Legislative hearing on: • H.R. 3924 (Rep. Neguse), “Wildfire Risk Evaluation Act” • H.R. 5095 (Rep. Patronis), “Housing Our Military Effectively For Readiness, Operations, and Neutralization of Threats Act of 2025” or the “HOMEFRONT Act of 2025” • H.R. 5419 (Rep. Kean), “Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act” • H.R. 5729 (Rep. Crane), “North Rim Restoration Act of 2025” • H.R. 6365 (Rep. McGuire), “Wintergreen Emergency Egress Act” • H.R. 6380 (Rep. Ciscomani), “Chiricahua National Park Act” • Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Gottheimer), “American Products in Parks Act”.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
I wanna thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. Your insights will be invaluable as we evaluate these proposals and work to deliver meaningful results for the American people. With that, I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, for his remarks on his bill.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. On November 25, I visited the North Rim to meet with the National Park Service and airmark concessions about the impact of the Dragon Bravo fire. The clear and bipartisan message from my constituents was a need for fast recovery and restoration. They strongly support the North Rim Restoration Act, which I introduced to accelerate rebuilding efforts. This bill gives the Department of Interior emergency contracting authority to bypass delays and move quickly on fire-related recovery, including forest management, maintenance, rebuilding, infrastructure improvements.
To ensure accountability, the Park Service must submit a full report to Congress every 180 days. I appreciate my colleagues, congressman Tiffany, Gosar, Malloy, Biggs, Limalfa, Hamade, and Siscamane for cosponsoring this measure. Together, we have taken a big step forward in restoring the North Rim after the Dragon Bravo fire.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Representative Crane. I'll now recognize representative Siskimani for five minutes on HR 6380.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and ranking member Naguz, members of the subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity here to testify today. This hearing is an excellent opportunity for us to come together to consider bipartisan bills that will have a beneficial impact on our rural communities and public lands. Today, I'm testifying in support of my bill, HR 6380, the Chiricahua National Park Act. This legislation would redesignate Chiricahua National Monument as Chiricahua National Park, making it Arizona's 4th national park. Chiricahua National Monument, located in Cochise County, Arizona, was established by presidential proclamation in 1924.
For over a century, visitors from around the world have been drawn to this wonderland of rocks. More than 12,000 acres of extraordinary volcanic formations. The monument features 25 campsites and over 17 miles of hiking trails. Having visited many times myself, I can attest that the views are truly breathtaking, and I would be delighted to welcome any of you to experience them firsthand as well. Beyond being a beloved destination for hikers, birders, and campers, Chiricahua National Monument is a vital economic driver for Willcox, Arizona.
As you all know, supporting economic development in rural communities is essential, and it is our responsibility to enact policies and designations that benefit the people who call these areas home. The Chiricahuas are unquestionably worthy of a national park status. This redesignation is a simple, common-sense way to give the landmark the recognition it deserves at no cost to the taxpayers and without expanding federal jurisdiction over the land. Now that the monument is over 100 years old, it is more important than ever to advance this legislation to promote conservation, boost tourism, and expand economic opportunity in southern Arizona. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative. Now recognize Representative Maguire for five minutes on H.R. 6365.
Speaker 5
Thank you, mister chairman, for the opportunity to speak on my bill, H.R. 6365, the Wintergreen Emergency Egress Act. Wintergreen, Virginia, is a populous, popular tourist destination located off the Blue Ridge Parkway in my district. For over 25 years, the Winnegreen community has fought to complete an emergency evacuation route. The town of Winnegreen has already constructed all portions of the road that are not on federal land. The only thing that has stood in their way all these years is a small portion of National Park Service-controlled land, approximately 430 feet, that separates the unfinished road from being connected to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
The recent wildfires in California and Maui highlight the danger posed by limited evacuation routes. People lost their lives in those fires because they were trapped in their vehicles with no way to escape. My bill is a proactive response to a very real threat to public safety. The town of Wintergreen currently faces if they need to evacuate due to a natural disaster. And simply put, there's only one road in and the same road out.
We cannot wait until a tragedy occurs to make a change. Public safety and lives are at risk. I'm honored to have Mister Curtis Sheets, chief of Wintergreen Fire and Rescue, here today. As a witness for the bill, mister Sheets has spent over 25 years fighting for the completion of this emergency evacuation route. I'm proud to assist him and the entire Wintergreen community in continuing and finishing the fight.
And I'm proud to have the bipartisan support of seven of my colleagues in the Virginia delegation, including both US senators. This bill is not political. It is a common-sense solution that is vital to prevent a tragedy from occurring in my district. I'd like to thank chairman Tiffany for allowing me the time to speak today and chairman Westerman for his assistance on moving this important legislation through the committee process, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative Maguire. And now I recognize the ranking member for an opening statement.
Speaker 4
He would like to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be back today here for another legislative hearing before we wrap up the end of the year. Though, I am disappointed that we do not have an administration witness at today's hearing. The slate of bills that we are considering today covers a wide range of topics from wildfire mitigation to military housing.
I'm certainly grateful to the many expert witnesses who have traveled great distances to be here today. That includes Chief Brad White from the Grand Fire Protection District in Grand County, Colorado, which I am proud to represent. And I wanna say thank you to Chief White for all of his work and his service to our state and our country, and for being here today to testify on my bill, H.R. 3924, the Wildfire Risk Evaluation Act. This bill would direct the relevant agencies to develop a report every four years to assess mitigation, response, recovery efforts throughout the entire country. Wildfire conditions evolve and change, as we all know.
So that is why my bill, I believe, is essential. It builds on past success to strengthen comprehensive national wildfire planning and secure our future. The bill was developed directly in response to the recommendation of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission established by the bipartisan infrastructure law. The prior administration, as we know, achieved record progress in treating hazardous fuels, yet that momentum today is slowing. A recent report from grassroots wildland firefighters shows a 38% reduction in the completion of hazardous fuels projects since January.
The Trump administration, my view, is clearly missing the mark. That's why a bill like our Wildfire Risk Evaluation Act is essential. Wildfire response requires a coordinated and planned all-of-government approach. I wanna thank the chairman for including my bill in today's hearing, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to get it across the finish line. However, while I am excited about my bill and very excited about the other bills that we're considering today, including a number of bills that connect to our national parks, I am disappointed that no federal witnesses are here to testify on any of these bills.
Last week, we had an administrative witness from the Department of the Interior who could only respond to one of the bills considered in the hearing. This week, we don't have an administration witness at all. And that, in my view, is a step in the wrong direction. We have got to bring this committee's focus back to where it belongs, which is, of course, connected to having administration witnesses here so that we can ask them relevant questions in service to our communities. This committee, as the chairman knows, has jurisdiction over our national parks.
One question that I was very eager to ask of the administration's witness today, particularly in light of the various bills that have been proposed connected to our national parks, is a recent decision that was announced by the Trump administration just last week. And some of you may have seen this. You can see this here on the billboard behind me. The headline, CBS News, national parks add Trump's birthday to the list of fee-free days and remove MLK day and Juneteenth. Since 2007, the National Park Service has designated specific days as fee-free days for our national spaces.
It is abhorrent and unconscionable that the Trump administration has now decided that MLK junior day, which has been a fee-free day for the National Park Service since 2011, nearly sixteen years under democratic administrations, republican administrations, including president Trump's first term, that now MLK day will no longer be considered a fee-free day for the National Park Service. And it is, by the way, consistent with this administration's unconscionable efforts to rewrite our country's history. 2026 will be the first time in over 15 years that Martin Luther King Junior day is not included. And I believe that my colleagues on this committee have an obligation to make clear their position as to whether or not they agree with the administration's decision. And if they disagree, which I hope they disagree because I imagine that the people of Wisconsin and the people of Idaho, much like the folks in Colorado, treasure Martin Luther King Junior day as the federal holiday that it is, and that I would assume be supportive of the practice of having it be a fee-free day as it has always been.
Mister chairman, I'll do something unorthodox here. I'm, you know, running out of time here. I don't know. I wanna give you an opportunity if you might be interested in partnering with us on this effort. And I understand that there are ideological headwinds coming from different directions, but I feel like this is something that merits the chairman and the ranking member doing that together and making the case to the administration that they ought to reverse this particular policy in advance of Martin Luther King Day in a few months.
Speaker 4
Well, I hope I think that. Do you yield back? I thank the chairman, and I would just say, I intend to bring this up at every subcommittee hearing from here on out. I intend to belabor this because I think it is abhorrent. And I again, I'm just hopeful to make the case to my colleagues to join us. The interior department ought to change this policy.
Secretary Bergham could change it tomorrow if he wanted to, and I would hope that you'd join me in that effort. So I'll yield back the balance.
Speaker 1
And I have no doubt that you will belabor this way as we go through. The gentleman yields back.
Speaker 1
I will now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Cain, for five minutes on H.R. 5419.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the subcommittee in support of my bill, the Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act. In our modern world, Americans increasingly depend on a reliable wireless connection to communicate, conduct business, and access health care. However, a significant gap in Internet connectivity remains, particularly in our country's most rural communities. To reach these areas, broadband providers must navigate a mire of permitting requirements across various federal agencies just to begin work.
These processes are often outdated, inconsistent, and burdensome, and permitting requests frequently face years-long delays. To successfully bridge this digital divide, we must have an all of government, public, and private approach. And step one must be to make sure that federal agencies have the right processes in place for permitting applications in an efficient and timely manner. My legislation will direct a needed review of the processes used by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to review permitting requests to communications infrastructure so that Congress can direct targeted reforms to improve efficiency, interagency coordination, and to accelerate access to necessary broadband connections. Through the efforts in this subcommittee and others in Congress, we have a real opportunity to find consensus on ways to modernize and to streamline our federal agencies so they can best deliver for the American people.
I appreciate this committee's efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important issue. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on my bill, Mister Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields, and I will now recognize our witnesses. First of all, I wanna remind the witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statements to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony. 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'll ask you to please complete your statement. First, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mister Crane, for 30 seconds to introduce our first witness.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chairman, for allowing me to wave on to this critical hearing today. I'm honored to introduce John Dillon, a constituent small business owner, and a lifelong advocate for the Grand Canyon. John has spent his entire adult life working to share and protect this national landmark, most notably in his role as executive director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association. Today, he represents many family-owned businesses and rural Arizonans whose future depends on revitalizing the North Rim at the Grand Canyon in the aftermath of the Dragon Bravo fire. I can think of no one more qualified to speak on the real impacts of the North Rim Restoration Act of 2025, and we thank you for your testimony.
We're also grateful, mister Dylan, for your wife, Joy, coming with you on her birthday and enjoying her birthday on Capitol Hill. Hopefully, restoring the North Rim makes up for spending her birthday here in Congress instead of at home. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 8
Birthday to Joy Dillon, my beautiful wife. Behind me, thank you very much, mister chairman and committee members, on this very important subject. My name is John Dillon. I am the business owner and born and raised in Northern Arizona. I've spent my entire adult life, built my career at the Grand Canyon.
My parents lived at the Grand Canyon, owned a small sporting goods store and backcountry office, and backcountry hiking guide service before I was born. I raised my three children there and lived there for about 18 years as the then president of Scenic Grand Canyon Airlines, the world's oldest air tour company, started in 1927. Today, I am the executive director of the Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association representing those 16 small businesses that run river trips through Grand Canyon. I have spent the last 32 years of my life passionately advocating for and sharing Grand Canyon with millions of visitors from around the world, all from the air, the ground, and the river. Yes.
