Legislative hearing on five bills: • H.R. 926 (Rep. Cohen), “Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act” • H.R. 3922 (Rep. Neguse), “Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act” • H.R. 4038 (Rep. Kim of CA), “Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025” • H.R. 4684 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025” • H.R. 6300 (Rep. Hageman), “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025”
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 3
Mister chairman. I appreciate that. Sorry for my slightly late arrival. So I'm looking forward to this hearing. Many times over the last year, I have raised concerns about the administration's attempts to whitewash American history and rewrite the truth of our nation, which has not always been a Disney film.
There are parts of our history that aren't all gauzy and pretty, and it's important that they be told, too. I raised these concerns to Secretary Bergham, raised them to the National Park Service officials, raised them to my colleagues across the aisle. And President Trump and the Interior Department have made it their mission, it seems to me, to erase some of the full story of American history, starting with the president's imperial edict entitled Restoring Truth and Sanity in American History, and continuing as Secretary Bergham's order for the Park Service to remove history that he feels is, quote, negative. So as we begin 2026, we are officially kicking off the celebration of America's 250th birthday. I'm a proud member of the America 250 caucus alongside more than 350 of our colleagues who represent a diversity of constituents, stories, and experiences.
And we should be celebrating the accurate and expansive version of American history. America 250 gives us a chance to do that. We should examine the good, the bad, and the ugly, the parts that make our story real and give us lessons to learn from, because as we've all heard, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And in that vein, I wanna highlight a bill on today's docket, Mr. Chairman, that I think would lift up a lesser told story of our history. It is HR 926, the Fort Pillow National Battlefield Study Act introduced by our colleague Representative Cohen, who is gonna be with us, I understand, today.
The bill would simply study whether Fort Pillow would be an appropriate national battlefield to be managed by the Park Service. And I think it's important for us all to know what Fort Pillow is all about. It was built by the Confederate Army on the steep bluffs above the Mississippi River in Henning, Tennessee, strategically positioned there to protect Memphis from a Union naval attack along the river. And in 1862, the Union Army and Navy seized control of the majority of the Mississippi River and of West Tennessee. Union forces later moved into the fort.
They used it as a recruitment center and a supply depot. But on April 12, 1864, under a false flag of truce, Confederate forces came back to the fort and slaughtered somewhere between 300 and 400 Union soldiers, men, women, and children from the community as well. And nearly half of those soldiers were members of the United States Colored Troops, which were Union Army regiments primarily made up of African American soldiers. It was later confirmed by a subsequent congressional report that the majority of Union soldiers at Fort Pillow were unarmed and murdered in cold blood. This became a Tennessee State Park in 1971.
It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1973, and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1974. When the Park Service testified on a similar bill in 2019, they supported the idea of studying Fort Pillow to become a national battlefield. So, mister chairman and colleagues, I really think this bill is a no-brainer. It helps us to create a full and complete picture of all of America's history, including the truth of why those union soldiers were killed. This is one of the many stories that we should be lifting up in our nation's 200.
A story that the administration should be lifting up, and certainly not trying to bury. Our president should be using the 250th anniversary to preserve these sites, tell the complete and complicated story, even the uncomfortable parts, of the history of our nation, because our nation is stronger when we tell the full story. I thank you for including this bill. I thank Mister Cohen for his leadership and carrying it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. We will now move on to our first panel, starting with Representative Kennedy on H.R. 4684. Sir, you have 5 minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you. If I might, introduce my witness when he'll come. His name is Tyler Clancy, and he's a current representative from the state of Utah. And I appreciate him being here to help me with HR 4684, the Star Spangled Summit Act. Representative Clancy is a law enforcement officer as well as a current representative.
The area that we're talking about is his area, the 60th District in the state of Utah. He's one of the youngest state legislators in the United States of America. You'll see that when he comes in. He does look like a boy, but I can testify he is truly a man. And he has recently been appointed to a manly task, a significantly important task as State homeless coordinator.
I wish him well in that significant service. He brings valuable boots-on-the-ground insight into the Utah families and communities that this bill will impact. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for allowing me to present this bill. And member Naguse, this is an important bill that reflects the work of a fellow named Robert Collins who's a Boy Scout leader. And over 25 years ago, he and his scouts were hiking to the top of Keith Peak.
They were climbing a mountain is not a small thing for those who have not been to Utah. It's a remarkable place. The altitude reflects low oxygen just being at the altitude. And when you climb the mountains, it's even harder. Even the fittest individual has a challenge with that.
And that is a great challenge for scout troops, an opportunity for these young men and women to be involved, and an opportunity to climb up to a significant peak and then see the amazing vistas that are available when you've climbed a mountain like that. At the suggestion of the scouts that were accompanying him years ago, mister Collins raised the stars and stripes there at the top of the peak overlooking not just the county, but also the homes of these young men. This is the beginning of a tradition that involved not just the scouts, but also family members and members of the community that, on an annual basis, would climb with Mister Collins to the top of Keith Peak and place his flag. The community tradition was brought to a halt in 2022, and Mr. Collins was confronted by a citizen who claimed to be a member of the Forest Service. Sounds like it was a volunteer individual who claimed that.
And took a hacksaw to the flagpole, cut down the stars and stripes from the top of Kiev Peak. At great personal expense and not some small amount of toil, Mister Collins had for decades carried that flag up to show his patriotism through the summertime, and suddenly that was stopped. He was told by the Forest Service that the long-standing tribute was inconsistent with agency policy prohibiting structures or improvements on National Forest System lands without a special use authorization. When the forest service was queried on this and there was an attempt to remedy the situation, he was told that the forest service was sympathetic but unable to change the policy that they were adherent to. Mister Collins tried to comply with the letter of the law, but red tape and excessive bureaucracy, which we've talked about many times, mister chair, about in this committee, kept him from continuing this tradition.
Robert Collins has spent decades climbing a literal mountain out of love for his country, but was unable to wade through the federal government rules and regulations, which is why my bill, the Star-Spangled Summit Act, is necessary to help push through and ensure the right of one citizen to honor his nation in one area on behalf of his community. This bill will allow our community to continue the time-honored tradition of the right to raise the stars and stripes in Utah County. It reminds the people of Utah County of the sacrifices that the flag represents. I wanna take this opportunity to thank Robert Collins on behalf of the people of Utah's 3rd District for his decades of patriotism and the impact that he's left, not just on the community, but also particularly on generations to the future. I also want to thank Representative Clancy for being here to speak in support of this bill.
I urge every member of this community to support this bipartisan legislation. Let the flag fly once more on the top of Keith Peak, and with that, yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. I now recognize Representative Cohen for five minutes on H.R. 926. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.
Speaker 2
Thank you, sir. I appreciate the committee and being here. And it's nice, this is a room I.
Speaker 2
And nice to see Moore shoot all down here. It's a nice portrait. He was a great man. The Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act would initiate a special resource study to determine Fort Pillow's suitability and feasibility as a unit of the National Park System. Mister Huffman gave a full some description of the bill.
This was a battle just North of Memphis on the bluff. The union had a fort, and the confederates are 500 union soldiers and 1,500 confederate soldiers. And, the confederates gave the impression they surrendered, and they came back and they got the high ground. They let them proceed forward. They got the high ground, and with that, they were able to shoot into the fort and take the fort.
And they killed about 300 soldiers, Union soldiers. The soldiers that were killed were all races, all sexes. There was a lot of black soldiers, but there were a lot of white soldiers. And they just killed indiscriminately. And there was a group that studied this.
The Joint Select Committee on the Conduct of the War, which was the congressional investigative body during the Civil War, said, then followed a scene of cruelty and murder without parallel in civilized warfare. The rebels commenced an indiscriminate slaughter, sparing neither age nor sex, white or black, soldier or civilian. And they killed the 300 soldiers, union soldiers, most of them while they were trying to surrender or running for their lives after they cast their weapons down. Some were scrambling down the bluff, and they were shot in the back because they were going down the bluff towards the river. It became a rallying cry for black soldiers across the union, and there were 179,000 black soldiers in the Union Army and 19,000 in the Union Navy.
And their call was to remember Fort Pillow and honor those who fiercely fought for the preservation of the Union, with the knowledge that surrender was not an option. We there are some folks who've come here today, and I think they'd like to speak out of this time and opportunity for them to speak, who are to speak for the soldiers who lost their lives there, their descendants who have been tremendous advocates of these stories and of this legislation. Five of those descendants and advocates are here. Yolanda Burgess, is she here? Miss Burgess, thank you for being here.
Anthony Bush. Yes, sir. And they traveled to be at today's hearing. I don't know about Patricia Tyson. John.
Miss Tyson, thank you. John Harney and Dio Akinshi, perfect attendance. Thank you. So they're here, and they like to testify because this is an issue of much importance in my community. It's been remembered for years.
It's just up the road from Memphis. Ironically enough, just across the river, at that point, maybe 20 miles to the south, was the worst maritime disaster in our country's history. There were about 1,000 union soldiers crammed onto a boat going north. They've been prisoners in the war and going up north to be reunited with their families and freed, and the boat sunk. And 1000 Union soldiers died there.
