Take it a capitol hill for the interior secretary will be testifying before the Natural Resources committee. You are watching live coverage on cspan 3. The committee will come to order. This morning the committee will discuss the president s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget for the department of interior. I would like to welcome secretary holland haaland and Denise Flanagan back to the committee. I want to thank you all three for joining us today. To set the scene the administration is requesting a 2 million for 2025. That is a 5 increase over fiscal year 2024. I think it is important to note for contexts that congress has also provided the Department Almost 50 billion in appropriations over the last three years to the bipartisan infrastructure law an Inflation Reduction Act. I look forward to discussing how the department is implementing those laws using the historic funding and justifications for the increase. It has been a year to the day since you were last before the committee for
Interior secretary will be testifying before the Natural Resources committee. You are watching live coverage on cspan 3. The committee will come to order. This morning the committee will discuss the president s proposed fiscal year 2025 budget for the department of interior. I would like to welcome secretary holland haaland and Denise Flanagan back to the committee. I want to thank you all three for joining us today. To set the scene the administration is requesting a 2 million for 2025. That is a 5 increase over fiscal year 2024. I think it is important to note for contexts that congress has also provided the Department Almost 50 billion in appropriations over the last three years to the bipartisan infrastructure law an Inflation Reduction Act. I look forward to discussing how the department is implementing those laws using the historic funding and justifications for the increase. It has been a year to the day since you were last before the committee for the fiscal year 2024 budget he
Changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor that congress didnt want them
Decreasing the number of ineligible ones, and this congressional compromise is evident in the statutes conflicting mandates. Evident in the mandates. It requires states to undertake programs to remove ineligible individuals but place limits on those federally mandated removal programs, including the states not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our
Not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor