards for the Bureau of Land Management in Utah, which means they use our digital data systems on a daily basis to manage sites on their administered lands. This empowers the State of Utah to hold the most thorough data sets possible, and also gives us the cross-jurisdictional authority to ensure we avoid proliferation of small and disparate fiefdoms of data that not only hurts the protection of cultural resources but also landscape-level and resource management analysis and decisions.
As of this hearing, the Utah SHPO holds the digital information of 134,403 archaeological sites, 135,675 historic buildings, and 48,757 inventories. This data includes spatial location (GIS) and robust archaeological site or building-specific data for each individual property. Each year another 5,500 resources are added to these databases through the Section 106 consultation process.
But data is only as good as those who have access to it and know how to use it for decision making. To ensure this information is useful we not only share it out through online services, but execute data sharing agreements with the federal agencies so that they have real-time direct access to this information. In the past few years, we initiated an agreement with Utah's State Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands so that wildland fire incident commanders have access to this sensitive archaeological data in real-time. To put all these efforts into perspective, we create and maintain this data with a small staff, partially funded by the federal government, state government, small dollar cooperative agreements (Such as $18,000 or so from the BLM) and small fees paid by those accessing the data through the online viewers.
VI. Consistency, Predictability and Streamlining at the Utah SHPO
As mentioned earlier, of the four steps of the Section 106 process, the identification of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect and assessing effects to those properties are the most commonly complex part. This is because each State, Federal Agency, Tribal Nation or other consulting party has varying opinions on how to define the Area of Potential Effect and identification procedures such as archaeological inventories, regimented excavation procedures, or rigorous architectural surveys, each with their own standards. This is a reality of working with cultural resources across disparate physical landscapes and human histories.
However, there are still ways to make this process predictable for those entering it, whether by proponents or federal and state agencies. For example, in 2024 we established a standardized Area of Potential Effects for solar undertakings with the Bureau of Land Management.
In my tenure with the State of Utah we have dedicated ourselves to continuously reviewing the Section 106 process and finding efficiencies. For the reliability and predictability of the process, the Utah SHPO has worked with all agency partners to create interagency uniformity in many aspects of identification procedures, archaeological site definitions, architectural survey standards, and digital data standards. For example, the Utah SHPO signed an Memorandum of Understanding with Utah's six National Forest units in 2019, becoming the first standardized agreement in Utah for addressing various pieces of the Section 106 process with the United States Forest Service. As of today, all State and Federal agencies working in Utah follow the same standards, creating consistency of expectations, the predictability of outcome, and ensuring everything is done right the first time.
* * *
8 54 U.S.C. Sec. 302303(b)(1)
* * *
Another tool we have used is called a Programmatic Agreement,/9 which can be used to streamline Section 106 processes by simplifying consultation review for undertakings that are administrative, remarkably routine, have minimal potential to affect cultural resources, and/or were identified for structuring expectations so that one-off consultations become predictable in expectation and outcome. Programmatic Agreements can be a powerful tool to give the SHPOs, Federal Agencies, and other parties a legally defensible rulebook to follow, and can offer great opportunities for efficiencies.
For instance, we were the first SHPO in the nation to sign a Programmatic Agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to navigate cultural resource effects during a declared emergency and have streamlining agreements with the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies. And as of October 15, 2025 we have signed the first-of-its kind agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers to streamline their regulatory program. These agreements, by giving clear direction and clear pathways to exit and close the Section 106 process, allow both the agency and our office to focus attention on undertakings that have greater concern, effects, or controversy.
Thus, each year dozens of undertakings go through this streamlined process, allowing agencies and proponents to move forward without much, if any, review times.
There are times of concern however, where national-level agreements can cause concerns to SHPOs, as they remove the input from individual states. For example, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation proposed a Program Comment for Accessible, Climate-Reslient, and Connected Communities at the end of the last presidential administration. This Program Comment was unusual for many reasons, one of which was the proposal to remove nearly all State and Public reviews of only those types of undertakings that fell underneath those deeply politicized categories. In response, 29 SHPOs, the National Conference of SHPOs, and numerous other Tribes and organizations sent lengthy negative comments back to the Advisory Council. Thankfully, that proposed Program Comment failed to be executed due to the administration change, but could have been a major step backwards in the federalist approach to the National Historic Preservation Act.
* * *
9 Sec.36CFR800.12
* * *
VII. Concluding Thoughts
Perhaps our greatest strength is that we recognize that the Section 106 process was meant to be pragmatic and solution-focused, not a means of 'stopping' projects. Empowering the States themselves to be at the center of these undertakings is a critical component of this law, to provide a check and balance on federal actions and their impacts on cultural resources. In Utah we are committed to working collaboratively to keep the process moving, and to never allow a 'we can't' mindset to determine courses of action.
Towards this end, the Utah SHPO prides itself on finding ways to bridge communication gaps between agencies and consulting parties, identifying places in the process that can be improved or streamlined, and at all times searching for the most legally defensible but pragmatic solution to an undertaking's resolution. We host quarterly interagency collaboration meetings to build consensus on cultural resource topics, share our collective expertise, and build relationships that allow projects to move quickly through any process. We feel that these coordination and collaboration meetings create the communication channels needed to promote thoughtful analysis of what is, and what is not, working great in the Section 106 process.
It is not to say that there are never hurdles or problems with the Section 106 process, such as the real-world example of one SHPO saying a type of undertaking such as a grazing allotment fence re-stringing is a simple matter of just a letter, while the neighboring SHPO opined that the entire 100,000+ acre allotment that the fence surrounds needs inventory and assessment, and the creation of an agreement document that could take months. Or, the weaponization of procedural statements in the regulations, such as the ability of any consulting party to dispute a "No Adverse Effect" finding by an Agency Official, even if the SHPO concurred. This was a constant problem in the late 2010s, with some groups disputing each oil and gas lease sales in Utah, and disputing the finding of "No Adverse Effects". This necessitated review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (which has 45 days to review) on each undertaking.
While each time they agreed with the Agency Official's determination this created lengthy delays for an already properly executed compliance process.
But why do I offer some negative issues at the end of this testimony? First, in Utah we do the process consistently, smoothly, and efficiently if all parties are working towards a common goal.
Second, while we see all undertakings as equal in the eyes of the law, not all parties engaged in those consultations agree with the undertaking itself and can steer the process into a contentious path. And finally, there are always opportunities to do Section 106 better, and I'm personally hopeful that the model we employ in Utah is something that can demonstrate the process can work when we dedicate ourselves to finding solutions.
I'll close with a personal perspective. Sometimes my compliance staff wonders how being a modern-day Sisyphus; each day reviewing cases, closing them, and then being awash with new ones the next morning makes a difference in the preservation of our nation's history. I remind them that the National Historic Preservation Act created a process without which there would be no boulder at all. No checks and balances between federal and state governments, no thoughtful planning for cultural resources in federal undertakings, and nothing to help promote the preservation of each community's uniqueness. Sure the process rarely, if ever, gets major splashy wins that make the news, but the hundreds of cases handled by SHPOs each day are powerful wins in preserving our nation's history while identifying pragmatic ways to build a better future.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/515006BC-55F7-4E04-A065-344456DBFBDB
University of California Professor Testifies Before Senate Environment & Public Works Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following testimony by University of California professor Tracey J. Woodruff from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals":* * *
Subcommittee Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tracey Woodruff, a professor from the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Program ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following testimony by University of California professor Tracey J. Woodruff from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals": * * * Subcommittee Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Tracey Woodruff, a professor from the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Programon Reproductive Health and the Environment, and a member of the National Academy of Medicine. We conduct research to understand how industrial chemicals and pollutants in the environment impact people's health.
Toxic chemicals take a measurable toll on people's health.
Toxic chemicals are widespread in our air, water, food, homes, and workplaces, and consequently, human exposures begin before birth and continue throughout the lifespan. We know these exposures take a measurable toll on the health of children and adults and can increase the risk of cancer, infertility, neurological and cardiovascular disease, low birth weight, birth defects, autism, and ADHD./1,2,3,4,5,6
These conditions are increasing in the US as documented in the recent Make America Healthy Again Report./7
* * *
1 Woodruff T. J. (2024). Health Effects of Fossil Fuel-Derived Endocrine Disruptors. The New England journal of medicine, 390(10), 922-933. https://doi-org.ucsf.idm.oclc.org/10.1056/NEJMra2300476
2 Gore, A. C., Chappell, V. A., Fenton, S. E., Flaws, J. A., Nadal, A., Prins, G. S., Toppari, J., & Zoeller, R. T. (2015). EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrine reviews, 36(6), E1-E150. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1010
3 DeNicola, N., Lasher, E., BakenRa, A., Joglekar, R., Zhang, J., Hasenburg, A., Gupta, K., Decena, D., Edna, F., Graham, D., Morris, E., Dao, B., & Woodruff, T. (2025). FIGO committee opinion: Environmental drivers of obstetric health and early childhood development. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 10.1002/ijgo.70549. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70549
4 National Academies of Sciences Engi- neering and Medicine. Application of sys- tematic review methods in an overall strat- egy for evaluating low-dose toxicity from endocrine active chemicals. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.