It's in Arkansas. So I've worked with Rick Crawford on doing something there. They're doing a memorial there in a big program. But the largest maritime disaster in our country's history. But with that, I'd ask for your support and yield back my time.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the natural resources committee here. Thank you for allowing me to wave in and speak on my bill, but I really want to thank the witnesses for joining, especially Chief Russell from the Anaheim Fire Rescue and Fire Department. Thank you so much for making the trip from California to be with us to speak on my bill, H.R. 4038 Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act. It is really great to see you, and I wanna thank you all and everyone who's working on the front lines for your service. Thank you.
I represent California's 40th Congressional District that includes parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. And I know all too well how devastating fires are. In Orange County, we still feel the impact of fires like the September 2020 airport fire in Trabuco Canyon that burned tens of thousands of acres. To be exact, about 24,000 acres, including federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. What too often stands between a small ignition and a devastating fire is time.
The time it takes to identify the incident, mobilize resources, and begin fighting the fire at the scene. Yet today, there is no unified federal standard for how quickly that response must begin on federal lands. When the federal response is delayed or inconsistent, the burden falls on the local fire departments, which are already stretched thin from being forced to deploy limited engines, crews, and aircraft while waiting for federal resources to arrive. That gap leaves communities and first responders without the consistent support they deserve. That's why I introduced HR 4038, the Wi-Fi Response and Preparedness Act.
This is a commonsense bipartisan legislation which would direct the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior to establish a national wildfire response time standard to evaluate any wildfire on federal lands within 30 minutes of ignition and have fire suppression assets deploy within three hours to the greatest extent practicable. These benchmarks will help stop fires while they are still small and manageable, and compel federal agencies to act quickly. The secretaries would also be required to report to Congress on how we improve federal coordination and readiness to help ensure local fire departments can work with federal partners when seconds matter the most. HR 4,038 gives our federal and local firefighters and emergency managers the clarity they need to act fast, reduce property loss, and streamlines government efficiency. Swift and coordinated action saves lives.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentle lady yields. And now we're gonna move on to our second panel. I'd like to remind our witness that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 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 5 minutes, the light will turn red. And I'll ask you to please complete your statement. This gentleman is very familiar with those rules. I'd now like to introduce Mr. John Crockett, deputy chief of the United States Forest Service.
Deputy Chief Crockett, you have five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you. And before I begin, I want to express my sincere condolences to the family, staff, and constituents of Representative LaMalta. He was a steadfast advocate and champion for the Forest Service's mission, and he consistently pushed for strong oversight and accountability in the work we do. He would be deeply missed, and we are grateful for his service and partnership throughout the years. Chairman Tiffany, rank member Ngoose, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the US Department of Agriculture on four bills today. My name is John Crockett, and I serve as deputy chief for the National Forest System, as well as state, private, and tribal forestry in the US Forest Service. These bills address a wide range of issues, from wildfire risk reduction to grazing policy on National Forest System lands, and even a special use permit for a flagpole on a mountain peak. For provisions where we share equities, I defer to the Department of Interior. Under the current administration's leadership, the Forest Service manages the largest and most prepared wildland firefighting workforce in the world.
We successfully put out 98% of our fires during initial attack, keeping fires small so they don't threaten communities and require large amounts of resources. In service to the president's vision articulated in executive order 14308, empowering common sense wildfire prevention and response, the agency is working with the Department of Interior more closely to align operations amongst other departments. The two bills before you today, H.R. 3922 and H.R. 4038, could help shape how federal agencies prepare for and respond to wildfires. H.R. 3922 directs GAO to study the effectiveness of mitigation efforts across federal, state, local, and tribal lands. We support the intent of this bill and look forward to learning from the findings.
HR 30 HR 40 38 calls for a national wildfire response standard and a joint report to Congress. The proposed standard requires that any ignition on federal lands be addressed, assessed within 30 minutes, followed by a suppression deployment within three hours. USDA supports the intent and shares the goal of improving our federal response. We welcome the chance to work with the sponsors and the committee on the implementation details. HR 4697 would require the Forest Service to issue a special use permit for a flagpole on Key Peak Lookout Point on the Uinta National Forest.
We support the intent of this bill and would like to work with the sponsor and the committee on technical concerns. I also want to note that the forest service already has the authority to issue such a permit and would welcome the opportunity to proceed administratively rather than through legislation. We are already in communication with the p permitting, towards that end. HR 6,300 would amend the Federal Land Management Policy Act to ensure consistent application of grazing policies across national forest system and grasslands in the 16 Western states. This bill would provide the needed clarity and application of 43 USC seventeen fifty two across the federal lands we manage, specifically providing certainty in expanding our existing grazing authority on the national forest to include national grasslands.
