Legislative Hearing on Forest, Land Grant and Military Land Bills

The subcommittee on federal lands will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. The subcommittee is meeting today to consider seven bills. H R one eighty four by Representative McClintock. Twenty seven eighty five, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Six seventy six ninety five, Miss Hagerman. Eighty six eighty two, Mr. Downing. Eighty six eighty six. Mister Gosar, eighty six, eighty eight, Mister Herd, eighty seven, thirty five, Representative Panetta. I ask unanimous consent that the following members be allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais from Arizona, Mister Gosar, from Wyoming, Miss Hagerman, the gentleman from Montana, Mister Downey, from Colorado, Mister Herd, welcome. Gentleman from California, Mister Panetta, and from Oregon, Miss Salinas. Without objection, so ordered. Under committee rule four F, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members, the opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with committee rule three, par and O. Without objection, so ordered. I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today's hearing comes at an important moment for the future of our public lands and the communities built around them. Across the West, and increasingly across the country, Americans are watching wildfires become more frequent, more destructive and more expensive. All while federal land management becomes slower, more bureaucratic and less responsive to on the ground realities. For decades, Washington DC has treated active management as controversial and delay as harmless. The results are now impossible to ignore. Millions of acres of federal land are at high risk of catastrophic catastrophic wildfire. Communities that once viewed wildfire as a seasonal concern now live under year-round threat. Insurance markets are collapsing in high risk areas. Watersheds and wildlife habitat are being damaged beyond repair. Rural economies tied to forestry and public lands continue to struggle, while valuable timber is left standing dead or burning in preventable fires. The bills before us today reflect a different approach, one rooted in the idea that responsible management is not the enemy of conservation. In many cases, it is what makes conservation possible. Representative McClintock's Action Versus No Action Act addresses one of the core problems within the current NEPA process. Too often, agencies spend years evaluating endless hypothetical alternatives, while conditions on the ground continue to deteriorate. in many cases the greatest environmental consequence is not the proposed action, but the failure to act at all. This legislation recognizes that when forests are overgrown and communities are vulnerable, endless delays carry their own very real cost. Similarly, Representative Hagerman's legislation repealing the two thousand one roadless rule similarly recognizes that forests cannot be managed from Washington. Through blanket prohibitions and one size fits all mandates, We also can't lock our forests up and throw away the key and then be shocked when they turn into tinderboxes, ready to explode. The roadless rule has restricted access and active management across millions of acres, often in areas already facing elevated wildfire risk. Fifteen million acres of roadless areas are located within or adjacent to the wildland urban interface, stymieing both proactive management and wildfire suppression efforts. There are more than forty-six million homes at risk in the wildland urban interface. We need reliable road networks and defensible space in these areas, not overgrown thickets ready to level entire neighborhoods. Healthy forests require management, access, and the ability to respond to changing conditions on the ground. Without roads, that's simply impossible. We will also examine two important bills from representatives Downing and Hurd that would codify categorical exclusions for salvage and thinning projects on BLM lands. Dead and dying timber does not become less dangerous while paperwork is shuffled between desks in DC. In many cases, delays simply guarantee larger fires, greater environmental damage, and higher costs to taxpayers down the road. These high-risk forests must be thinned and if a wildfire does burn, must be salvaged immediately to remove f fuel for the next fire. These are practical tools designed to help land managers respond more quickly on after wildfire insect infestation disease and other disturbances, while also allowing proactive thinning to reduce future risk. Yet alarmingly, the previous administration removed these tools from the Department of the Interior's toolbox. one year after one of the worst wildfire years on record. I'd like to commend the leadership of Secretary Burgum and Deputy Secretary Kate McGregor for restoring these important flexibilities ahead of what is expected to be another historic fire year. Underlying each of these important force management bills I've discussed is a broader question about whether federal land management agencies are empowered to solve problems or simply manage processes. Americans expect forests to be healthy, communities to be protected, and public lands to be managed responsibly. Increasingly, they are frustrated and endangered by a system where litigation risk, procedural delays, and bureaucratic inertia prevent common sense management from moving forward. Today's discussion is an opportunity to examine policies that move us toward a more pra- proactive and functional approach to public land management, one that prioritizes healthy forests safer communities, reliable infrastructure, and practical stewardship over analysis paralysis. This is the exact vision that President Trump has put forth in executive orders on empowering common sense wildfire prevention and response, and immediate expansion of American timber production. In addition to forest management, today's hearing includes legislation from Representative Gosar related to the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, UMA serves a critical role in testing advanced military systems that support American readiness and force protection. This bill would give our military the space they need to safely conduct high altitude delivery system testing which is essential to preparing for evolving threats and maintaining America's military advantage. I want to conclude by thanking all of our witnesses for being here today to provide your valuable expertise. I will now recognize the ranking minority member of the full committee, Mister Huffman, for an opening statement.