I am a total canyon nerd. My Instagram handle is Grand Canyon Man. Check that out. I am here today on behalf of the hundreds of family-owned businesses and dozens of rural communities throughout Northern Arizona and Southern Utah whose very survival depends on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. For us, the canyon is our home.
It is our backyard. It is our workplace. It is a place of recreation and solitude, even a place of worship. It is the place that 11 Native American tribes who also shared deep cultural, spiritual, and historical connections with the canyon considered to be their ancestral homeland since time immemorial. It is deeply important to all of us that live there and the surrounding areas.
The canyon is also the economic epicenter of Northern Arizona and southern Utah. The National Park Service carefully tracks not only visitors, but also the economic impacts to the region. They measure dollars spent in categories such as camping, gas, groceries, lodging, recreation, dining, retail, and transportation. In 2022, the Northrend visitors pumped almost 73,000,000 into those rural communities, supporting several thousand jobs. This is what we depend on.
But that all changed on 07/04/2025, when lightning ignited the Dragon Bravo fire, the seventh largest wildfire in Arizona's history. It ultimately consumed over 145,000 acres, destroying 113 structures, including, yes, the 1937 historic Grand Canyon Lodge, visitor cabins, employee housing, NPS buildings, and equipment, and nearly all of the utilities and infrastructure. Hundreds of park service employees and concessionaire employees were evacuated, many losing their personal vehicles and belongings. Visitation virtually stopped that night. There are far too many individual businesses impacted by this to name here today, but I'd like to recognize one.
The Jacob Lake Inn is synonymous with the North Rim. It was started by the Bowman family in 1923, just four years after the national park was established. My friend, Melinda, fifth-generation owner, told me that they had to refund almost $350,000 just in reservation deposits of this year. She said, we've dealt with the Great Depression, world wars, wildfires, and so many other catastrophes completely out of our control. We've been through three megafires and COVID just in the last 5 years.
But when the Grand Canyon Lodge burned to the ground, we knew our economy had gone up in smoke with it. Nearly all of the businesses located in Page, Marble Canyon, Fredonia, Kanab, and Panguitch are in the same terrifying position. Many will not survive another year or two or three, while the normal governmental appropriations and planning process crawls forward. HR 75729 gives the National Park Service via the Department of Interior the emergency contracting authority it needs to rebuild critical visitor facilities and modernized infrastructure immediately. This is not about new development.
This is not about expansion. It is about restoring what existed for nearly a century, so these rural pioneering families and communities and jobs can survive. We respectfully urge the committee to advance this bipartisan legislation without delay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mister Crane, and all those cosponsors of this important bill.
I thank you from all of those people that are affected, and I yield my time. I appreciate it and take any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Dylan. I now would like to introduce Mister Greg Hancock, mayor of the city of Wilcox, Arizona. Mayor Hancock, you have five minutes.
Speaker 9
Alright. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and ranking members of the distinguished members of the subcommittee. I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of HR 66380, the Chiricahua National Park Act introduced by representative Juan Siskomani. My name is Greg Hancock, and I'm the mayor of Wilcox, Arizona. I am also a small business owner.
My family and I restored a historic hotel in Downtown Wilcox, a building that had been neglected for years, like many small businesses in rural Arizona or America. It is not, it has not always been easy. We have navigated rising costs, staffing challenges, seasonal swings, and the uncertainty that comes with running a business in a small town. Tourism is not just helpful to us. It is essential.
It keeps our doors open, supports local jobs, and allows us to invest back into the community. So when I speak in support of the redesignation, I do both as a mayor and someone whose livelihood depends directly on the strength of our tourism economy. Chiricahua National Monument, soon I hope to be Chiricahua National Park, is one of the most extraordinary natural landscapes in The United States. Known as the world land of the wonderland of rocks, it contains 12,000 acres of towering rhyolite formations, breathtaking vistas, and a rich ecosystem that attracts birders, hikers, and adventure adventurers from around the world. This year marks the monuments, or I guess it was last year marks the 100th year anniversary, and there's no better way to honor its legacy than by giving it the recognition it deserves.
A national park designation will elevate this site in the minds of travelers. Unfortunately, many visitors misunderstood the meaning of monument, assuming it refers to a statue, a small or a small historic site. As a result, far too many people pass through our region without realizing that one of America's greatest natural wonders is just a short drive away. National parks enjoy significantly higher visitations than National Monuments. In fact, sites redesignated as National Park see an average increase of 21% in visitation in the years following the change.
For a rural economy like ours, that difference is enormous. Wilcox relies on tourism. It is how we recovered after the great recession, and it is how we continue to grow today. Over the last five years, our community has seen a 67% increase in bed tax revenue, reflecting real, meaningful growth in visitation. People come for birding, for our wine tasting since 75% of Arizona's grapes are grown in Wilcox.
For agriculture, tourism, and for our local museums and attractions, tourism has reinvigorated downtown, encouraged private investment, and breathed new life into small businesses like mine. But the Chiricahuas are our showpiece, and I know this firsthand, not just as a mayor or a business owner, but as a father. My family and I visit the Chiricahuas often. We hike among the spires, and we take our kids to Masai Point, and we enjoy the sunsets that rival anything in the world. It is one of our community's greatest treasures.
When I encourage hotel guests to visit, they come back amazed and often surprised that such a remarkable landscape is so overlooked. A national park designation will finally give Chiricao the prominence it deserves. Importantly, this re designation does not require additional federal funding. The National Park Service already manages this site. This is a name change, but the name change has big consequences.
Moving visit or more visitors, more economic activity, and more support for rural communities, and more opportunities for families across the country to discover this extraordinary place. I just wanna thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and just wanna reiterate how important it would be to turn this into a national park. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you very much, Mayor Hancock. Next, I want to introduce Mister Curtis Sheets, chief of Wintergreen Fire and Rescue. Chief Sheets, you have five minutes.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany and distinguished federal and subcommittee members. I wanna thank also, congressman McGuire and his staff and all who have helped to advance this bill as far as they have. A bill I feel is essential to save lives. First, a little bit about Wintergreen. It's one of the largest planned communities in Virginia, with over 3,000 properties situated on 11,000 acres. We're home to hundreds of Virginians and literally tens of thousands of their guests.