USDA supports this bill and looks forward to working with the committee on a technical change. We appreciate the committee's effort to streamline and expand grazing opportunities on federal land. This concludes my testimony and my oral statement, and I look forward to answering any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Crockett. Now we're gonna go to questioning. We will start with a gentleman from Oregon for 5 minutes. Mister Bentz, the floor is yours.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Crockett, for being here again. I'm really interested in this, the thirty-minute bill, because, of course, we all want to put the fires out as quickly as we possibly can. And I understand your concerns as reflected in your testimony. But what is it that we could do differently to more rapidly put these out?
I know you say there's a 98 percent success rate, but I'm not sure exactly what. I don't know if that's the ones that you go out and try to put out, and you put out 98 percent of them. Or if it's 98 percent of those that you actually observed, so perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Speaker 6
Absolutely. So let me provide clarity on the statement that I made around having a 98 percent sex success rate on initial attack. That means that we are providing rapid response to initial attack, put the resources out on the fire, and put them out while they're small. It's two percent of those fires that actually grow big, that go beyond the initial attack period into the extended attack. And so, 98% is a number that we had for this past year, and it's been our number for almost decades.
Speaker 7
Still not exactly clear on this, but are you saying that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of fires every year? Are you saying that on those that you attack, you put out 98%, or are you saying that of the hundreds and thousands of fires, you put out 98%?
Speaker 6
I'm saying that for all of the fires that we have on Forest Service lands, we initial attack and put out 98% of them early.
Speaker 7
Well, I'm happy to hear that. The condition of our weather over the past 30, 60 days has been disquieting for those of us in the West. We're not seeing the snowpack that we normally would receive, and we anticipate if things don't change, a really desperate fire season. And so as this is an unfair question to you in many respects, but I'll ask it anyway. The question is, do you feel that you're adequately prepared for what could be a truly horrific season?
Speaker 6
So it's not an unfair question. So here's my response. Congress provides us the funding to hire the workforce that we need to have an operationally ready and capable workforce. Last year, you funded us to hire 11,300 firefighters, and we hired and met that goal of having that amount of operational firefighters on hand at the peak of our year in July. This year, we are, in our hiring process now, and we expect to have the same numbers in place, to have operationally ready workforce to initial attack our fires.
Speaker 7
It turned out fairly well last year, and there are many people running around with their exaggerating, if you will, what might happen as a result of the reductions in force early in the year. But did you see an inability because of those reductions in force to adequately respond to the fires that occurred last year?
Speaker 6
Yeah. So I will acknowledge that we had impacts to our workforce overall in the Forest Service earlier this year. But we did prioritize keeping our firefighters on. And for those firefighters that did decide to leave the agency, for whatever reason, we provided an opportunity for those carded individuals to work on fires. And so we did adapt and change, with that as well.
Speaker 7
Yeah. I think we visited a number of different forest service locations in my district back in Oregon, and we were assured repeatedly that there were no concerns about workforce. And I was very happy to hear that, and it did play out exactly that way on the ground. So I'm very happy with the forest services work. I have a question in the last minute I've got here about power line corridors through national forests.
And this, there's been great concern about power lines starting fires. And so the question becomes, are those corridors being appropriately maintained? And what we've learned, and I know this is true because I've checked it out, is that lawsuits are filed by environmental interest to try to prevent the clearing or the expanding of these corridors. Have you seen that in your observation of forest service land and power line corridors through them?
Speaker 6
You know, so we do have litigations of the work that we do on National Forest, but we've got a good relationship with the industry. And we meet frequently, hear feedback from them on where we're having successes as well as where we're having challenges with management of their corridor as well as the lands outside of their corridor. So, we feel like we're making progress through that partnership.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Cherry Yieldback. Gentleman yields, I now recognize another representative from Oregon, Miss Dexter, for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you Deputy Chief Crockett, for joining us today. Really appreciate it. Again, as an Oregonian and the representative for thousands of wildland firefighters, I always appreciate the opportunity to discuss how we can better protect these workers and certainly honor their service to our communities. So, deputy chief Crockett, I do not need to tell you that our Wildland firefighters continue to face fires that are longer, more intense, and more destructive than ever. I am a pulmonary and critical care doctor.
I take care of the lungs. And for the last two decades I've treated patients suffering from the health consequences of wildfire smoke and toxic exposure. So my first question to you is, as wildfire seasons grow longer and more severe, do you agree that protecting firefighters from serious health risks is no longer optional but essential to workforce readiness and retention?