Thank you Mister Chair and welcome everyone. Our uh nation's public lands are under attack these days and the bill we are sit considering today to uh roll back the roadless rule is high on the list of those threats. Uh it would uh and and it's a monumentally bad idea. Uh it would wreck prime hunting and fishing. areas, it would harm the outdoor economy, and it would actually lead to more wildfires. So it's a bad idea. Uh meanwhile, Trump administration is proposing to administratively roll back the roadless rule, which safeguards forty four million acres of the most pristine and treasured forests across our nation, protecting them from clear-cut logging and road building. And so we're seeing a full spectrum uh assault. on wilderness and public lands these days, and I wanna start by talking about the risks we face if the roadless rule goes away. The breathtaking part of California that I call home is filled with national forests, and in my district there are thirty-three inventoried roadless areas totaling four hundred and fifty thousand acres. Those areas protect some of the most important wildlife habitat, intact watersheds, and recreation opportunities in Northern California. For example, the Six Rivers National Forest, the Underwood inventoried roadless area there offers opportunities for hunting, angling, white water sports and hiking. Its old growth forests include critical habitat for endangered um salmon and owl species. Outdoor recreation of course is a massive economic engine in my district. And roadless areas alone generate an annual five hundred and six million dollars in value for my district. Rescinding the roadless rule risks putting that at risk. But let's talk about why uh this effort to repeal the roadless rule is happening. Last summer, when Secretary Rollins originally announced her intent to repeal the roadless rule she cited wildfire response as a main reason. And we hear that frequently, we'll hear it today a lot I'm sure. I wanna be clear that our wildfire crisis is serious. It's a real threat to those of us that live uh out west. uh especially in my district, and working to address it is a top priority. But using the threat of wildfire to overturn hard-fought conservation protections is disingenuous, uh and in this case, a a very dangerous excuse to use. The roadless rule expressly includes exemptions that allow wildfire response, prevention, and mitigation. Forest scientists have determined that it's actually the opposite of what Secretary Rollins says. More roads, will create more fires. Seventy eight percent of human caused fires in national forests start within a half mile of a road. Repealing this rule has never been about forest health or wildfire response, it's about the Trump administration clearing the way for corporate profits over the long-term health of our public lands and the communities that depend on them. The American people are strongly against this, if anyone cares, across the aisle. Time and again, communities across this nation have opposed the sell-off of their public lands. And that goes for the roadless rule as well. You know, there was a very short comment period after last year's initial announcement, but ninety-nine percent of people who wrote to the forest service said they opposed repealing this rule. And during the original development of the roadless rule, in two thousand and one, the forest service conducted a very robust public engagement process, over six hundred public meetings, across the country, more than one million comments submitted in favor of the rule. The same standard is not being followed this time. In fact, communities have had to take it on themselves to organize their own public meetings because they want a record of their strong support for the roadless rule. Despite this public sentiment, the Trump administration is purposely hiding the ball from the American people because they know how unpopular their policies are. Now, uh shutting the public out of decision making these days seems to be the norm, uh and it's unfortunate. I'm encouraged we're having a hearing today, but let's not confuse this cheerleading session for repealing the roadless rule with a robust and meaningful public process. Uh we need to deal the public back in to this kind of policy making. Congress has to shine a bright light. on Donald Trump's attempts to rebrand Washington DC as his own personal playground, for example, so that the American people can see what's really going on. And that's why I've joined with seventeen of my democratic colleagues on this committee to request that the chairman fulfill our oversight responsibility by holding public hearings on the president's proposed billion dollar ballroom, his vanity arch, and all of his other pet vanity projects in Washington DC. my letter to the chairman is right here. If my Republican colleagues support all of these dramatic policy changes, uh they should at least be willing to have a meaningful public conversation with the American people and in the case of these vanity projects, and with billions of dollars being lit on fire, taxpayer dollars, they should be willing to do some serious oversight and investigation. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. I now recognize representative McClintock for five minutes on H R one eighty four.

Well thank you. Uh first m- Mister Chairman, listening to the ranking, remember I uh remembered my uh visit to the command center, the King fire, the day that it exploded. The firefighters were absolutely certain they'd lose the towns of Forest Hill and Georgetown. There was no way they could stop it. Uh one of the senior firefighters came to me and with tears in his eyes he says, Congressman, I can't even get to this fire on the ground. We used to have good timber roads. could I could get equipment out there, he says, all I can do now is drop stuff from the air and pray to God the windships. Those prayers were answered, but um uh listening to the um foolishness that we just heard uh uh on the um uh roads issue, uh I I felt it important to recount that story. But I'm here to speak about the um action versus no action act, I wanna thank you for holding the hearing today. An untended forest is no different than an untended garden. It will grow and grow until it chokes itself to death, and then it will fall victim to disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately catastrophic fire. That's how nature gardens. She doesn't care that it takes centuries for a forest to regrow. Nature has all the time in the world. We mortals do care. So at the beginning of the twentieth century, we set up land management agencies to do the gardening. We sent foresters out every year to mark off surplus timber, and then we auctioned it off to logging companies that paid us to remove it. A quarter of those revenues went to the local communities, and the rest went back into the forests. The result was healthy, fire-resistant forests, thriving local economies, and a steady stream of revenues. Then in the nineteen seventies we began passing laws that have made active forest management endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive. It now takes an average of five years to complete an environmental review before we can even begin to remove excess timber. Timber harvests off the federal lands have fallen eighty percent, the number of mills have plummeted, and fire is returned to remove the excess. In the last ten years we've lost a quarter of our national forests to catastrophic fire. One of the hallmarks of this bureaucratic paralysis by analysis is uh requiring every conceivable alternative. to be painstakingly evaluated. The current NEPA process too often rewards delay over action. Agencies spend enormous amounts of time and money trying to bullet-proof environmental documents against lawsuits, instead of carrying out urgently needed management activities on the ground. The result is that projects become trapped in an endless cycle of analysis, objections, appeals, and litigation, while hazardous conditions worsen year after year. Doing nothing is not a neutral decision. It is a management decision, a choice, and increasingly it's the most destructive decision possible. Every year we delay treatment for it's become more overgrown and stressed. Every year of delay means hotter fires, larger fires, more destruction, and higher suppression costs borne by taxpayers. This bill addresses this problem with a straightforward and common sense reform. This bill simply says that for certain hazardous reduction in forest management projects, agencies should focus their environmental review on two alternatives, the proposed action and the no action alternative. Instead of forcing agencies to spend years studying endless permutations of management options, this bill restores NEPA to what it was originally intended to be, a decision making tool, not a procedural weapon used to indefinitely obstruct projects who delay in litigation. Uh this legislation does not eliminate environmental reviews, it does not waive environmental protections, it does not silence public participation. What it does is to establish a more efficient and focused review process, so agencies can respond to the wildfire emergency before another community burns to the ground. It applies only to projects located in high-risk wildfire areas or projects developed through collaborative community-based processes. proposed through resource advisory committees, collaborative partnerships, or community wildfire protection plans. The opponents of active forest management will undoubtedly argue that streamlining reviews somehow threatens the environment. But the greatest threat to our forest today is not responsible forest management, it is catastrophic wildfire. There is nothing environmentally responsible about allowing millions of acres of forest to incinerate because agencies were trapped in procedural delays. The choice before Congress is clear, we can continue down the current path, studying forests until they burn, or we can restore common sense and give land managers the ability to act before disaster strikes. This represents a practical step toward restoring active management to our federal forest reducing wildfire risk and protecting communities, uh increasingly under a c a constant threat. Uh, you'll back.

Thank you, Representative McClintock. I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mister Neguse, for his orbiting statement.

Well, thank you, uh, Chairman Tiffany. Uh, I am glad to see that we have more bipartisan bills on our agenda today. I wanna briefly highlight two common sense, uh, community driven democratic proposals that represent, uh, a great approach to land management. First, H R twenty seven eighty five, introduced by Ledger, Representative Ledger Fernandez, which rightfully strengthens and clarifies the vital relationship between federal land management agencies, uh and Land Grant Mercedes and this bill honors historic traditions and ensures local communities have a meaningful voice. Grateful to her for her leadership in bringing this forward this bill. Also, uh I want to uh uh express my support for Representative Panetta's bill to study the potential inclusion uh of the Lower Presidio Historic Park in Monterey as a unit of the national park system. These are the kind of collaborative forward-looking proposals this committee should be championing. Uh I do want to express my uh concern regarding two bills that seek to codify rigid categorical exclusions uh for uh stand density projects and salvage logging. While we support increased efficiency, uh these bills could side step the open transparent processes that lead to better decisions and outcomes. Uh the BLM's categorical exclusion uh under the first Trump administration, as we all know, was previously tossed out uh because the first Trump administration didn't even bother. to justify it through the necessary review. Uh the BLM just proposed this expanded CE again in April, now we're being asked to codify it. It would be irresponsible, in my view, for Congress to rubber stamp it, uh given its history and its background. Secondly, uh the effort to sideline science uh compounded by HR one eighty four, which forces an arbitrary action versus no action constraint on NIPA processes. By severely limiting the number of preferred alternatives, It can be reviewed. The bill intentionally cuts out scientific rigor, strips the public of its right to win on landless, on land management decisions. This centerpiece of course, as we all know, uh unfortunately, is HR seventy six ninety five, a bill to completely rescind the two thousand one roadless rule. Uh we are opposed to this measure, and it must be a major focus of our scrutiny today. Uh that rule uh is one of our nation's most successful in enduring conservation legacies rescinding it with minimal public comment. lies in the face of the historic rigorous grou rounds of public meetings and millions of comments that shaped the rule uh when it was first uh incepted. Uh dismantling these protections uh in my view is out of step with the American people. A vast majority of Americans uh support the uh uh maintaining roadless rule protections, and so I'm certainly uh can look forward to debating that particular issue here today. Uh finally, I wanna say uh I am uh grateful to my colleague, uh Representative Hurd uh for uh his leadership with respect to the bill that he's introduced regarding wildfire prevention and certainly an issue that I care deeply about and that I know we both care deeply about, given uh the parts of our wonderful state that we represent. Finally, I wanna say thank you to the witnesses for being here and uh also just wanna say in particular to Associate uh Chief uh French we welcome you back. And I want to say thank you to the Department of Interior. My understanding is uh that they are working to schedule a briefing in response to the letter that we sent to your agency uh just a few short weeks ago, regarding the terrible wildfire risk that uh my constituency in Colorado and across the Rocky Mountain West are facing and some of the steps that we'd like to see the Interior Department take around pre-positioning aerial resources, just by way of example, um so that we can get on top of what is going to be a very difficult fire

year. So uh I look forward to that briefing. My understanding is that was just or is in the process of being scheduled and so, I look forward to that, getting on the books here in short order so that we can figure out how to work together to ensure that our communities are prepared. With that, I will yield back. Ranking member. The ranking member yields, and I now recognize Representative Leisure Fernandez for five minutes on her bill H R twenty seven eighty five.

Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. Uh and thank you, ranking member. Uh I really do appreciate uh the inclusion of my legislation today, HR twenty seven eighty five, the New Mexico Land-Grant-Mercedes Historical or Traditionally Used Cooperation Coordination Act. I'm also grateful to Senator Lujan, who has championed this legislation for years and we hope to see it passed in both the House and the Senate. Uh I wanna begin though uh by noting that the hearing comes at a time of sorrow, for the land-grant community after the sudden death of Mister Steve Polacco just three weeks ago. Steve served as a council member of the New Mexico Land-Grant Council and the Presidente de la Merced de los Pueblos de Tierra Maria. He was a tireless advocate for protecting our land and culture. Steve's legacy will live on through every acre of land and every acequia his sweat touched. It will also live on through this bill. which his work supported. I hope to pass it in his honor. Land grants, or Mercedes in Spanish, are a unique part of our herencia cu and cultura in New Mexico, but I think they're a unique part of America, and I am glad that we're able to speak and talk about them today. Today, uh, they are also recognized, land grants are actually subdivisions of the state. They are recognized as governmental entities. My own ancestors lived on land grants which Spain and later Mexico granted to those living in what we now call the American Southwest between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. These land grants were often community and sometimes individual grants. They included tracts of land essential to survival in arid New Mexico landscape. After the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded more than half of its territory to the United States. Under the eighteen forty-eight Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States promised to honor and protect the land and recognize and honor the property rights of those now living in the American Southwest. Sadly, that didn't always happen. The federal government confiscated millions of acres of private land, land that belonged to tribes and New Mexicans. Um, the Mercedes, the land-grant heirs lost their land to the United States. Uh these significant tracts of land then became part of the United States Forest Service, the BLM, or the federal holdings. Uh but even though the federal government went back on its word to honor um the property rights of those in the former parts of Mexico the land grant heirs continued to take care of the land for centuries even when it was on forest service land. Right? They sat with that responsibility because they knew they had to rely on it for their way of life. My bill helps to preserve and sustain that beautiful way of life in our culture for generations. The bills for the young land-grant heirs who are learning how to work the land in the Acequias, it is for the generations of New Mexicans who will come after them. The relationship between land grants and the federal land agencies have improved over time. I wanna thank you, Associate Chair, for your own for your own Associate Chief, for your own recognition of how you learned about the land grants and came to respect the role that they played in the communication that needed to exist between your agency and the land grants but it all depends on who happens to be you know in charge of the Forest Service at that time or that particular uh area. So we wanna make sure that we actually codify it, right? That we codify an ability to increase the participation in the communication. The bill directs the BLM and the Forest Service to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the New Mexico Land Grant Council. Once again, political subdivision. Under this MOU, the federal agencies will clearly lay out the types of non-commercial historical and traditional uses, that land grants are allowed to practice on federal lands. It would also describe the processes for obtaining permits and land use authorizations as well as fee requirements. This uniformity and consistency would help Nuevo Mexicanos continue historical traditional uses like grazing or gathering word or pinonuts. My bill does not grant new powers or authorize new uses of federal land, rather it creates the process to improve the communication about existing existing authority. And this is extremely meaningful and powerful for those who rely on the traditional uses. Importantly, the requir the bill requires DOI and USDA to consult with tribes when it enters into or changes the MOU. The bill also requires DOI and the USDA to evaluate impacts on historical traditional uses and land use planning. This could prevent timely and costly conflicts or lawsuits between the federal government and local communities. I look forward to working with my community and the agency on getting this bill across the finish line. And with that, I yield back, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Representative Leger-Fernandez, I now recognize Representative Gosar for five minutes on HR eighty six, eighty six.

Well, I'm looking forward to a spirited conversation today, all around this. So, uh, especially after the Wallow Fire and the uh North Rim Fire. So I think there's some things we can really get to the bottom of, uh, with this roadless rule. So thank you Mister Chairman, and thank you for the members of the sub-committee for allowing me to wave on. It is my pleasure to welcome Major General Patrick Ga- Gaiden. and Mayor Doug Nichols of uh of Yuma, Arizona, to testify on behalf of my bill today, HR eighty six eighty six, the Yuma De Defense Readiness Act. Name th name the most patriotic city in Arizona. Yuma meets the needs meets the needs of today and tomorrow's war fighters. My bill withdraws almost twenty two thousand acres of federal lands to support the mission of the US Army, Yuma Proving Grounds, strengthening national security and supporting military readiness. HR eighty six eighty six ensures both our service members and civilians remain safe at YPG, test innova- as they test innovative defense technologies. With withdrawal, this withdrawal carefully considers the ongoing protection of wildlife habitat, cultural resources, recreation, and the management of local wild horses and boroughs, building trust and ensuring whole communities' engagement. It originated under the previous administration's proving ground YPG's proving defense. needs that are not partisan, but critical to maintain the United States leadership in the global defense theater. Arizona is proud to support the men and women who defend our nation and are my bill strengthens that mission for decades to come. I look forward to this hearing and I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Gosar, and I'll recognize Representative Hagerman on H R seventy six ninety five.

Thank you for allowing me to wave on to discuss my bill, H R seventy six ninety to repeal the two thousand and one roadless rule. The United States Forest Service office created an environmental catastrophe when it issued the roadless rule in the final ten days of the Clinton administration. The lame duck decree, which has now been in effect for over a quarter of a century, unilaterally locked up fifty eight point five million acres of federal fifty eight point five million acres of federal lands from effective management, and realist realistic public access, including three point two million acres in Wyoming. I was hired by the state of Wyoming to file a suit against the ro roadless rule, because it violated NEPA, taking just eighteen months to evaluate the long-term implications of locking up one third of our national forest service lands. It also violated the Forest Management Act, the Wilderness Act, FACA, the Wyoming Wilderness Wilderness Act, and others. At the time the roadless rule was adopted, the Forest Service and the Department of Justice knew that the roadless rule would be destructive. The US attorney that handled the case actually said during one of our hearings, quote, we recognize that in certain areas the roadless rule is going to be ecologically devastating. But it is more important that we have one rule and one regime coming out of Washington DC to manage these acres rather than protecting local, particular areas. This despite knowing that there was a blow-down in Rout National Forest in nineteen ninety seven that fell thirteen thousand acres of trees in one night leading to the um the advent or the beginning of the horrific insect infestation that we have suffered from for the last thirty years in large part, because of the roadless rule. The two thousand GA uh the two thousand GAO report as well as the comments submitted foresters and land managers during the original rule making process for creating the ro roadless rule warned that limiting road access would hinder active management for fuels reduction insects and disease control and ecological restoration in the interior west if you look at the administrative record related to the adoption of the roadless rule the probably the largest number of comments came from career forest service employees Almost all of whom said, please do not do this. This is a bad idea. It is going to prevent us from being able to manage these resources. Our prediction that that the roadless rule would devastate large swaths of the interior west have in fact been confirmed by a two thousand and twenty one Johnston study showing that roadless areas have burned at disproportionately higher rates despite being cooler and moister. Twenty five years later, the Forest Service and USDA report that twenty eight million acres of inventoried roadless areas nearly half of the total lands the Forest Service has, are, uh has, uh uh half the of the roadless areas has are now are now at high or very high wildfire hazard potential. That is why I introduced H R seventy six. ninety five to repeal the roadless rule. Nine of the ten most catastrophic forest fires that we have suffered have occurred since the adoption of the roadless rule. Over eight million acres have burned to the ground since two thousand and one. The roadless rule has been devastating to the interior west. The roadless rule has been devastating to Wyoming. So when I hear people say that repealing the roadless rule is going to create