5 Lam, J., Lanphear, B. P., Bellinger, D., Axelrad, D. A., McPartland, J., Sutton, P., Davidson, L., Daniels, N., Sen, S., & Woodruff, T. J. (2017). Developmental PBDE Exposure and IQ/ADHD in Childhood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Environmental health perspectives, 125(8), 086001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1632
6 Engel, S. M., Patisaul, H. B., Brody, C., Hauser, R., Zota, A. R., Bennet, D. H., Swanson, M., & Whyatt, R. M. (2021). Neurotoxicity of Ortho-Phthalates: Recommendations for Critical Policy Reforms to Protect Brain Development in Children. American journal of public health, 111(4), 687-695. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306014
7 The White House. (2025). Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf.
* * *
Health and economic benefits of environmental regulations
Environmental regulations came about from necessity and evidence shows they are enormously effective at improving health, reducing health care costs, increasing life expectancy and productivity. Research finds that reducing air pollution during pregnancy and early childhood leads to higher earnings, improved education, and better health later in life./8
OMB documents that annual benefits to the American public from major EPA rules ranged from $194 billion to $687 billion per year;/9 almost all from reduced health risks due to lowered air pollutant emissions and chemical exposures. These benefits far outweighed the estimated regulatory costs during that same time period./10
In fact, EPA regulations yield the highest annual benefits for Americans compared to any other federal agency.
* * *
Americans want safe products
Protecting people from harmful chemicals is something Americans agree on. In a recent nationwide survey, over 90% of voters - including Republicans, Democrats, and Independents - agreed the federal government should require products be proven safe before companies are allowed to put them on the market, and 88% of voters support the goal of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to protect people from harmful chemicals./11
* * *
TSCA and its importance to the health of Americans
In TSCA's first 40 years, EPA struggled to ban harmful chemicals, including asbestos, a known human carcinogen that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. TSCA's failures led Congress to update it in 2016 to ensure EPA could better protect people from harmful chemicals. One of the goals of the TSCA amendments was to provide stronger protections for highly exposed and susceptible populations like pregnant women, children, workers, and people who live in areas where polluting facilities have been sited.
* * *
8 Isen, A., Rossin-Slater, M., & Walker, W. R. (2017). Every Breath You Take--Every Dollar You'll Make: The Long-Term Consequences of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), 848-902. https://doi.org/10.1086/691465.
9 Office of Management and Budget. 2017 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Table 1-1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-CATS-5885-REV_DOC-2017Cost_BenefitReport11_18_2019.docx.pdf. Note: annual benefits estimate reported in 2015 dollars.
10 Office of Management and Budget. 2017 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Table 1-1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-CATS-5885-REV_DOC-2017Cost_BenefitReport11_18_2019.docx.pdf. Note: annual benefits estimate reported in 2015 dollars.
11 PRHE. (2022). Poll: Voters Agree on Need for More Protections from Chemicals. Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. https://prheucsf.blog/2022/10/11/poll-voters-agree-on-need-for-more-protections-from-chemicals/
* * *
However, with the chemical lobby pouring millions of dollars into influencing the regulatory process,/12 we have seen troubling patterns of EPA brushing aside rigorous science that demonstrates health risks, ignoring dangerous exposures to more than half of exposed populations, and weakening rules for scientific assessments to benefit industry at the expense of people's health.
* * *
New chemical program - and the cost of getting it wrong
It's no secret that the chemical industry wants to reduce the public health protections promised by TSCA in exchange for less regulation and more profits. One of their criticisms is that EPA is not approving new chemicals fast enough. Yet TSCA requires EPA to assess the safety of new chemicals and prevent potential risks before these chemicals are allowed on the market.
Congress was clear that EPA should not cut corners on the thoroughness of reviews to serve industry's demand for rushed approvals. Despite this, EPA has granted low-volume exemptions for over 600 PFAS, a class of over 15,000 chemicals are so persistent that they have been detected in nearly all people tested/13 and on every corner of the planet from rainclouds/14 to the deepest parts of the ocean./15
A new report from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity estimates annual health costs of PFAS harms in the U.S. from $1 billion to over $60 billion./16
The report also cites a study which found that the cost of destroying one year's worth of PFAS releases exceeds annual global GDP./17
In other words, PFAS contamination is a problem that we cannot effectively clean up.
Under the guise of supporting innovation, EPA also approved a new chemical for use in jet and boat fuel,/18 that has a cancer risk so high that nearly every person who is exposed to this chemical through foreseeable uses is expected to develop cancer. That is unacceptable.
So, while industry says, "faster, faster" and uses buzz words like "progress and innovation," it is essential that policymakers understand the repercussions of unleashing new toxic chemicals on the population. Once they're out there, you can't take them back, and the result is that people get sick and die. Instead, we need a stronger TSCA that creates incentives for the industry to develop new chemicals that will not harm health or the environment.
* * *
12 OpenSecrets. (n.d.). Federal lobbying: Industries summary (N13, 2021 cycle). https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=N13
13 CDC. (2024). Fast Facts: PFAS in the U.S. Population. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/data-research/facts-stats/index.html
14 Cousins, I. T., Johansson, J. H., Salter, M. E., Sha, B., & Scheringer, M. (2022). Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science & Technology, 56(16), 11172-11179. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765.
15 Miranda, D. de A., Leonel, J., Benskin, J. P., Johansson, J., & Hatje, V. (2021). Perfluoroalkyl Substances in the Western Tropical Atlantic Ocean. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(20), 13749-13758. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01794.
16 Safavi, L., & Howard, P. (2025). Evaluating the Full Cost of PFAS.
17 Ling, A. L. (2024). Estimated scale of costs to remove PFAS from the environment at current emission rates. Science of The Total Environment, 918, 170647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170647.
18 Lerner, S. (2023). The EPA Faces Questions About Its Approval of a Plastic-Based Fuel With an Astronomical Cancer Risk--ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/chevron-epa-plastic-biofuel-cancer-risk
* * *
EPA science
The chemical lobby is also attacking EPA's Office of Research and Development because they don't like science that finds that their chemicals and products are toxic. They are attacking the TSCA risk evaluation framework rule because they don't want EPA to consider all real-world chemical uses and exposures or the full extent of human health hazards and risks for lethal chemicals like methylene chloride. And they don't want EPA to address the consequences of cumulative impacts, especially to fenceline community residents who are exposed to dozens of harmful chemicals at the same time and have rates of cancer and other chronic diseases that far exceed those in the general population. All because it poses a threat to their bottom line.
* * *
Industry lies
As you consider next steps for TSCA, you should also consider how polluting industries have lied about the harms of their products to you, to the American people - and even to their own employees. Internal industry documents from PFAS manufacturers that show the industry knew about PFAS health harms decades before the public./19
And we uncovered documents showing the chemical industry waged a campaign to hide the health harms of phthalates since the 1970's. These companies have a vested financial interest in minimizing EPA's regulations at the expense of the public interest.
* * *
EPA's mission
EPA was established to protect the health of people and the environment - not to increase corporate profits. EPA is funded by taxpayer dollars and should function to protect the public. And Americans agree. Eliminating environmental rules is not popular, except with health-harming industries with a financial interest. I urge you to act in the best interest of the American people and preserve and strengthen TSCA's mission to protect the public's health.
* * *
19 PRHE. (2023). Makers of PFAS 'forever chemicals' covered up the dangers. Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. https://prheucsf.blog/2023/06/01/makers-of-pfas-forever-chemicals-covered-up-the-dangers/
* * *
Original text here: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e/8/e8f1bb21-fb1c-48d1-8ef0-597fe3ee74cb/AEBE72D67584C2B7D1DBF4532A28399A35C21D0A6240802AE8F64DAB5F6935CE.10-23-2025-woodruff-testimony.pdf
Pueblo of Acoma Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Concho Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by Steven Concho, tribal historic preservation officer for the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico, from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act":* * *
Introduction
My name is Steven Concho, and I serve as the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer ("THPO") for the Pueblo of Acoma ("Pueblo" or "Acoma"). My testimony addresses how Section 106 works on the ground, why consultation is indispensable, and how targeted investments ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by Steven Concho, tribal historic preservation officer for the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico, from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act": * * * Introduction My name is Steven Concho, and I serve as the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer ("THPO") for the Pueblo of Acoma ("Pueblo" or "Acoma"). My testimony addresses how Section 106 works on the ground, why consultation is indispensable, and how targeted investmentsin Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and utilizing existing legal and regulatory tools to improve efficiency will simultaneously reduce permitting delays and improve federal compliance.