We're sitting here today because two mistakes were made in the mid-70s. First, a large mountaintop community was designed with only one way in and out, as was discussed by others. Second, because the original developers believe so strongly in environmental conservation, they identified a few thousand acres of land they would not need to be conveyed to the Appalachian Trail Commission. The mistake that they made was they did not reserve an emergency egress corridor across the very land that they were conveying. It wouldn't be fair to beat the founding fathers of Wintergreen up too badly over this, because to be honest, very little attention was paid to wildfire in Virginia in the seventies.
Wildfires were a West Coast phenomenon and perhaps a Midwest issue, but people really weren't talking about wildfires on the East Coast. Sometime around 2000, the Virginia Department of Forestry placed Wintergreen on their radar as a wildland-urban interface community with a high risk of devastating wildfire. Ever since then, becoming aware of our risk, we've worked steadily to mitigate it. Wintergreen met the standards to become a Firewise community as designated by an FPA in 2008. We've continuously worked to reduce our fire loads and change our community construction standards to prohibit things like cedar roofs and other highly flammable materials.
The main thing we need, however, and what we've been relentlessly lobbying for, is an emergency egress from the Blue Ridge Parkway. We simply need a gravel road connecting our road network to the parkway, so our residents and guests can run away from an approaching wildfire. I wanna take a second to put this in perspective, the scope of it, since of this group only congressman Maguire has walked the proposed route with me. Many of you are likely pretty dialed into college football this time of year, and even if you're not, you can certainly visualize a football field. Now I want you to think about just one of the end zones.
That's roughly the same amount of square footage that we need for our path to safety. We practice fire drills as little kids, as adults, we're still told where the exits are on every airplane. The importance of an escape route is known, understood by all, and it is simply not disputed. And yet, the Department of the Interior has been absolutely steadfast in their resolve to keep this emergency egress from being created. So why would they do that?
Well, it's actually simple. They're doing their jobs. They're charged with protecting the park. It's literally in their job description. However, that's a description which you can amend. So would this exit impact the park environment?
Well, of course, no road can be built with zero impact. However, we believe the impact is so close to zero that, statistically speaking, it is zero. We have studied bats, bugs, artifacts, wetlands, trees, plants, sounds, lights, and bats. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to be certain that our project won't negatively impact the environment. So let's say this bill doesn't get approved, and instead we kick the can down the road because there's nothing we can do.
What's the worst that could happen? Well, if you ask the people in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, they would tell you about 14 lives lost in 2016. If you ask the people in Paradise, California, they will tell you about 85 lives lost, many of them trapped in their cars trying to escape in 2018. If you talk to the folks in Maui, they'll tell you about people abandoning their vehicles to jump into the ocean just because the traffic wasn't moving, and the fire was coming too fast. They lost 102 souls.
That was in 2023. 2016, 2018, 2023, this threat of wildfire isn't coming. It's already here. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you gonna add your name to the long list of people who haven't worked to improve our safety?
Or will you agree with me and congressman Maguire that a patch of gravel smaller than an area of an end zone is a small price to pay if it could avoid another deadly wildfire scenario? Please don't allow some fire chief in the future to rattle off a list of deadly wildfires, which includes Wintergreen. In the words of Smokey the Bear himself, only you can prevent this. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chief Sheets. I now introduce Mr. Brad White. Okay. Mister Nagus, I turn to you to introduce Mister White.
Speaker 4
I thank the chairman for his indulgence. Thank you. I'm honored to introduce our next witness, Chief Brad White, from the Grand Fire Protection District in my district. Chief White has served as fire chief for this district since 2019. He's enjoyed a long and successful fire career in Colorado since first joining the Hot Sulfur Springs partial fire protection district back in 2001.
Chief White also currently serves as the chair of the Grand County Wildfire Council. He's the president of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs Association. He has been a trusted partner for me and my office and has steered Grand County through some very difficult times, including the East Troublesome fire and the recovery efforts ever since. I'm glad to welcome Chief White to our committee today. Look forward to hearing his testimony.
He does a damn good job back in Colorado, and we're grateful to have him here in Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ranking members of the house committee, subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HR 3924, the Wildfire Risk Evaluation Act. As stated, I'm Brad White. I'm fire chief serving in a rural mountain community in Grand County that, Grand County is 70% federal lands, where emergency services operate at the intersection of federal lands, fast growing development, and increasing wildfire risk.
In our county and across the West, wildfire is no longer a seasonal issue, it is a year-round multi-jurisdictional challenge that tests the capacity of federal, state, county, tribes, and local responders and agencies alike. HR 39 24 is a practical step because it recognizes something we experienced on the ground. Wildfire is not owned by any one entity. It's a system problem. Land management agencies make decisions to shape fuels, access landscape conditions, emergency management, and other fire services are responsible for life safety, evacuation, response coordination, and long term recovery.
The public experiences all of this in one event. This bill helps those missions covered around a shared picture of risk and a shared planning horizon. The bill is especially timely as the tools that we finally are catching up to the problem if we use them consistently. Modern satellite detection and remote sensing can shorten the time from ignition to awareness, but higher resolution fuel and vegetation mapping can now improve how we prioritize mitigation and fuels projects. More accessible fire and smoke modeling can better project potential spread, intensity, and impacts.
Those capabilities are still unevenly integrated across jurisdictions and agencies. We can now model not just fire spread, but downstream impacts, smoke exposure, watershed risk, and infrastructure disruption. A predictable quadrennial review is a strong way to ensure that our national approach keeps pace with changing conditions and incorporates the best available data and modeling into planning. Grand County provides a clear case study. We've seen rapid growth in the wildland urban interface, often with second homes and investment properties.
