Heinrich Pushes for ENR Committee to Protect Public Lands in Markup, Fact-Checks Record on Trump Admin Actions that Remove Protections for Chaco Canyon

WASHINGTON — During a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee business meeting to consider pending legislation, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, criticized legislation that removes protections for public lands, emphasizing the need for bipartisan collaboration within the Committee. Heinrich additionally fact-checked Trump administration actions that undo protections for the Chaco Canyon Cultural Protection Zone.

“Unfortunately, this is yet another markup in this Committee where we are not conserving a single additional acre of public land for the American people,” Heinrich began.

VIDEO: U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivers opening remarks during a Committee hearing to consider pending legislation, July 29, 2026. 

“Sometimes national park boundaries need to change, and it is this Committee’s job to decide when that is a good idea. But that work cannot be one-sided—only advancing bills that remove protections, and not those that add them,” Heinrich continued.

During the markup, Heinrich corrected the record regarding the 20-year mineral withdrawal that has protected public lands surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historic Park—which was referred to as a land transfer.

“I just want to make it clear that in the Chaco [Canyon] case, there was no land transfer. All of that land remained in public hands. There was a mineral withdrawal that was designed to protect thousands of individual archeological and cultural sites. I would also make the point that right now this administration is stripping those protections away in an effort to facilitate oil and gas drilling,” Heinrich said, sounding the alarm on the Trump administration’s actions to remove protections from Chaco Canyon.

“I know the Senator from Alaska knows about balance. She has passed a lot of legislation out of this Committee. And I think today, unfortunately, we are not finding that balance. We are not moving forward on legislation from many of my colleagues that would conserve public lands in their states in in the way that their communities would like to see,” the Senator said. “So I look forward to working with [Murkowski] to try and find that balance, so that we can move more legislation forward in this Committee.”

A video of Heinrich’s opening remarks is here.   

A transcript of Heinrich’s remarks as delivered is below:

Thank you, Chairman. 

There are a number of bills on this agenda that I am pleased to see move forward today, particularly the Geothermal Energy Advancement Act that modernizes the way the Bureau of Land Management processes geothermal energy permits on public land.

Geothermal energy will be an increasingly important part of our energy mix in the future, and the BLM needs an efficient permitting process to get those projects built.  

Unfortunately, this is yet another markup in this Committee where we are not conserving a single additional acre of public land for the American people. 

We could be voting on the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, which would add more than 18,000 acres of land to Joshua Tree National Park, permanently protecting that land for generations to come.  

Instead, we will vote to remove 22,000 acres of land from Denali National Park. 

Sometimes national park boundaries need to change, and it is this Committee’s job to decide when that is appropriate and a good idea.

But that work cannot be one-sided—only advancing bills that remove protections, and not those that add them. 

For that reason, I will oppose S. 4399 when the Committee considers it today.

I hope that—soon—we can advance legislation from members of this Committee that conserves public land, so we can have a reasonable balance with bills like S. 4399.  

I have one last comment on S. 2767, the Gateway Partnership Act. 

This bill will allow the Gateway Arch Park Foundation to host private events at Gateway Arch National Park.

While most national parks are, frankly, not appropriate venues for convention meetings and holiday parties, Gateway Arch is a unique unit of the park system where such events are not inconsistent with the overall management of the park. 

Because of that unique character, I will support S. 2767 today, but I want to be clear that I would not support similar proposals for other units within the National Park Service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On Chaco Canyon:

Murkowski said, “We have had opportunities within this Committee over the years to talk about the significance of what it means within these Native lands to ensure that we are protecting sacred sites and culturally historic sites. We certainly saw that with the Ranking Member's passion when it came to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. There was at that time, working with the last administration, a public land order withdrawing more than 336,000 acres surrounding Chaco National Historic Park. That was an effort where I certainly respected the Ranking Member's desire and what he sought to do with those protections for the cultural sites. Some have suggested that 21,000 acres is too large and we need to narrow it down. Again, I am looking back to Chaco.  That was about 334,000 acres, excuse me that was 336,000 acres, in an area that is only about 34,000. The concern that we are hearing is that this is too much.”

Heinrich fired back, “As I said in my opening statement, there are cases where transfers of land out of the National Park System unit is the right thing to do. I do have concerns with the size. This is a 600-acre archeological site and a 22,000-acre transfer. I very much respect the Senator from Alaska and look forward to continuing to work with you on this legislation. 

Given the Chaco reference that you brought up, I just want to make it clear that in the Chaco case, there was no land transfer. All of that land remained in public hands. There was a mineral withdrawal that was designed to protect thousands of individual archeological and cultural sites, and I would also make the point that right now, this administration is stripping those protections away in an effort to facilitate oil and gas drilling, and New Mexico is no stranger to oil and gas drilling. We are the second largest producer of oil in the country, but this particular area is incredibly important, and those protections were necessary to strike that balance. I know the Senator from Alaska knows about balance. She has passed a lot of legislation out of this Committee, and I think today, unfortunately, we are not finding that balance. We are not moving forward on legislation from many of my colleagues that would conserve public lands in their states in the way that their communities would like to see. I look forward to working with the Senator to try and find that balance, so that we can move more legislation forward in this Committee.”

###