The Acoma people are an ancient people. We have lived at Acoma Sky City, our mesa-top home, for over 1,000 years, making it one of the oldest continuously inhabited communities in the United States. Our living culture, language, and cultural practices are deeply tied to a network of ancestral sites, cultural landscapes, shrines, and ceremonial trails that extend far beyond the present-day Pueblo boundaries. These places are integral to Acoma's ongoing cultural identity and survival.
Acoma, like other tribes, shares a unique, government-to-government relationship with the United States based on our status as a sovereign nation. The "Section 106" consultation process of the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA") is therefore critical, as it is one of the only statutory mechanisms requiring federal agencies to consider and consult with Indian Tribes regarding federal undertakings that may affect historic properties of traditional religious and cultural significance. This Section 106 process is a way that the United States meets treaty and trust obligations to Tribes and ensures that Tribal lifeways, cultural practices, and sacred places are considered in federal decision making while projects advance. When proper consultation under Section 106 occurs, projects move forward in a way that protects cultural resources. Most projects proceed efficiently and collaboratively. On the other hand, when Tribes are not consulted properly or in a timely manner, projects can be delayed because of fights over a threatened resources or cultural resources can be destroyed.
Over decades of experience, the Pueblo of Acoma regards the NHPA as one of the most effective federal statutes for ensuring that tribal voices and knowledge are incorporated into federal decision-making concerning cultural heritage and sacred landscapes.
* * *
Purpose of Section 106 of the NHPA
Congress's policy, enshrined in the NHPA, is that preservation and modern society should exist "in productive harmony" and that the federal government must provide leadership in preservation./1
Section 106 operationalizes a critical part of that policy by requiring agencies, before funding or permitting an undertaking, to "take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property" and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("ACHP") a reasonable opportunity to comment./2
A historic property that must be considered in this process is one that is listed on (or is eligible for listing on) the National Register of Historic Places ("National Register"). Properties of "traditional religious and cultural importance" to tribes may be determined eligible for the National Register, ensuring that cultural landscapes like Mount Taylor, discussed infra, receive consideration during review./3
* * *
1 54 U.S.C. Sec. 300101(1); see also Sec. 300101(2).
2 54 U.S.C. Sec. 306108; 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.1(a)
* * *
Consultation with Indian Tribes must occur on a government-to-government basis, early and respectfully, consistent with the regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 800./4
The regulations define consultation as "the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement[.]"/5 The goal is to avoid adversely impacting such cultural properties where possible through project alterations, or, if avoidance is not possible, to mitigate adverse effects. In the NHPA, Congress also directed agencies to protect sensitive information from disclosure when necessary to safeguard historic properties of religious and cultural significance./6
Crucially, Section 106 is procedural. It ensures agencies consider effects and consult in good faith; it does not mandate a particular substantive outcome or prohibit development./7
This point bears repeating: consultation is important as it enables an agency to take into account effects but does not dictate a particular result.
* * *
Traditional Cultural Properties and NHPA guidance
The National Park Service's Bulletin 38 explains that a Traditional Cultural Property ("TCP") may be eligible for the National Register because of its association with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in its history and important to maintaining cultural identity./8
The ACHP's Consultation with Indian Tribes Handbook (2021) provides practical guidance for federal staff and THPOs, emphasizing early, respectful, government-to-government consultation, the possibility of consultation protocols, and the special expertise tribes hold regarding places of religious and cultural significance./9
* * *
Importance of Tribal Consultation Under Section 106
Tribal consultation under Section 106 is not an optional courtesy; it is a statutory requirement and a cornerstone of federal preservation policy. Tribes possess unique ethnographic, linguistic, and cultural expertise necessary for determining whether a property is eligible for the National Register as a historic property or TCP of cultural significance. No other entity possesses the requisite knowledge to make these determinations in a manner consistent with the NHPA's requirements.
In practice, based on my experience, many delays or disputes attributed to "tribal consultation" stem from late or incomplete agency initiation of the Section 106 process. Early engagement with tribes during project scoping (prior to route selection, lease issuance, or design finalization) reduces both procedural risk and cost. When tribes are engaged after decisions are effectively made, duplication of studies to account for tribal input as required, litigation, and project redesigns often follow. NHPA is not a "stop-work" statute. Section 106 does not dictate project outcomes; it ensures informed decision-making. The agency retains discretion to proceed after completing consultation and considering avoidance or mitigation, but that discretion must be exercised in light of a developed administrative record demonstrating that tribal input was meaningfully considered.
* * *
3 54 U.S.C. Sec. 302706 (properties of traditional religious and cultural importance may be determined eligible for the National Register); see also National Register guidance (Bulletin 38)
4 36 C.F.R. Part 800; see 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(C) (stating "Consultation with an Indian tribe must recognize the government-to-government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes...[.]").
5 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.16(f) (definition of "consultation").
6 54 U.S.C. Sec. 307103 (withholding sensitive information about historic properties); see also 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.11(c).
7 See generally 54 54 U.S.C. Sec. 306108 (requiring federal agencies to "take into account the effect on any historic property"); see also 36 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 800.5 - 800.6.
8 See National Register guidance (Bulletin 38) (available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf).
9 ACHP, Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook (2021) (available at: https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/ConsultationwithIndianTribesHandbook6-11-21Final.pdf).
* * *
Acoma's Experience and the "Acoma Model"
Acoma has participated in myriads of federal undertakings under Section 106 and through this experience has developed a structured, legally defensible model for tribal consultation. Where employed, the "Acoma Model" has led to outcomes that met the requirements of the NHPA and satisfied the concerns of the Pueblo and project proponents. Two case studies warrant discussion and consideration by the Committee:
Case Study 1: Mount Taylor Traditional Cultural Property./10
When several uranium plans of operation were proposed on Mount Taylor, the Cibola National Forest ("CNF") proactively initiated a determination of eligibility for the Mount Taylor cultural landscape and formally invited extensive tribal participation, including a multi-tribal ethnographic study describing the mountain's significance to the Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, Zuni, the Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation. CNF concluded that the Mount Taylor cultural landscape is eligible for the National Register as a traditional cultural property, primarily under Criteria A and B; with contributing resources that may also meet Criterion D./11
Eligibility ensures consideration under Section 106 but does not, by itself, bar development. The eligibility determination neither pre-decided outcomes for future projects in and around Mount Taylor, nor did it substitute for project-specific identification of historic properties, but it put all applicants on notice that early, government-to-government consultation with tribes would be necessary and productive. This approach improved scoping in future projects such as currently proposed uranium mining projects on or near the Mount Taylor TCP, clarified party expectations, and helped steer proponents toward collaborative survey and design methods that avoid or minimize effects.
Case Study 2: Kinder Morgan Lobos CO2 Pipeline - "the Acoma Model"./12
Using the lessons learned from the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property, Acoma utilized a similar process during a proposed 214-mile CO2 pipeline that would have connected Arizona's St. Johns Field to Kinder Morgan's Cortez line in New Mexico. Fourteen miles of the pipeline would have crossed Acoma trust lands. From the outset, BLM and Kinder Morgan approached Acoma, and the Pueblo insisted that the proponent reimburse the Pueblo's actual costs of participation, including ethnographic fieldwork, in relation to the project on Acoma lands. The project proponent and Acoma executed a monthly cost reimbursement agreement. Acoma then fielded ethnographic assessment teams, comprised of knowledgeable Acoma cultural experts, to work alongside the proponent's archaeologists and engineers to run a simultaneous Class III inventory - an intensive pedestrian field survey meant to locate and record all historic properties, TCP survey, and routing study. While BLM lands, outside of the Pueblo's trust lands, were surveyed within a 300-foot corridor, Acoma directed a wider half-mile study area on Pueblo trust lands to enable real routing flexibility. Within that study area, the parties ultimately delineated a 100-foot construction corridor approved by both Acoma and Kinder Morgan.
* * *
10 See Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property Determination of Eligibility. (Feb. 4, 2008) (available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0904/ML090440287.pdf).
11 These criteria provide in part: "The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or ... (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history." 36 C.F.R. Sec. 60.4.
12 See Ann Berkley Rodgers, Aaron M. Sims & Gregory A. Smith, Defending the National Historic Preservation Act: Part 2, Law360 (Nov. 1, 2017), ) (available at: https://www.law360.com/articles/979317).