That expands the footprint of risk, increases evacuation complexity, and makes suppression more difficult, especially in mountainous terrain. We've also lived through a long arc of the pine beetle epidemic. In the early 2000s, many of us believed that the heightened fire risk would be short lived. Two decades later, heavy dead fuels and regenerating vegetation have created conditions that can support extreme fire behavior when wind and drought align. In our county alone, six federal land management units were affected, each with different strategies, priorities, and constraints, alongside private lands supported by our state forest service office.
This is exactly the kind of fragmented landscape risk picture this bill is designed to address. In 2020, these troublesome fires demonstrated how quickly conditions can exceed its assumptions. Started October 14 and made a historic run through forest, rangelands, and communities, eventually burning nearly 200,000 acres, and destroying homes and buildings. The lesson is not about a single cause. The lesson is the system must plan for a high consequence rapid escalating events anywhere in the built environment intersecting with Mylan and aligned mitigation, response, recovery accordingly.
What HR 3924 supports is interagency recurring review that quantifies changes in the built and natural environment, incorporates public health considerations, and uses forward-looking scenarios to guide how agencies align programs, capability, and workforce. In closing, Grand County is not unique. It is increasingly typical of fire-prone communities across the country. HR 39 24 is a sensible modernization step that helps federal partners and communities work from the same baseline, from the same planning horizon, and use better data and better tools. I urge the subcommittee to advance 39 24, and thank you for your time today.
Be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chief White. I now recognize Mr. Brian Ford, vice president of federal regulatory at NTCA, the Rural Broadband Association. Mister Ford, you have five minutes.
Speaker 12
Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Ngoose, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this legislative hearing today. My testimony today will focus on HR 5419, the Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act introduced by Representative Kane. I'm Brian Ford, a VP of federal regulatory at NTCA, the Rural Broadband Association. My responsibilities there include advocating on behalf of my members in front of the Federal Communications Commission, NTIA, USDA, and the Department of Interior, among others. That advocacy includes the process by which my members obtain access to federal lands or property for the purposes of installing broadband infrastructure.
My remarks today are on behalf of the NTCA membership, which is about 850 small community-based providers of broadband and telecommunication service in 44 states. My average member has 6,000 customers, typically operates with about 30 total employees. In building and operating in deeply rural spaces, hard to reach areas of the country, they face a number of challenges, including typical densities of seven locations per mile, difficult to build and operate in terrain, weather-shortened construction seasons, and workforce shortages. But despite these challenges, NTC members have done a tremendous job of getting broadband out there in their areas. Effective governmental policies and programs that help make and sustain the business case for investing and continuing to operate networks in rural America have been critical to that success as well.
It is worth noting, despite the tremendous effort that my members have undertaken to build in rural areas, more work needs to be done in those areas. Moreover, in rural areas that have not been historically lucky enough to have a community-based MTCA member as their provider, even more work needs to be done to connect millions of Americans. NTC members and all broadband providers face lengthy delays and significant costs with respect to gaining access to federal property or land to install broadband infrastructure. I provided a couple of examples in my written testimony, but delays of well over a year are common. The reality of building broadband networks in rural areas is they often have little to no choice but to touch federal lands or property.
It's just infeasible very often to reroute the project. The United States is at a critical moment with respect to broadband availability. Private investment is accelerating to meet demand, and the largest deployment project in this nation's history, the BEAT program, is just now getting under way. But I can tell you that my members and providers of all kinds are increasingly concerned that without proactive planning and concrete steps to streamline the federal permitting process, projects to connect unserved and underserved consumers are going to be much more expensive, significantly delayed, scaled back, or even abandoned altogether. NCCA is therefore pleased to endorse HR 54 19.
Its enactment would represent a critical step towards streamlining the process. This bill would require the Department of Interior and USDA to undertake a much needed thorough review of their internal permitting processes. This review will likely highlight several common points of failure that are the source of delay. Highlighting these common points of failure would then allow the agencies to change their rules or internal processes to come up with a more efficient permitting process. Ultimately, this will allow agency staff to review and approve communications use permits at a much faster pace.
The report required by the legislation will also allow the committees of jurisdiction over federal agencies to determine the nature of reforms that may be necessary and appropriate to speed up the process. Ultimately, enacting HR 5419 would be a great, or excuse me, would be a good government initiative. A practice that ensures that federal agencies work as effectively and efficiently as possible on behalf of all Americans. NTCA commands representative Kane for his introduction to the bill. We look forward to working with this subcommittee, other members of Congress, and federal agencies to streamline the process, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Ford. Finally, I'd like to introduce Mister Brian Wachendorf, a retired chief warrant officer three in the United States Army. Mister Wachendorf, you have five minutes.
Speaker 13
Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Nugus, and members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Homefront Act. As said, my name is Chief Warrant Officer Three retired, Brian Walkendorf. I served honorably for 17 years as a senior noncommissioned officer and warrant officer. Throughout my career, I was evaluated as among the best in my field. I had never failed before, but I am here to describe how privatized military housing failures destroyed my family's health, compromised troop readiness, and ended my career, and why the current system of oversight and remediation must change.
It is unbearable as a husband and a father to watch my wife and my children suffer. Our kids, ages 3, 5, and 11, at that time, endured bloody noses, painful skin rashes, cellulitis, severe headaches, anxiety, and a cascade of other physical and mental health problems. My wife and I developed high blood pressure and heart issues, and began to show many of the same symptoms. Just try to imagine the helplessness of watching your children get sick and knowing you can't protect them. Over two and a half years, my family moved six times on our own dime.
Every home was contaminated with visible mold, sewage leaks, and other hazards. Four of those houses were historic homes at Schofield Barracks. We were repeatedly told homes were safe, while being denied meaningful repairs or proper remediation. The pattern was not isolated. It was systematic.
The oversight system failed us. Contract terms effectively tie the hands of base leadership. The military advocate assigned to help our family never even visited our home, dismissed our concerns, and lacked the training to assess environmental hazards. Base industrial hygiene personnel conducted only casual visual checks, and corporate and base inspectors applied minimal protocols, not the comprehensive inspections industry standards require. Every house was signed off as habitable despite being un...
Uninhabitable. When we attempted a formal dispute, the formal dispute resolution process was denied by the base commander's staff without explanation, stripping us of due process. Repeatedly, I was told by commanders at multiple levels, it's out of my hands. That abdication of responsibility leaves families with no recourse. Remediation was a sham.
We have ring footage showing staged repairs, personal property returned in plastic bags, which caused immediate reactions. My wife broke out in a severe rash minutes after opening them. A legitimate third party assessment later deemed the furniture non-salvageable. My wife inherited her father's police badge, a sacred keepsake from the officer who was killed in the line of duty. And that priceless symbol, along with countless other irreplaceable family treasures, was destroyed and or lost.
We were never compensated. Technicians often failed to follow protocols, and HVAC systems remained contaminated. Beyond the physical loss, we faced retaliation and isolation. My advocacy led to disciplinary actions and command alienation. We arrived on EFMP status and were placed in housing that did not meet accommodations, and later requests were denied.
In a deeply troubling breach, the commanding general staff contacted my wife's doctor and sought to have her medical letter linking illnesses to environmental testing withdrawn. The doctor confirmed this as a HIPAA violation. No one was held accountable. Simultaneously, I was training and preparing my team for multiple rotations, five to Hawaii, one to four Polk, and a deployment to Indonesia, while repeatedly raising alarms about dangerous, unsanitary, and noncompliant working conditions that harm morale and readiness. These conditions, no running or drinking water, no air conditioning, overflowing portable toilets, persisted for years, drove down retention and pushed some soldiers to contemplate suicide or even violence.
Despite my efforts, including an unorthodox open-door briefing to the PACOM commanding general, leadership dismissed the problem or criticized my rank for raising it, and I became a target for trying to protect my soldiers and family. Official advocates failed us. Only an independent volunteer advocacy group provided consistent support. Their lack of conflict of interest made the difference in getting attention. Yet even then, the company's local misrepresentations were often privileged over our documented evidence.
The Homefront Act will be the first big step in ensuring this doesn't happen to other military families.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Wachendorf. Now I'm going to turn to Mister Petronas on your bill HR 54 19 if you wanna take a couple of minutes to introduce that.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chairman. You, chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. Brian, thank you for your testimony and for your service to our state and our nation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify on HR 5990. The housing military effectively for readiness operations of neutralize of threats, Homefront Act for short.
This legislation is a first step, as Brian said, to provide a no-cost definition change that will save billions of dollars over compliance while dramatically improving military housing. In my own district, we have base housing, but a lot of times a place like Northwest Florida, which is a 100% humidity state, brings in a housing structure from Arizona or Colorado that is not built for our environment. So HVAC systems are not engineered in the proper ways, and ultimately, you get the type of results. And then, on the flip side, the Home Friday Act is also addressing where we've got a historical concern of the architectural value of a base housing where we can allow that to be mitigated and be able to move forward past some of the architectural protections in order to ensure that our nation's best and brightest get absolute the best possible housing possible. Recently returned from Kodiak Island in Alaska to see the new base housing there, and there is definitely a different attitude and respect that our servicemen and women have when they have a nice place to raise a family.
And I truly think they deserve the best. But as we are dealing with deficiencies, including mold, water intrusion, lead based pay, we must do better, and this is exactly what the Hopefront Act intends to do, mister chairman. I've got other comments, but I'll be fine to stand by for questions.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Petronas. And now we'd like to take questions from members. First, I'm gonna recognize represent Fulcher from Idaho. We're gonna limit members' questions to 3 minutes.
We wanna get through as many people here as possible. We've got votes coming up real soon.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Walker, I'm gonna start with you. Just, I wanted some clarification on something. There's a reference earlier to nondisclosure agreements when engaging with military housing.
Is that unique to private owned properties, these nondisclosure agreements, and the requirements for those?
Speaker 13
As I'm aware, yes. The NDAs, a lot of times you, as a service member, come into a new base, you'll sign that as you're signing your lease paperwork, and a lot of members don't even know that's what it is.
Speaker 7
So in your view, what's the purpose of having a nondisclosure agreement when you move into a dwelling?
Speaker 13
To prevent people like me and my family from being able to speak up and get things actioned.
Speaker 7
So you in your view, there's a direct connection or a direct correlation between living conditions and readiness as a military.
Speaker 7
For your testimony. I'm gonna shift gears on abbreviated cycle here. Mister Ford, let's transition over to HR 54 19, the enhancing admin reviews for broadband deployment. I come from Idaho, and we've got a quite a fast patchwork of land mass. We've got mostly federal, but we've got a lot of states, some private, tribal.
And that patchwork complicates things when it comes to administration for broadband. Could in the environment where I come from, can you tell me how that HR 54 19 may be helpful?
Speaker 12
So I think this bill could be helpful in identifying why that patchwork is so difficult. A great example would be if you're building in Idaho and you're gonna touch forced service land or wetlands, and you're also gonna touch BLM property, they might have entirely different application processes. It might even take a provider, I've heard of this, six months to figure out which agency is the lead agency. And what I think this bill can do is get at those common points of failure and figure out why these kinds of things are happening and why it takes so long just to, you could build 100 miles of fiber in Idaho and only touch BLM land for a couple miles and a little bit of forest service land, it takes six months just to find out who the lead agency is.