Thank you, Representative Hageman. I now recognize Representative Downing for five minutes on H R eighty six eighty two.

Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and and I appreciate you allowing me to wave on. Uh, I I appreciate you hosting today's hearing and bringing attention to my legislation, HR eighty six eighty two, the accelerating forest management act. Effective forest management is vital for protecting rural communities across the west including my home state of Montana where a nation high twenty nine percent of our homes are at risk of wildfire damage. Without routine removal of dead and dying timber, Our forests and surrounding homes are at risk of devastation. Over the past three decades, forests across the western United States have experienced large scale die offs caused by fire insect infestation infestations disease and drought. These impacts have significantly heightened wildfire risks with BLM lands now seeing an average of approximately two hundred and forty thousand acres burnt by fires each year you know we've seen the consequences of ineffective forest management with devastating impacts. But the Trump administration on the other hand has acted swiftly to implement policies to properly manage our forest lands. In April of this year, the Bureau of uh Land Management proposed two categorical exclusions from NEPA permitting requirements for timber salvage and thinning projects below five thousand acres. If codified, these exclusions will provide critical tools tools for BLM to quickly remove potential fuel from our forests, before wildfires break out. I introduced HR eighty six eighty two, the accelerating forest management act to permanently enact, BLM's proposed permitting exclusion measures, specifically for timber salvage projects. This legislation also includes language reauthorizing the forest ecosystem health and recovery fund which supports BLM efforts to quickly respond to wildfires and restore forest damage by fire and disease. By passing time-consuming permitting processes, we'll allow for BLM and its partners to do necessary wildfire mitigation work in a timely fashion. Reducing these barriers will expedite removal of dead and dying timber from our forest, and ensure fires on BLM lands don't get out of control. Today, we'll hear from Acting Montana State Forester, Wyatt Frampton, who will provide insight into the current state of wildfire management in the west and how

Thank you, Representative Downing,

Downing.

I now recognize Representative Hurd,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna start by recognizing uh committee staff, especially my fellow Coloradan, Brandon Miller, on the federal land subcommittee for invaluable work done to uh prepare this much needed legislation uh my bill, Mr. Chairman, HR eighty six eighty eight, the forest health and wildfire risk reduction act codifies the Bureau of Land Management categorical exclusion proposed earlier this year under the National, Environmental Policy Act. The purpose is straightforward. speed up review of targeted forest thinning projects on public lands. On BLM lands alone, an estimated thirty six million acres have been identified as facing high or very high wildfire risk. Increased fuel loading has contributed more frequently to catastrophic fires, and poses a growing threat to rural communities like those I represent. It also presents a threat to watersheds, wildlife habitat, property and human life across the west. H R eighty-six eighty-eight establishes a targeted and limited categorical exclusion focused on projects under five thousand acres, while maintaining operational safeguards, as well as disclosure requirements. Importantly, this bill specifically excludes clear-cutting, even-age regeneration harvest, and the conversion of forest to non-forest uses. Catastrophic wildfire is itself environmental destruction. Catastrophic wildfires damage watersheds, increase erosion and sediment runoff, and threaten long-term water quality across the West. Delayed management harms watersheds, wildlife habitat, air quality, and rural communities. In the West, forest health and water security are directly connected. The choice is not between management and no management. The choice is between proactive management and catastrophic fire. Watching forest burn catastrophically because management cannot occur in time is not conservation. I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony today and advancing this legislation through the house. Thank you, Mister Chairman. With that, I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Hurd. I now recognize Representative Panetta for five minutes on H R eighty seven thirty five. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Chair, for giving me the ranking. Uh, oh, I pressed. Thank you, thank you, Reinking. Uh, and thanks to all the members of the subcommittee on federal lands, I really appreciate this opportunity to speak today, and of course your consideration in support of my legislation, HR eight seven three five, the American Sovereignty and Monterey Historic Military Site Study Act. Now I'm proud to have authored and introduced this legislation because it is a critical first step in recognizing retaining and protecting a place that tells such an important story about our nation's history the city of Monterey's history, our military history, and the history of American sovereignty on the West Coast. There's twenty five acres of this area which we are hoping to have studied to be a National Historic Park. The area is called the Lower Presidio of Monterey. Let me make one thing clear. it is not related to the Presidio in San Francisco. Let me make that clear, okay. That's a common name throughout many of these sites in the on the West Coast. This one's not related to the one in San Francisco.