* * *
Given Acoma's longstanding confidentiality protocols, all non-federal personnel signed project-specific confidentiality agreements. Within the fourteen-mile Acoma transect, joint field teams identified more than 150 cultural/archaeological properties on Acoma lands, far more than along the rest of the alignment, including 90 TCPs that standard archaeological methods would likely have missed without tribal expertise. Despite the density of sensitive places, the team designated an area of potential effects across Acoma lands that avoided all identified properties. Because consultation was initiated early and in good faith, allowing issues to be solved in the field with the right people at the right time, the on-the-ground routing and cultural resource work concluded in roughly six weeks (including about three weeks in the field for cultural property identification and avoidance). This collaborative approach avoided protracted Section 106 agreement negotiation, Phase II testing (which is done to identify eligible properties), and costly mitigation/data recovery. With BLM participation, there were no certification issues.
Beyond schedule and cost benefits, the "Acoma Model" produced a durable cultural-resource record while honoring Acoma sovereignty and knowledge systems. It also yielded a profound cultural benefit: fieldwork on recently reacquired trust lands corroborated Acoma oral histories about ancestral movements, strengthening intergenerational cultural continuity.
Even though external market factors ultimately halted the project, the "Acoma Model" stands as proof that early, well-funded, government-to-government consultation (which includes pairing tribal experts with agency and proponent teams), and good-faith involvement with project proponents, can identify avoidance routes, narrow the Areas of Potential Effects ("APE") to exclude sensitive places, accelerate review, and reduce litigation risk. In short, meaningful early consultation enables better, faster, and more defensible outcomes that are better for every party to the permitting process.
Under-resourcing of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices is a root cause of delay.
During any given month, Acoma's THPO manages dozens of simultaneous Section 106 requests across four states (New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah) from various federal agencies. Acoma, like many THPOs, receives modest, formula-based awards from the Historic Preservation Fund which must cover staffing, training, travel for field visits, records management, and participation in complex NHPA processes. In FY 2024, an estimated $23 million was appropriated to fund an average near $100,000 per THPO, while the number of recognized THPOs continues to grow and consultation requests increase./13
Unpredictable annual funding and late apportionments make it difficult for THPOs to maintain staff, manage caseloads, and engage consistently in reviews.
* * *
13 See National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, "Statement of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Valerie J. Grussing, PhD, Executive Director Fiscal Year 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee on Appropriations, United States House of Representatives May 8, 2024".
* * *
Predictably, thin funding and staffing forces triage: site visits are delayed, document reviews stack up, and agencies interpret slower response times as "delay." In fact, better resourcing is the fastest way to reduce delay. Direct and increased, multi-year THPO funding that supports professional staff, travel for early site reconnaissance, and development of consultation protocols will yield faster, higher-quality responses and more durable, litigation-resilient decisions.
Since Senator Heinrich pointed out these funding issues in 2023, the number of THPO has increased, but THPO funding has not. Last Congress, Sen. Heinrich introduced the Historic Preservation Enhancement Act (S. 5645) which would require that THPOs receive a minimum of 20 percent of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) funding each year. Currently, THPOs receive about 11 or 12 percent of the HPF funding each year. Congresswoman Leger Fernandez introduced a companion bill H.R. 10553. Acoma would support reintroduction and passage of the legislation.
* * *
Recommendations
1. Reaffirm and strengthen Section 106 implementation.
Congress should reaffirm the core Section 106 tribal consultation framework, require agencies to initiate early consultation at planning inception, encourage use of consultation protocols with tribes as authorized in the regulations, and encourage utilization of existing tools like Programmatic Agreements and Program Comments to increase efficiency and consistency.
2. Invest directly in THPO capacity.
Congress should expand the THPO set-aside in the Historic Preservation Fund, authorize multi-year awards, and direct agencies to budget project-specific support for tribal participation (e.g., applicant-funded, agency-administered support for tribal fieldwork) while preserving tribal independence in consultation. This includes supporting reintroduction and passage of the Historic Preservation Enhancement Act (S. 5645).
3. Safeguard sensitive information.
Congress should reaffirm and, where necessary, clarify agencies' duty to withhold from public disclosure certain location and character information for sacred places to prevent looting or harm while still allowing informed decision-making.
4. Encourage alignment of Section 106 with other decision statutes.
Congress should promote integration of Section 106 with National Environmental Policy Act and relevant project-specific statutes so that real avoidance and minimization alternatives are genuinely considered, not foreclosed by late timing or inflexible authorizing laws.
5. Enhance agency accountability and early consultation.
Congress should recommend increased authority for Offices of Tribal Relations across agencies to ensure archaeologists and other compliance staff meet standards and do not delay project reviews because of internal training or compliance gaps. Hold agencies accountable for early and meaningful consultation and for meeting their statutory and trust responsibilities.
* * *
Conclusion
The Pueblo of Acoma respectfully urges Congress to reaffirm and strengthen the implementation of Section 106 and to invest in the THPO capacity that makes consultation meaningful. When consultation begins early and is adequately resourced, it consistently produces better fieldwork, more thoughtful design, fewer conflicts, and decisions that honor tribal sovereignty and the federal trust responsibility while advancing responsible development. Doing so is crucial for federal agencies to simultaneously meet their legal obligations and protect the places that sustain living cultures.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/CD2E8A30-79C3-4289-9887-8AD6FE24444B
Montana-Dakota Utilities Environmental Compliance Manager McDonald Testifies Before Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by Andy McDonald, environmental compliance manager at Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.,from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act":* * *
I. Introduction
Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the need to improve predictability and certainty in the Section 106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
My ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released the following written testimony by Andy McDonald, environmental compliance manager at Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.,from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act": * * * I. Introduction Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the need to improve predictability and certainty in the Section 106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Myname is Andy McDonald, and I serve as the Environmental Compliance Manager responsible for supporting Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.'s (Montana-Dakota) electric operations. Montana-Dakota is a small investor-owned utility company that generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to more than 145,000 customers across 185 communities and adjacent rural areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. I have worked for Montana-Dakota for ten years, and as part of my responsibilities, I oversee the natural and cultural resource permitting efforts for the Company's electric projects.
Montana-Dakota is also a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents all investor-owned electric companies in the United States, serving more than 250 million customers in 50 states and the District of Columbia. EEI member companies, like Montana-Dakota, work every day to provide reliable energy to their customers at the lowest cost possible.
Across our nation, electric companies are building critically needed new generation, as well as the transmission and distribution infrastructure to deliver energy to customers.
Congress has an opportunity to act on a bipartisan basis to codify common-sense reforms to the federal permitting process to allow electric companies to more efficiently plan for and timely implement new grid investment and deliver reliable energy.
II. Section 106 Reviews Are Unpredictable.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to define and document the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of a proposed project--in other words, the area that must be assessed for impacts to historic resources. The implementing regulations define key terms broadly, and over time these terms have been interpreted inconsistently and sometimes expansively, creating confusion and unnecessary delays.
Montana-Dakota has experienced this issue on recent projects. In the example I'd like to discuss today, Montana-Dakota is rebuilding a three-mile electric distribution line where approximately half of the line crosses federal lands managed by two different federal agencies. The project involves undergrounding lines for wildfire risk mitigation and upgrading aging infrastructure. One agency required the APE to include only the portion of land managed by that agency. However, the other agency required the APE to include the entire three miles, including portions on private land where no federal approval is required. It's important to note that there is an area of cultural significance on federal land in this area that we are working with the agency to find a path around that does not negatively affect those important resources.
We're cognizant of the fact that these resources could extend onto neighboring private lands. Unfortunately, there is a perception among some that if the federal agencies don't have oversight over projects, that industry disregards any and all aspects of environmental concern. My experience over the last ten years paints a brighter picture about our efforts to provide a reliable energy source to our customers, while respecting the environmental and cultural resources that exist across our landscape.
There are plenty of examples across the country of voluntary efforts made by industry to preserve our landscape and resources. In a situation such as the one I have described, utilities still have the ability to use consultants and work with the appropriate state/tribal agencies and private landowners to navigate a path around these areas without negatively impacting historic resources. This approach provides more certainty for industry and our federal counterparts. They know which areas they are responsible for, and we know which areas we are responsible for. This allows projects to be planned and executed in a more timely and economical manner. It will also allow federal employees more time to focus on other management needs within their respective areas.
To be clear, our issue is not with the intent of Section 106 or the federal employees' efforts to interpret and implement it, but rather, the absence of clear, predictable boundaries around what constitutes the relevant APE and what effects must be considered. As my example illuminates, this lack of clarity leads to inconsistent interpretations among agencies, regions, individual staff, consultants, and even utility companies.
In certain cases, environmental conditions and wildlife restrictions leave extremely limited annual windows for construction to be completed, sometimes as little as two months during the year. In order to efficiently plan for rebuilding our existing infrastructure to more modern designs, as well as building new infrastructure to serve the rapidly expanding load growth, clarity is needed in the NHPA.