Speaker 7
Thank you for that. So I got 30 seconds left. I'm gonna ask you one quick question having to do with rural telecom providers, because that's the guts of the providers in the rural area. What do you think this could do economically for the rural telecom providers?
Speaker 12
This would be fantastic for them. It's just so much money gets wasted waiting for permits. A lot of my members, in Idaho, your ground is frozen for four months. If they don't get a permit until November, their construction crews sit idle for several months. Money gets wasted that they could otherwise use to connect to other customers.
And maybe they lose a construction crew, and they're behind another couple of months. And, again, that's money wasted.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Gentlemen, yields, we're gonna continue having questions here for a few minutes. I wanna recognize the ranking minority member, Mister Nigous, for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief White, it's good to have you up here, and it's wonderful to have a fellow Coloradan here in Washington, D.C. As you can imagine, we have a lot of Westerners here on the dais on our committee, but, of course, a lot of folks who represent the Eastern Seaboard as well. And I try to explain to my colleagues the unique complexities of Western Colorado, which I'm, of course, very lucky and blessed to represent.
And trying to explain to them, the various nuances can be a bit difficult at times. Our district, my district, as you know, is larger than nine states, bigger than Rhode Island, bigger than, you know, New Jersey, a number of others. And, of course, as you mentioned, is home to wide swaths of treasured public lands. And the unique environment that I have the privilege of representing, and that you have the honor of serving, also presents unique challenges. And we, of course, know those all too well in terms of the wildfire risks.
I also say you may be the fire chief of the highest elevation location that's ever testified in front of this committee at about, you know, 8,000, 8500 feet. But in any event, you remember.
Speaker 4
Well, you can ask the chief that. You remember well these troublesome fire, which, by way of context from my colleagues, burned about 200,000 acres over the course of about a month and a half, five years ago, and grew in a matter of 24 hours about 120,000 acres. The metastasization of those flames across the landscapes up in Grand County were remarkable. And, you know, thanks to the efforts of the fire chief and so many in our community back then, our community was able to, you know, survive that conflagration. Ultimately, the recovery effort has been long-standing.
The question, I think, for you, chief, is you perhaps more than most understand the complexities associated with wildfire risk, and I wonder if you might expound a bit on the benefits of the data modeling that this bill that I've introduced might provide for, you know, folks like yourself as you're having to manage the various partnerships that come from, you know, a jurisdiction that abuts federal lands, for example, managed by the BLM and the Forest Service and a wide variety of other agencies.
Speaker 11
Thank you, ranking member. I'd be happy to. As I mentioned, Greene County has seven different land management units. We got two national forests. We've got a national recreation area.
We've got a national park. We've got the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation. And each one of those federal agencies comes with a different mandate on how they manage their land and what they're managing it for. I think, you know, we work frequently with the State Forest Service Office that builds forest management plans and works with our federal partners on those long term forest planning. But I think that we are at a point where data and modeling have taken huge strides and began to be integrated into not just response, but into planning and forest health.
And, I think by using some of the more modern data and satellite imaging and lidar, we're able to come up with a much better, you know, much better idea of what those canopies are like, forest health, you know, fuel moistures. You know, in our case, it was a pine beetle that decimated 80% of our lodgepole pine. And to, in fact, that is going on in the front range of Colorado. It's just beginning now. So to be able to take stock of what's out there in the way of vegetation and forest and natural resources that could be affected by this and be able to, you know, look at that more modern data, assimilate it quickly, and to have not just one or two federal land management agencies, but all of them as well as FEMA and US Fire Administration and the local counterparts, state counterparts look at it and decide as we look across the West or across the nation, you know, what are our priority areas and what do we need to do to get the right resources there.
I
Speaker 4
With you more, chief. And you've explained well, I think, the basis for why this bill is so important. And I, again, just wanna say thank you for your service, and I hope you'll convey my gratitude to the firefighters on the front line that are, you know, doing incredible work protecting our community. And a note of gratitude for lending us your headquarters to host. We had our seventeenth town hall of the year in Granby just a few weeks ago.
I suppose about a month ago, and I know we missed you. But we appreciate you letting us crash the headquarters a little bit with about 100 of our constituents in Granby. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Speaker 1
You, Mr. Kendall. Yields, and I'll recognize Mister Kennedy from Utah for three minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful for you convening this hearing. And to the witnesses, thank you very much. I know it takes a lot to come here. We do that often, and you have to do it sometimes.
But I'm so grateful for your testimony today, and particularly Chief Sheets and White for your willingness to testify. You represent people that are vital to our safety, and the opportunities that we have to have lives and properties saved by the work that you and those you represent do means a lot to all of us here. I had a few questions along the lines of the devastation of forest fires, which Utah is subject to. We all in the country, sadly, are subject to that, but Utah is particularly prone to it. And a wildfire doesn't just damage landscapes.
It destroys lives and communities, and disrupts the homes and living circumstances that we all have. So we hear a lot about federal coordination, and local leaders often say they feel cut out of the planning process. And, Chief White, I'd like your comments on, do you feel that federal agencies are actually treating local departments as equal partners, or do you have to respond to partners that are distant and disconnected from you in general?
Speaker 11
Thank you for the question, congressman. You know, I can only really speak from the experience I have in those agencies and fire chiefs that I've speak with frequently throughout the Rocky Mountain region. I think for most of us, we do feel like there is some effort to include local organizations, but I think that, you know, the local land managers we work with are often tied to a little larger arduous process, and it gets lost in translation pretty quickly. I talk frequently with several of my, you know, the fire management officers as well as poor supervisors and the field managers from the BLM. But I feel like they are in a system that really keeps them working with their bosses that are frequently in other places, and decisions frequently get made, you know, probably more at a regional level rather than at a local level.
Speaker 15
So Grandby is close to a number of federal lands. And how is it that you can find what works well, what doesn't work well as you try to coordinate with the federal officials that manage those lands in your areas? That's where a lot of lands are proximate to your town.