That is a very important distinction. Thank you, sir.

But that I understood that, and that's why I said that. Thank you, Chairman. Um, this area is often described though, that I may say, the most historically significant site on the West Coast. And that's not hyperbole, it really is fact. First, it was home to the Eslon and Robson tribes. that served as a hub of training throughout the Americas prior to any modern exploration. Then in the fifteen hundred, Spanish explorers found the area and started to settle there. In seventeen seventy, Father Junipero Serra officially found the Royal Presidio of Monterey, which then became a base for the mission system in California. A few years later, Monterey in this particular area then also became and served as a capital of Alta, California. But it was in eighteen forty six when American forces seized the city of Monterey And Commodore John Sloat planted the flag of our great nation at this very location, which opened up the West Coast to American settlement, enterprise, and prosperity. Now realizing how important Monterey was to our national security, the United States then established the first major US Army fort on the West Coast in this exact location. A fort where tens of thousands of American troops have trained, including the Buffalo soldiers from the Ninth Cavalry Regiment. In the boom of the sardine fishing area, which contributed much to the economy and culture of Monterey, fishermen would then use this area to lay out their nets. The US Army continues to be involved in this area with the Defense Language Institute, with its language training that is a cornerstone of our national security. Now currently, the city of Monterey operates a twenty five acre historic park, based on a long-term lease with the US Army. I have to say at the center of this historic park is a beautiful thirty foot high marble monument that is topped with a soaring eagle that looks out onto the Monterey Bay, a monument that was constructed in nineteen ten and dedicated to Commodore Sloat. It stands on top of that hill, overlooking the bay, right next to the site where Sloat planted the United States flag. Now, I also admit it's a special place for me. It's a location where growing up after church, my dad would take me and we'd share a salami sandwich from Troia's deli and overlook the Monterey Bay, just that special time of on a Sunday afternoon when we could do that. Now I realize that um i- i- back then that this monument, these twenty-five acres, really is an area where everybody, not just myself, not just my father, but everybody can appreciate the beauty, the bounty, and the history of our community and our country. The monument has withstood the test of time and is one of the most widely photographed attractions in Monterey. But beyond this monument, a federal designation would ensure that everybody has access and that we can preserve the rich and diverse American history of our land. As the members of this committee know, passage of this bill would not automatically designate a new historic park. Instead, it begins the responsible process of gathering facts, engaging stakeholders, consulting with local communities, and determining the best path forward for preservation and interpretation. Please know that this effort has strong local support. We have worked closely with the City of Monterey as demonstrated in a letter of support for this legislation, from the city, which has been shared with committee staff, and I'd ask for it to be entered into the record with unanimous consent.

Without objection.

We've also worked with a number of other leaders, including military, local and tribal leaders. The legislation gives us that opportunity to preserve the significant chapter of our central coast but more importantly our country's history

Thank you, Representative Panetta. We're now gonna move on to our second panel.

Thank you.