III. Clarifying The NHPA.
Congress has an opportunity to enhance predictability and certainty to the Section 106 review process for all parties involved. Specifically for linear projects, clarifying that agencies shall review the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. And that agencies may only consider effects that share a reasonably close causal relationship to, and are proximately caused by, the undertaking. Effects that are speculative, attenuated from the undertaking, separate in time or place from the undertaking, or in relation to separate existing or potential future undertakings shall not be reviewed. Lastly, clarifying that where the geographic area or areas of an undertaking includes multiple agency jurisdictions, agencies must work together to apply consistent standards with regard to reviewing potential alterations in the character or use of historic properties. This preserves the spirit of the NHPA while restoring predictability and adding certainty to the Section 106 process.
IV. Conclusion
Consistent and predictable Section 106 reviews are essential to ensuring that electric companies can continue to meet demand growth and provide reliable energy at the lowest cost possible. Making these reasonable clarifications within NHPA would not weaken historic preservation, but rather, provide more certainty and predictability to the Section 106 review process.
On behalf of Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. and EEI, I appreciate the Committee's attention to this critical issue and support Congress making changes to the NHPA to achieve a more efficient, consistent, predictable, and effective Section 106 process.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/F5C0E64C-D6E1-4419-A905-D515859ECE6C
Huntsman CEO Testifies Before Senate Environment & Public Works Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following written testimony by Peter R. Huntsman, chairman, president and CEO of Huntsman Corp., from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals":* * *
Why I Am Here Today
Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on appropriate regulation of the American chemical industry to support innovation and ensure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following written testimony by Peter R. Huntsman, chairman, president and CEO of Huntsman Corp., from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals": * * * Why I Am Here Today Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on appropriate regulation of the American chemical industry to support innovation and ensureAmerican prosperity. It is an honor. I take very seriously the First Amendment right to engage directly with elected officials and policymakers of both parties to educate and inform them about how Huntsman Corporation and American chemical manufacturers manage risk, make capital investment decisions, support our employees, and deliver the products that make modern life possible.
The primary reason I am here today is to share my observations on policy, political, business, and cultural forces that will shape the future of the American chemical sector - and with it America's entire economy. If there is one conclusion I want Members of the Committee to come away with from my testimony, it is this:
American prosperity, security and power are entirely dependent on a strong, thriving and properly regulated chemical sector. Without it, modern life is not possible. That is not hyperbole. It is physical, immutable reality.
* * *
The Huntsman Story
Through the vision and tenacity of my father, Jon Huntsman, Sr. and with the support of tens of thousands of employees over a half century, Huntsman Corporation today is a New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) traded company headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, with 2024 revenues of $6 billion, 6,000 employees and operations in nearly 25 countries. My father's life began in 1937 in a Blackfoot, Idaho home with no running water. By the end of his life in 2018, he had donated nearly $1 billion dollars to endow the Huntsman Cancer Institute (HCI) at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Today, HCI is the leading cancer hospital in the Mountain West Region and has saved tens of thousands of lives through world leading cancer treatment.
It was a story that can only happen in America.
After dropping out of college, I started my career in 1983 as a truck driver delivering oil across the Intermountain West. In 2000, I became President and CEO and Chairman in 2017. As our company grew from a small California packaging company into a multinational chemical company, I have witnessed boom and bust business cycles, mergers and acquisitions, multiple iterations of "peak oil," the collapse of the Soviet Union, unification of Europe, 2
the rise of China, the creation of the Internet and the transformational impact of hydraulic fracturing, among others. I have also observed the policy and regulatory environment around the chemical sector ebb and flow across Democrat and Republican Administrations and Congresses. Our company and the chemical industry have played a role in all of it.
* * *
Chemical Manufacturing, and Innovation
I want to provide a basic primer on what chemical companies do because chemicals are the building blocks for all American manufacturing. In the most basic form, we take atoms and molecules, break them apart and then put them back together to make the building blocks of virtually everything you see and touch in modern life. Automobiles, airplanes, solar panels, wind blades, smartphones, computers, televisions, residential and commercial buildings, pharmaceuticals, missiles, fighter planes, clothing, soap, shampoo, shoes, clean drinking water and crop fertilizer are all "modern miracles" made possible by chemical manufacturing.
The most utilized starting atoms, or "feedstocks," for chemical manufacturing are hydrocarbons derived from petroleum, natural gas, natural gas liquids and coal, otherwise known as fossil fuels. Without abundant access to these feedstocks, nobody can manufacture chemicals. Without chemicals, virtually all U.S. manufacturing would cease.
The scientists and engineers in the American chemical sector go to work in laboratories across the country and aim to improve existing molecules and develop new ones. When commercially viable, laboratory innovation moves to manufacturing plants and into the marketplace. While abstract to the average person, that molecular innovation ultimately manifests itself in lighter airplanes and cars, longer lasting clothes, stronger building materials, clean drinking water, new medicines and cancer treatments and larger crop yields. Human lives are enriched and lengthened through chemical sector innovation.
* * *
How Things Are Made
I am increasingly concerned that many government and business leaders lack an understanding of how "things" are made. In the post-Cold War era of globalization, the United States underwent a low-level form of deindustrialization as the appeal of cheap labor and growth markets in Asia pushed supply chains out of North America. Two examples of this can be seen in the fate of the Pennsylvania steel industry and textiles in North Carolina in the 1990s and 2000s, and there have been countless others. Wall Street became the highest paying sector. It was then followed by Silicon Valley and the tech boom. Quite simply, "making things" went out of vogue because it was done "out of sight and out of mind." Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, I believe the post-Cold War manufacturing exodus led many policymakers and business leaders to simply forget how things are manufactured at the most basic molecular level or, as we say in the chemical industry, "upstream." This trend is best encapsulated by Apple's famous "Designed in California Assembled in China" label on their products. To most people, the iPhone is a supercomputer we use every few seconds connecting us to the entire world. As a chemical industry leader, I see a device consisting of minerals and elements extracted from the Earth and refined thousands of times over into chemicals, plastic, glass, and materials brought to market via one of the most sophisticated supply chains ever developed. The same is true of millions of other products we use in our daily lives.
* * *
Essential to The American Way of Life
One of the biggest threats to American power, security and prosperity is the belief that we can choose not to extract our natural resources and convert them into the materials that enable our citizenry to thrive. Since the beginning of recorded history to the modern-day international system, human beings and nation states have used natural resources to survive, prosper, trade and project power. This has been an invariable part of human nature and will always be so.
In the current policy, political and business arenas, opposition to natural resource extraction manifests itself in the idea that American society - and the world - can somehow "transition" away from fossil fuels and their derivative materials, including chemicals, and somehow maintain our way of life. Until the advent of new technology or a massive expansion of nuclear power, this is simply untrue and not physically possible. To believe so is both naive and dangerous. Serious countries and people understand this reality.
Until relatively recently, the notion that we could eliminate fossil fuels while still sustaining modern society was mostly a fringe idea and dismissed by serious leaders in government and industry Over the last two decades, as seemingly well-intentioned policy proposals developed to attempt to manage an ever-changing climate, anti-fossil fuel extraction policy has become normalized in Europe and, more recently, in the United States. Many governments have organized themselves around stopping natural resource extraction in the name of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to "net zero." In the business community, many companies have made "commitments" that may (or may not) come to reality in less than three decades.
* * *
European Deindustrialization
The most notable example of the danger of "net zero" government policy is Germany. Through a series of government decisions over two decades and exacerbated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Germany has chosen to embark on a once-in-a-century deindustrialization that will have enormous global impacts, including in the United States.
Just a few years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the birthplace of the chemical industry could be deindustrializing. Yet here we are, waiting to see whether one of the most advanced economies and societies in modern history will be able to provide cheap, reliable, and abundant heat and electricity to power its economy. I encourage all U.S. elected officials to study deeply the policy decisions Germany made as it presents a real-life example of how not to organize electricity, manufacturing, natural resource, energy, and industrial policy.
* * *
The Chemical Sector Improves Lives and Lowers Emissions
If the goal of government and business is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions across society, U.S. government policy and regulation should be calibrated to increase natural resource extraction and chemical manufacturing more efficiently and productively. It is the chemical sector that develops the molecules and the innovations that allow individuals and society collectively to lower their emissions. This is evident in almost every sector across the economy. In the aerospace sector, fossil fuel-derived carbon composite airplanes fly longer distances using less fuel than their aluminum predecessors. Automobiles are constructed using carbon fiber material versus steel in years past. Modern homes include insulation materials that create a building envelope, securing the valuable hot and cold air inside the home. The world population recently reached 8 billion people and, for the most part, everyone has access to food. The mass starvation that we witnessed as recently as the mid-1980's in sub-Saharan Africa is virtually obsolete. This is a new phenomenon in human history and has been made possible only by chemical fertilizer and cold chain storage. Simply stated, a vibrant chemical industry means it is within our ability to lower emissions, grow the economy, and improve lives.
* * *
The Chemical Industry Welcomes Strong, Predictable and Risk Based Regulation
The United States has the strongest most effective environmental laws governing clean air and water in the world. It was not always that way and our industry has made mistakes. However, when you compare the environment in the developed world today to even 1980, the progress is staggering. The water in the Potomac River, the air in Los Angeles and our rivers and streams are all cleaner. This is due to the combination of strong government regulation, corporations being held legally accountable for wrongdoing and because wealthy nations have the financial resources to prioritize the environment. The more prosperous a society becomes, the better it can manage the environment.
Every single day the chemical sector manufactures, handles, stores, transports and sells hazardous materials across the world. To deliver the products that make modern life possible does incur risk. We spend billions of dollars on environmental, health and safety of our employees and in the communities where we operate. Safety is a deeply ingrained value and our license to operate. In my 40 years in the industry, I can state unequivocally that we have greatly improved our safety record. Our safety record demonstrates we constantly strive to learn and improve as a company and industry.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can effectively protect human health and the environment while supporting American innovation and strengthening the American economy. This was the intent of Congress when it passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It is essential that regulations under TSCA be science-based and risk-based. This requires a balance of hazards and real-world exposure scenarios. EPA must use the most relevant current science information, adhere to scientific standards, and consider safety protocols that are already in place.
We have seen what happens when EPA deviates from this approach. EPA's reviews of new chemicals are taking far longer than the 90-day timeframe required in the law, thereby creating uncertainty in the marketplace. Without a clear understanding of how long it will take to bring a new chemical to market, companies will either not innovate or introduce the product outside of America. This is a clear barrier to innovation.
Likewise, TSCA evaluations of existing chemicals have taken an overly conservative approach, not based on real world risks. This has led to unnecessary bans and highly restrictive regulations that are well outside the range of the rest of the world. This approach risks the availability of critical chemistries that are needed to power our economy and keep America safe.
To demonstrate the effect of unpredictable regulation, I would use the example of Huntsman's aerospace adhesives business. We have decades of experience in developing and marketing high performance adhesives which are widely used in aircraft interiors and structures, both civil and military. In recent years, many of these regulatory changes have stemmed from overstated or overly conservative risk assessments, driving repeated reclassifications that force unnecessary reformulation and retesting. Today, we spend as much time reformulating existing products as developing new ones, due to constant changes in chemical classifications. When products are reformulated, they often then need to undergo rigorous, costly testing by our aerospace customers to ensure their performance on aircraft. This process often takes longer to complete than the time window available to implement chemical classification changes. In some cases, where the regulatory burden is too high, products can be withdrawn, leaving a gap in the market and no obvious replacements. The constant need to address regulatory changes reduces the time and investment available for innovation and creates significant uncertainties for aerospace companies whose aircraft production lifecycles last decades.
For example, a UV absorber is an additive that protects aircraft parts from damage caused by UV and sunlight. This product was recently placed on Annex A of the Stockholm Convention. As a result, European regulators have effectively banned its use by 2030. In the U.S., the absorber is not currently regulated because we have not ratified the Convention. However, since both the chemical and aerospace industries operate globally, we must eliminate its use worldwide and undertake costly reformulation and testing to meet aerospace requirements. A downstream impact of this regulation is that the recycling industry no longer accepts end-of-life aircraft parts that may contain this additive, as they cannot verify whether concentrations are below one part per million. As a result, these parts are not being recycled and are instead accumulating in the environment -- adding unnecessary complexity, cost, and creating unintended consequences for the industry's efforts toward circularity.
Congress has the opportunity between now and next year to fix these problems and provide durability through a provision built into the Lautenberg Amendments to review the law after 10 years. There is bipartisan recognition on this Committee that the EPA has done a poor job getting new, safe, environmentally sound chemistries into commerce. Congress can review the Lautenberg Amendments in targeted provisions to ensure EPA is meeting its statutory deadlines by approving new chemistries for their intended purposes or "conditions of use" in the language of the statute. Congress can ensure existing chemical regulations are based on risk and actual exposure rather than theoretical assumptions.
Such a policy solution won't see-saw depending on who is in office. This type of certainty will not only help manufacturers make investment decisions but will benefit the general public by encouraging innovation that will bring safer and more sustainable chemicals to the market.
* * *
Looking Ahead
I am highly optimistic about the future. The United States, with its combination of freedom, capitalism, scientific inquiry, deep capital markets, legal protection, and entrepreneurial spirit, possesses the power to solve humanity's problems. As the geopolitical tides churn and countries reassess their priorities in a more dangerous world, regionalized supply chains will take precedence.
Government policy around natural resources, self-sufficiency and manufacturing have returned to the forefront of policymaking. Industrial policy, regulatory decisions and capital expenditures made today by government and business leaders will impact America and the world for generations to come. We don't need to look far to see the damaging impact of bad public policy around natural resources, energy, electricity, chemicals, and material innovation.
History shows that such policy decisions determine the fate of nations and societies.
I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/5/f53fd4f1-cda6-40f1-962a-0697f719ed67/48C7B24F997C1AF82ADB757BDD5D79C7294661792CC8F1B7E0FD96E11B17D788.10-23-2025-huntsman-testimony.pdf
Boeing Senior Technical Fellow Gross Testifies Before Senate Environment & Public Works Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following written testimony by Gwen Gross, senior technical fellow at Boeing, from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals":* * *
Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I am Dr. Gwen Gross, a Senior Technical Fellow at Boeing for Composites ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 -- The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight released the following written testimony by Gwen Gross, senior technical fellow at Boeing, from an Oct. 23, 2025, hearing entitled "Examining the Beneficial Use and Regulation of Chemicals": * * * Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, Chairman Curtis, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Dr. Gwen Gross, a Senior Technical Fellow at Boeing for Compositesand Chemical Technology. Prior to joining Boeing, I completed my doctoral studies at the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry at the University of Washington.
I serve as a chief chemist within Boeing's advanced research and development organization. I am an expert in formulation and production of aerospace critical organic materials. I have worked the complete lifecycle of materials integration from idea to implementation, and as an intermediary between Boeing and our suppliers.
Boeing proudly develops, manufactures, and services commercial airplanes, defense products, and space systems. As the largest manufacturing exporter in America, Boeing supports more than a million American jobs, contributes $97 billion annually to the U.S. economy, and partners with nearly 10,000 businesses across all 50 states. Approximately eighty percent of Boeing's supply chain spending and eighty-five percent of its workforce are based in the United States, while approximately eighty percent of our commercial aircraft production is exported to international customers.
Safety and quality are at the core of everything we do. Boeing is committed to complying with environmental laws and regulations and continually improving our environmental, health, and safety systems, while also creating economic opportunities and driving industry innovation.
Boeing is a downstream user of chemicals. We do not manufacture the chemical formulations that we use. Instead, as we develop new, innovative aerospace products and services, we rely on our chemical suppliers to develop and bring forward new chemical technologies that may meet our stringent performance requirements. Those suppliers are responsible for obtaining Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) approvals for new chemicals or new chemical uses, and any delays they experience in obtaining those approvals, delay the aerospace innovations that Boeing is working every day to advance Once promising candidate chemical products are offered, we thoroughly evaluate them to ensure they will meet our performance requirements, as well as those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and military specifications, and can be safely incorporated into our manufacturing processes and product design. Boeing uses chemical materials in a variety of ways in its products, including composites, sealants, adhesives, and specialty coatings.
The aerospace industry faces unique challenges when it comes to chemical material use and replacement due to complex FAA certification requirements and military specifications that govern our products and services. The FAA's rigorous and lengthy certification process is integral to aviation safety. This process includes consideration of the performance of the chemicals used in a commercial aircraft's design, including its component parts.
Let me provide an example of what this means for the chemical materials used in commercial airplanes. Appropriately, Boeing must demonstrate that materials are both suitable for the application they are being used in and that they are also durable, including under the environmental conditions where they will be used. In practice, that means polymeric materials, like the carbon fiber composite materials used for wings, that sit in the hot sun on the runway in Phoenix, Arizona in July, must be capable of equal performance at 30,000 feet in sub-freezing temperatures. And it must be able to go through that cycle under such variable conditions multiple times a day for potentially decades.
Finding a replacement for a chemical used in the formulation of such a resilient composite system can be a challenging and lengthy process that includes identification, testing, and qualification of alternative formulations developed by our suppliers. Even when this is complete, Boeing must then comply with necessary FAA regulations for drawing changes, first part qualifications, part certification testing, and performance metrics before that new composite formulation can be incorporated into an airplane that will be delivered to an airline. All of this is incredibly time consuming. For example, I began working on a new candidate for a next generation carbon fiber composite material when my daughter was two years old. Boeing is just now finishing the qualification on that material and my daughter is now eighteen.