Speaker 11
You know, we try to involve, you know, those managers in many of the day to day decisions going on and meetings and things. We've got them involved with our wildfire council. We've got them involved with, you know, our watershed group, has them involved, our tourism group. It's, you know, we try consistently to keep that conversation going. We do find it challenging.
Our area is one where frequently we'll get a new manager, and, you know, they'll spend two or three years there and get to know all the players and learn the local, you know, for lack of a better word, the local politics and the local concerns. And then frequently are promoted off to somewhere else, we'll get someone new in that we have to start that, you know, that process over with, getting to know them and showing them that the locals do have concerns, do understand what the federal partners are going through. But, again, we live there and feel like, know, sometimes things need to happen quicker than what they're able.
Speaker 1
I yield back. Gentlemen yields back, and I'll recognize Mister Gosar for three minutes. Or I would turn to Mister Crane for three minutes.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Dylan, thank you so much for all that you do for Arizona and taking the time to come up here today. Can you tell us a little bit about the rafting community and what the economic impact of the closure of the North Rim has had on local business?
Speaker 8
Yes. I can, and thank you, Mr. Crane. There are 16 small businesses, commercial outfitters. They have concession contracts with the National Park Service. We run approximately 22,000 people a year through the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but produce about $75,000,000 of gross sales.
Very important piece. And the only way for us to see the bottom of the canyon. Most can look over the rim, but they can't see it from the bottom without us, so we're grateful for that. But all of the businesses in the region are impacted. It is the economic epicenter of Northern Arizona and southern Utah.
It's important that they all be recognized for what they do contribute.
Speaker 2
Do you think it's viable to rebuild the canyon or the North Rim in a way that can accommodate more visitors and keep the park open for more months throughout the year?
Speaker 8
Well, I'm not an expert in reconstruction and all the modern technology that goes with it, but I do say yes, absolutely, especially restoring infrastructure that was built nearly a century ago. So restoring that, obviously, is gonna be much more modest. Those local communities of Kanab and Panguich Page, they've been advocating for a longer season. The North Rim is closed half of the year. It's only open from May 15 to October 15 a year.
So, hopefully, the modern infrastructure will allow for a much longer, if not twelve-month, visitation.
Speaker 2
For people watching, Mister Dillon, who have never been to the Grand Canyon, can you express what this iconic destination means to rural Arizonans?
Speaker 8
Well, I can try, but that's a difficult thing to do because it's almost impossible. It is our home. It is our backyard. For those that have visited the Grand Canyon, it's usually a bucket list item. But for those of us that get to live there, it's quite a blessing to be able to share it with the rest of the world.
It's also a UNESCO World Heritage site. It literally belongs to everybody for its resources. So it's important not just for economics, but also for the value of the canyon that it is.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And this isn't a partisan issue, is it, Mr. Dillon? This isn't, you know, a bill for Republicans or Democrats. This is something that everybody's on the same page on. Is that correct?
Speaker 8
As far as I know it, who doesn't like that? And as chief White and chief Sheetz have explained, and fire shares no respect boundary, nor should the recovery. Right? So if fire doesn't know what's the line between the department of agriculture, department of interior, park service, forest service, nor should the recovery. I hope that this is a bipartisan measure that will move swiftly and advance this quickly so these companies, these jobs, and these communities can survive.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize the other gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for allowing me to get on. On 07/04/2025, a lightning strike ignited the Dragon Bravo fire along the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. It spread quickly, engulfing more than 145,000 acres and at least 100 structures, including the historic Grand Canyon Lodge. This is the lodge at Teddy Roosevelt initiated on July 4 that year, and it cannot be replaced.
It actually cannot be replaced. I feel your sympathy, though, with all the fire and problems in our forest because we've had a lot of problems. In 2024, 4,000,000 visitors flock to the Grand Canyon to experience one of the seven wonders of the world. It's more than just that. It's the seventh wonder of the world.
We've seen the North Rim is now permanently closed for the remainder of this year, and 12 adjacent trails are. These are the things that Mister Dillon said bring people in. So it's glad to see you here, Mr. Dillon. Representative Crane's bill provides the National Park Service with some flexibility to quickly rebuild infrastructure and conduct forest rest restoration activities. Importantly, it includes rigorous oversight requirements for cost overruns and projects' efficiencies.
As an outfitter, can you describe the financial burden your small business and those that your colleagues face if these flexibilities are not granted to the Fort Park Service?
Speaker 8
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. It's good to be here. As I've explained before, every one of these communities have businesses that are linked together, whether it's Kidnav Meats providing steak for a river trip or whether it's, you know, propane or ice or maintenance on equipment, all of these things are intertwined and linked together. So what really, when we say that all tide, you know, rising tide raises all boats, that's true for the entire region of Northern Arizona and Southern Utah.
Speaker 16
Well, I'm a big proponent of Mister Crane's bill, and I'm a colleague's bill. And I think this is something very important to do and get done. In fact, it should be done according to the specs that were actually built, because that's really the restoration project. I hope we never see this again, because we really have to monitor our force. So this really applies to you as well, does it not?
Speaker 16
Yeah. So I'm gonna quickly go to you, Mayor, for Wilcox. Normally, I'm very pro designations. But one of the things I wanna stress with you at this point in time is that it's interrelated. And the Taylor Grazing Act around that area, around Wilcox, should be enhanced because what it says is that grazing must not be increased in that area.
So I would make sure that you got the ranchers involved, all your farmers down there in that area because you grow a lot of stuff, but also making sure that they're tied to that area so that the grazing can allotments can be done because that's a big reduction of fuel. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. And I wanna thank all of you for your patience today and presenting your testimony. And thank you to the members for your questions. Members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for each of you, and we will ask that you respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5PM on Tuesday, 12/16/2025.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for your responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee on federal lands stands adjourned. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.