I wanna remind the witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your all statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button on the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. First, I'd like to introduce Mister Patrick Gaydon, Commanding General at the Army Test and Evaluation Command. General Gaydon, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. Ranking Member Nagoose, distinguished members of this subcommittee, my name is Major General Pat Gaden. I command US Army Test and Evaluation Command. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a matter that's important to our national security and to the readiness of our armed forces. The legislation under consideration would withdraw approximately twenty-two thousand acres of public land adjacent to Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. This action is critical to enhancing the army's test capabilities to ensure that we provide the most advanced capabilities to our war fighters. This legislation is the result of extensive coordination with the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Fish and Game Department, Native American tribes, and the public. For more than eighty years, Yuma Proven Ground has been part, has been the army's premier natural environments test center. At Yuma we test artillery, armored vehicles, drone and counter drone capabilities, but most relevant to this request, we test cargo airdrop parachute systems for the army and other federal entities like NASA. The purpose of this land withdrawal is to expand our high altitude airdrop testing, to support advancements in global positioning system guided parachute systems. Modern combat requires airdrops from higher altitudes at greater offsets from the targets so that we can protect our air crews our aircraft uh from enemy air defense systems and testing these advanced systems requires a larger surface safety zone on the ground to contain any potential system failures during testing. The twenty one thousand seven hundred and eighty three acres adjacent to Yuma Proving Ground's Sabola range provides the necessary safety buffer to do this. Our current altitude ceiling for airdrops is twenty five thousand feet. This land withdrawal would allow us to drop from thirty five thousand feet. And without this expansion, we cannot test advanced air delivery systems to their full operational limits, which would impact our nation's readiness. our military's readiness. The legislation also includes the withdraw of two hundred and forty nine acres at the adjacent Howard Contonment area which has been part of UMA proven grounds operations since nineteen fifty five with infrastructure already on it. We are committed to our role as responsible stewards of the land. We would manage the withdrawal area through our established integrated natural and cultural resource management plans, which includes provisions for conservation, hunting, and access by the local population and tribes. And we would work this in close coordination with our federal, state, and tribal partners. We also fully acknowledge the continued use of the Parker-Blaysdale utility corridor which overlaps with a portion of the requested area. In summary, the requested land withdrawal is essential for the army, to advance our military capabilities and ensure our war fighters are equipped to meet future challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with this sub subcommittee and taking your questions.

Thank you, General Gaden. I will now recognize Mister Chris French, Associate Chief at the US Force Service. Associate Chief French, welcome back, and you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member DeGusten, members of the committee. Uh, I appreciate being back here to present the views of the US Department of Agriculture on the three bills under consideration today that pertain to the US Forest Service. As Associate Chief, I've worked for the agency for more than thirty four years. A lot of these issues we'll talk about today and the different views that are presented on them. I hope to provide some clarity, some data, some facts for us to to uh move forward. I defer to the US Department of Interior for its views on the elements of bills. that would affect federal lands under its jurisdiction. But under the leadership of Secretary Rawlins, the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service have taken significant steps to alle alleviate regu regulatory burden that affects forest management. By maintaining the flexibility needed for efficient permitting and faster delivery of critical service, the Forest Service is empowering our people on the ground to make better decisions to protect people, communities, and resources based on local conditions. These efforts align with two of the bills on the agendas today on today's hearing, H R one eighty four, the action versus no action act, and H R seven six nine five, which would nullify the two thousand one roadless rule. H R one eighty four, the action versus no action act, would limit the scope of certain forest management activities conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, to only two alternatives. One, the proposed agency action, two, the no action alternative. By narrowing the scope of environmental reviews for certain forest management activities focusing solely on action versus no action, um, HR one eighty-four would streamline decision making for collaborative forest projects. This focus on NEPA as a procedural statute parallels recent actions by USDA to align NEPA with its congressionally mandated dimensions, reflecting guidance given by the President and the Supreme Court, and making MEPA reviews faster, more flexible, efficient and effective. The department supports the goals of HR one eighty-four, and would like to work with the committee on technical assistance to ensure that we meet the intent of the legislation. HR seven six nine five would nullify the two thousand one roadless rule and prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from proposing, implementing or enforcing any substantially similar rule. In June two thousand twenty five Secretary Rollins announced USDA would be rescinding the two thousand one roadless rule, and in August of two thousand twenty five the Forest Service published a notice seeking public comment on its intention to develop an environmental impact statement to analyze the proposed rescission of the two thousand one roadless rule. The Forest Service is currently in the process of analyzing the more than two hundred and twenty thousand comments we received, and anticipates issuing a final rule and draft environmental impact statement for public comment in the next final month coming months. H R seven six nine five will build on USDA's administrative actions by codifying the repeal of the two thousand one roadless rule into law. We support the rescission of the two thousand one roadless rule, and would like to work with the committee and bill sponsor to provide technical assistance that would aid in the implementation of the legislation. The department also supports H R two seven eight five, the New Mexico Land-Grant-Mercedes Historical or Traditional Use Cooperation and Coordination Act. We'd like to work with the committee and the bill's sponsor on some technical assistance, but it directs the Department of Agriculture and Interior to enter a Memorandum of Understanding with New Mexico Land-Grant-Council to enhance cooperation and coordination between federal agencies and qualified land-grant Mercedes. I would finally like to draw the committee's attention to the administration's statement of support, in the Department of Interior's testimony testimony on HR eight six eight two, the accelerating forest management act and HR eight six eight eight, the forest health and wildfire reduction act for expanding category exclusions proposed in these bills to include the national forest system lands managed by the forest service. Thank you, Chairman, ranking member Nguz, members of the committee, I look forward to your questions.