As a result, if regulatory changes impacting chemical material use and replacement or changes in the chemical marketplace happen too fast, aerospace companies may not have sufficient time to find viable replacements and to demonstrate that they satisfy all of our regulatory and contractual requirements. It is important that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical management framework take into account this complex and lengthy process, which includes FAA requirements that are integral to aviation safety.
Aerospace manufacturers are also impacted by delays in new chemical reviews and restrictions on new chemicals. A recent example is the replacement of fire suppression chemicals used onboard aircraft. Fire suppression is critical to safety of flight, and Boeing has devoted considerable time and resources to developing alternatives to the industry standard agent, halon. Halon is an ozone depleting substance that remains in wide use in the industry due to its unique performance attributes that have proven difficult to replicate. In low concentrations, halon is very effective at extinguishing a variety of fire types, including liquids and electronics. In addition, it is acceptable for use in occupied spaces, and safe to use on sensitive aerospace equipment.
Boeing worked closely for over 20 years with our suppliers to develop the halon replacement 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propene (2-BTP) for use as a fire extinguishing agent for use onboard aircraft. As a new chemical, 2-BTP received EPA approvals under TSCA as well as its Significant New Alternatives Policy Program as a replacement for an ozone depleting substance.
Approximately eight years ago, the FAA certified it for handheld extinguisher use in aircraft cabins and the flight deck where it is deployed globally today. However, the approvals limited its use in other aircraft applications, such as in cargo holds. Notwithstanding the findings that this halon replacement compound was found to be acceptable for use around passengers and crew, it is still not yet approved for cargo.
Boeing has also experienced challenges when evaluating new chemicals under the TSCA exemption for research and development (R&D). Boeing supports that exemption because it allows Boeing to evaluate novel chemical materials early in their development cycle to determine suitability for new aircraft applications needed for our future aircraft. However, reliance on the R&D exemption introduces regulatory uncertainty into Boeing's technology development process, which operates on a multi-year timeline to ensure that once mature, a new chemical technology will meet both performance and certification requirements.
If there is uncertainty whether an R&D chemical will be approved by EPA in time to meet internal milestones for certification of a future aircraft, then our researchers may choose to exclude that candidate chemical early in the development process and choose one that is already approved by EPA. This reduces risk to the certification schedule for our future aircraft, but at the cost of potentially significant improvements to that aircraft model's performance. The impact of these decisions can be far reaching.
For example, not utilizing a new R&D epoxy resin for a composite material could result in an alternative material being selected at the cost of additional weight being added to the aircraft's certified design. Over the decades long lifetime of that airplane, even small weight increases can result in significant increases in fuel consumption, emissions, and operating costs for our customers. As a result, the uncertainty in the timing of EPA authorizing R&D chemicals for full scale production has long-term consequences. Boeing would welcome regulatory changes to give aircraft manufacturers more certainty early in our development process that R&D exempt chemicals will obtain timely EPA decisions for use in aerospace production.
In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you about how the current regulatory environment for chemicals impacts the aerospace industry. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/b/7b0613f7-70e6-486f-84a8-f765bf41e676/D5DCA02C13039A0782535D628023C77C9C5CAB13DF8EE629E39C74A3A1D8492E.10-23-2025-gross-testimony.pdf
America First Policy Institute Executive VP Wolf Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Chad F. Wolf, executive vice president, chief strategy officer and chair of the Homeland Security and Immigration Center at the America First Policy Institute, from an Oct. 28, 2025, hearing entitled "Politically Violent Attacks: A Threat to Our Constitutional Order":* * *
Thank you, Chairman Schmitt and Ranking Member Welch, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today.
On September 4, 2020, violent opportunists and anarchists had done the unthinkable - reaching 100 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution released the following testimony by Chad F. Wolf, executive vice president, chief strategy officer and chair of the Homeland Security and Immigration Center at the America First Policy Institute, from an Oct. 28, 2025, hearing entitled "Politically Violent Attacks: A Threat to Our Constitutional Order": * * * Thank you, Chairman Schmitt and Ranking Member Welch, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today. On September 4, 2020, violent opportunists and anarchists had done the unthinkable - reaching 100consecutive nights of violent protests in Portland, Oregon. These protests were defined by repeated violent attacks on federal law enforcement, civilians, journalists, and federal property. Night after night, hundreds of people would surround the Hatfield Federal Courthouse with the intention of vandalizing and setting fire to it. When law enforcement responded, officers would be assaulted with mortar-style commercial grade fireworks, accelerants, IEDs, sledgehammers, concrete, and slingshots.
At that time, I pleaded with local elected officials - including the Governor and mayor of Portland - to support DHS officers to ensure their safety. Time and again, they refused. They chose politics over public safety, and the results were devastating. Over 280 injuries to law enforcement officers and millions of dollars in damages to the federal courthouse, local private property and businesses.
Back then, nationally elected officials and media personalities smeared law enforcement officers. They called law enforcement professionals "stormtroopers," the "Gestapo" and "thugs." They were comparing our law enforcement to America's historical adversaries.
Unfortunately, I see this pattern and rhetoric repeating itself today - but exacerbated. Similar violence toward law enforcement and similar and irresponsible rhetoric from those on the left describing law enforcement as Nazis. The difference between 2020 and now, however, is that President Trump and his administration know what to expect and are fighting aggressively to hold those who are committing violent attacks accountable.
I strongly support those who lawfully exercise their Constitutional rights, including our First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. But we need to draw a clear line in the sand and protect our communities and our institutions by holding criminals accountable for their actions.
Today, we see radical, violent groups - like Antifa - who are organized and well-funded. They plan, they execute, and they purposefully operate in undetectable corners of the internet.
Those who oppose cracking down on violent anarchists often argue that President Trump was wrong to designate them as domestic terrorists because they lack formal structure, leadership, or governance.
This criticism completely misses the point. Their lack of formal structure is a feature - not a bug. They operate this way precisely to evade law enforcement and accountability, and they are proving to be effective with this strategy. This decentralized model is not novel -- it mirrors tactics used by other modern extremist or criminal networks.
Whether or not an individual self-identifies as "antifa" is not the only data point. Much like ISIS-inspired attacks in America, these activists do largely share a cohesive ideology that expressly advocates violence to achieve political or social ends. That squarely fits the federal statutory definition of domestic terrorism. Jihadists, cybercriminals, and other criminal networks also lack formal leadership structure but nonetheless are targeted by law enforcement.
But don't take my word for it. Let the activists speak for themselves.
Just last weekend, protestors called for ICE agents to be "shot" and "wiped out". Another protestor said he'd kill a high-ranking government official if given the chance. Over the Summer of 2025, there have been numerous antifascist-inspired attacks on law enforcement, journalists, and citizens - most tragically with the sickening and heartbreaking assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The bullet casing left behind by Charlie's killer echoed the violent rhetoric we often hear at these protests and riots - rhetoric that targets law enforcement, in particular immigration enforcement officials.
Additionally, recent polling has revealed a concerning trend of radicalization - especially amongst younger and liberal Americans - to justify political violence. According to a 2025 Rutgers University poll, a majority of left of center Americans stated it would be at least somewhat justified to murder President Trump or Elon Musk. Nearly 60% of those same Americans believed destroying a Tesla dealership in protest would be at least somewhat justified. A 2025 YouGov poll found that - amongst those who consider themselves "very liberal" - 25% (one in four) believe that violence can be justified to achieve a political goal. That represents five times the number of very conservative Americans when asked the same question.
The evidence is clear: young, liberal Americans are increasingly justifying, and partaking in, violence to achieve political goals. And those beliefs are what we're witnessing play out in real time on the streets of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Portland, and other cities across the country.
Let me state this as clearly as I can: the lawful enforcement of immigration policies passed by the U.S. Congress nearly 60 years ago is no way, shape, or form fascist. If it were, then every single country on earth - no matter the political leadership - would be considered fascist by their definition. Terms like "fascism" are thrown around with reckless abandon, and the number of victims is increasing by the day. The increasingly violent nature of this rhetoric is contributing to the threat environment for journalists, commuters, state, local, and federal law enforcement officers, and it must stop - especially when we're talking about elected officials.
My colleagues and I at the America First Policy Institute have spent years advocating for freedom of speech, and against government-sponsored censorship. But what we are seeing play out day after day is not a form of peaceful protest. Destroying property and violently targeting those who they disagree with is not peaceful protest. Harassing, doxxing, or threatening law enforcement is not peaceful protest. Attacking journalists is not peaceful protest. These actions are the antithesis of freedom of speech. Violence, of any kind and perpetrated by any ideology, can never be equated to lawful protest. Our country's dedication to enshrining freedom of speech into our Constitution is designed to avoid violence - not encourage it.
To address a public safety threat, it's critical to admit that it's a threat in the first place. I implore lawmakers to read the data. Federal immigration and border security law enforcement is facing a 1000% increase in threats, harassment, and doxxing. We owe it to them - and their families - to face these active threats with the seriousness they deserve.
The rise in radical political violence our Nation has experienced in recent years is an undeniable threat to law and order and presents a uniquely challenging issue for law enforcement to face. Thankfully, the Trump Administration, along with members of Congress, are acting swiftly. At the America First Policy Institute, we proudly support many of these policies - but the work has only just begun.
We must continue to give federal law enforcement the resources they need to do their job effectively. We must allow ICE to do their job; as well as enter local jails, courthouses, and other facilities which provide safer environments for the officers and the migrants. We must oppose any legislative attempt to undermine the privacy and safety of federal law enforcement. We must robustly prosecute and increase criminal penalties for assaulting, harassing, or doxxing federal law enforcement. We must leverage joint taskforces and interdepartmental working groups to share intelligence and conduct operations. We must continue investigating and targeting groups that conduct these protests. The DOJ and FBI should use prosecutorial options - such as sentencing enhancements. We must protect courageous journalists who are doing the work that the mainstream media won't do in covering these protests. But perhaps most importantly, elected officials must be honest with the American people about public safety threats.
It is a core responsibility of governmental bodies to protect our sworn officers, journalists, and all Americans from any form of political violence that is showing no signs of slowing down. We owe it to fathers and mothers, we owe it to Erika Kirk, and we owe it to every family who has lost a loved one to political violence, to ensure that their calls for accountability and action are finally answered.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/4a3850cc-9186-4271-fe98-9caebcd5b632/2025-10-28-PM_Testimony_Wolf.pdf
Alaska Federation of Natives President Mallott Testifies Before Senate Indian Affairs Committee
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- The Senate Indian Affairs Committee released the following written testimony by Alaska Federation of Natives President Ben Mallott from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Impacts of Government Shutdowns and Agency Reductions in Force on Native Communities":* * *
I. Introduction
Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today regarding the impacts of the ongoing federal government shutdown and agency reductions in force on our Alaska Native communities. I would like to offer a special thank you ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- The Senate Indian Affairs Committee released the following written testimony by Alaska Federation of Natives President Ben Mallott from an Oct. 29, 2025, hearing entitled "Impacts of Government Shutdowns and Agency Reductions in Force on Native Communities": * * * I. Introduction Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today regarding the impacts of the ongoing federal government shutdown and agency reductions in force on our Alaska Native communities. I would like to offer a special thank youto Senator Murkowski for her leadership in advocating for Alaska and for the Alaska Native people.
My name is Ben Mallott, and I serve as the President of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). AFN is the largest statewide Alaska Native organization. Our membership includes over 140,000 Alaska Natives and their institutions set up to serve our people. AFN's membership includes federally recognized tribes, regional tribal consortiums, regional non-profit organizations, and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village and regional corporations.
Many of our tribal organizations have worked hard to position themselves to weather the impacts of a shutdown. Alaska Native entities receiving federal assistance engage in best practices to prepare for and utilize all available funding prior to a lapse in federal appropriations to keep our programs stable and our operations uninterrupted to the greatest extent possible during a shutdown. But when a shutdown drags on for a prolonged period, there is little we can do to keep the impacts to our organizations and communities at bay. Tomorrow we will hit the critical 30-day mark of the shutdown, and our organizations will be facing difficult realities and decisions about the ability to carry out certain programs and whether tribal staff must be laid off. A prolonged shutdown places many Alaska Native entities and communities in a difficult and potentially life-threatening position. So please keep in mind that the impacts I raise today will continue to grow until the shutdown ends.
II. Impacts of the Federal Government Shutdown and RIFs
a. Disaster Recovery for Western Alaska
I would be remiss if I did not start my remarks by acknowledging that our communities in Western Alaska's Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta are still reeling from the devastating impacts of Typhoon Halong, which struck our state on October 12. Disaster recovery in this region is unlike other regions in our country. These communities are remote with no access to roads and are hundreds of miles from cities to where these residents must evacuate. Both short and long-term recovery efforts are complex, and reliable communication with federal agencies assisting in disaster recovery like FEMA is essential. While the federal government is working on immediate response to Typhoon Halong, the shutdown creates further complications and uncertainties for our communities in the region devasted by the Typhoon. Many of the people forced to evacuate the region now face a lengthy recovery process that will require substantial engagement with the federal government. Any delay or confusion caused by the shutdown adds a tremendous burden to our already hurting people in the region. Relief efforts are being supported by federal employees working without pay. We appreciate these workers' vital contributions, and we want to see them be paid for their work, including back pay for their unpaid work these past few weeks.
* * *
Threats to Food and Heat Availability and Assistance
We are deeply concerned about the impacts of the shutdown and its implications for food availability and assistance in Alaska. From the Federal Subsistence Board to SNAP benefits, the shutdown is threatening the availability of food in our Alaska Native communities. This is compounded by the fact that winter is upon us in Alaska. As temperatures approach 0 degrees up north, a gallon of milk is $13. Our people are about to be in the very real situation of having to pick between food and heat.
Our people rely heavily on subsistence to feed our families and to fill freezers to get through the long, dark winters. Subsistence activities on federal lands are managed through the Interior Department's Federal Subsistence Board, which has canceled its Regional Advisory Committee meetings across the state in October. These meetings are critically important for governance of the subsistence system our rural Alaska Native communities depend on to survive.
SNAP benefits expire on Friday, and it will have a devastating impact in Alaska. SNAP serves approximately 66,000 Alaskans, including thousands of Alaska Native peoples who live in remote or economically disadvantaged regions. The State of Alaska has confirmed that due to the federal shutdown, November benefits will not be issued to SNAP recipients, removing a critical food security lifeline for families and individuals. The loss of SNAP benefits will deepen food insecurity and threaten the well-being of Alaska Native elders, children, and families. Further, the lack of SNAP benefits will overwhelm informal food assistance programs or organizations, such as food banks, in communities where they exist, to say nothing of the impacts for communities where they do not exist.
The shutdown will also pose a threat to vulnerable households across the state that rely on federal assistance for heating their homes, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). New funding for the LIHEAP program will be unavailable during the shutdown, undermining a critical support system for Alaska Native families and elders during harsh winter conditions. At least one Alaska Native housing authority had to tell their community members that while they will take new LIHEAP applications during the shutdown, payments are on hold until the shutdown ends.
A continued shutdown will force too many Alaska Native families, elders, and people to choose between basic human needs such as food or home heating during the winter months.
b. Lack of Consultation
Lack of federal employees carrying out federal agency actions and responsibilities compromises the government's legal requirements to engage in meaningful consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. Internal agency training and education is an essential part of building the right agency talent and capacity to engage in meaningful consultation, especially in Alaska, where additional training is required to educate agency professionals about the unique status of Native land and the unique and diverse systems of Native governance in Alaska. It often takes years for the right relationships to be built. Simply put, reductions in workforce at both the regional and headquarters levels compromise the ability of federal agencies to meet their consultation obligations.
And during a shutdown--especially one as long as the current lapse in appropriations--there is essentially no path for our communities to engage in real discussions with agency personnel making key decisions affecting our livelihoods. For example, as mentioned above, the Federal Subsistence Board is canceling or delaying its Regional Advisory Committee meetings across the state in October, which are critically important for governance of the subsistence system our rural Alaska Native communities depend on to survive.
c. Impacts to Health Care
While other witnesses today will speak more on the impacts of the shutdown on Tribal health, I want to share with you concerns raised by Alaska Native health care providers.
We deeply appreciate Congress providing the Indian Health Service (IHS) advance appropriations. This has been very helpful to insulate IHS programs from the government shutdown. However, there are a number of Tribal health programs and services that are not included in the advance appropriations that are being affected. While Tribes have been paid health services and other related funding, they have not been paid contract support costs, 105(l) lease payments, or certain other facility services that are needed to support health operations. Contract support costs help fund the administrative and overhead costs associated with carrying out health services. The 105(l) lease payments help to fund maintenance and improvement activities for health facilities. These types of payments are not being processed during the shutdown under a lapse in appropriations.
The shutdown also impacts other aspects of Tribal health. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Tribal Technical Advisory Group (CMS TTAG) may have to cancel its upcoming meeting if the shutdown is still in effect. The TTAG is an important advisory body to the CMS Administrator providing expertise on CMS policies, guidelines, and programmatic issues affecting IHS and Tribal health programs. Medicaid is one of these extremely important programs, which provides from 40-60 percent of funding for IHS and Tribal programs. This upcoming meeting is very important for the TTAG since they are working with CMS to develop operational guidance and recommendations to implement several Tribal provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
III. Conclusion
Thank you again for inviting me to speak today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have about our Alaska Native communities and the shutdown impacts discussed here today.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.indian.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/1.29.2025-Testimony-Mallott.pdf