Speaker 8
Thank you. And it is critical that we work together on this issue. This is not a partisan issue. This isn't political. This is about people and keeping them safe.
And it is something that I really have appreciated, the steps the fire service has taken to improve firefighter safety, including the creation of the federal wildland firefighter health and well-being program. This program, as you know, is important because it supports the physical and mental well-being of wildland firefighters across the Department of the Interior and the US Forest Service. So my second question, I understand this program relies on one-time limited discretionary funding to address firefighters' health and safety. What is the agency's plan once those funds expire?
Speaker 6
Yeah. So we did utilize those funds to stand up the program in partnership with the Department of Interior. We wanna make sure that funding is not a limitation for us. We want it to be incorporated into the way we do business. The funding was definitely helpful for us to provide expanded mental health services for firefighters, and we want to incorporate it into the way we do business.
Speaker 8
I am so grateful to hear that. As you also know, a culture of accepting early death as an inherent risk of wildland firefighting has been deeply rooted in the Forest Service. Safety handbooks provided to wildland firefighters make little or no mention of the long-term health hazards associated with smoke exposure. This is low-hanging fruit. We saw this with our structural firefighters decades ago.
These are things that we can take direct action to protect our firefighters. Will you commit to me here today that you will meaningfully work with me and others to help change that?
Speaker 6
Absolutely. We're already working towards finding solutions to have a permanent respirator program. As you may know already, we don't have an OSHA approved respirator. And so, without that OSHA-approved respirator in place, we can't put a mandatory program in place. So right now, I have a voluntary one.
But absolutely, looking forward to working with you on it.
Speaker 8
No. I'd love to hear that. I mean, I don't love to hear that we don't have a mandatory, but I also have family members and friends who are wildland firefighters. And you have to be able to carry that equipment and use that equipment out in the middle of nowhere for a long period of time. So it's an area of intense research and development opportunity, I think.
So, I truly appreciate your engagement on this issue. As said, it's been an issue for decades, and I'm committed to ensuring that there's a final path forward for our Wildland firefighters to also be safe in the field. So, our comprehensive legislation to strengthen the Wildland Firefighter health and well-being program is pending. We're actively working across the aisle and with our firefighters and others. We wanna make sure that you have the resources and authority needed to address smoke exposure, respiratory protection, and long-term health monitoring.
So I look forward to partnering with you and your colleagues, to ensure we are truly honoring our firefighters and dedicating our resources to making sure they make it home safely to their families and to keep our communities safe. So, thank you, deputy chief. I'll yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
General Lady yields, and I'll recognize the gentle lady from Utah for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Crockett, thanks for being here. I have a couple of questions for you. So my colleague from Utah just talked about the issue with the special use permit, on a peak in Utah. And you said in your testimony that you'd prefer an administrative solution, and that you have the ability to do that.
And it sounds really reasonable, but for the last five years, they haven't been able to fly the US flag on federal land on a prominent peak where it's very popular. Can you explain why you think a legislative fix is not the right answer and an administrative fix is the appropriate answer when for five years they've been working to get an administrative fix, and they're not there yet?
Speaker 6
Yeah. So thank you for the question. So the basics of it is, so why do something legislative when we can do it administratively? And, it's my understanding that in December, we did meet with Mister Collins. And after that, he's supposed to provide us with a proposal around the operation and maintenance of the flag.
And then that would be part of that specialist use permit that would then be approved.
Speaker 9
Well, generally, I agree with the idea that whatever is the most efficient uses the least government resources as the right way to solve a problem. But I'm a little skeptical that we should go with an administrative solution when we've been five years without one. So I would love to work with you and find that solution. But we have a responsibility here in Congress to oversee the agencies. If it's not happening, then legislation is what we've got to work with.
I also wanna ask you about my colleague, congresswoman Hageman's bill. You testified the HR 6,300 corrects an inconsistency in FLITMA and aligns with recent appropriations writers. And back to this idea that whatever is the most efficient way to solve a problem and uses the fewest government resources is probably the best way. Is it fair to say that this bill would replace year-to-year fixes with permanent statutory clarity?
Speaker 6
Yeah. That permanent statutory authority would be an easy fix. And the technical correction that we asked for, it is the current bill focuses in on the 16 Western states, and we want it to be for all the states. So states like Texas, which has national grassland, could participate in it. But this would be a win win for the ranching and the grazing community as well, because they wouldn't have to reapply for their special use permit.
They'd be first in line.
Speaker 9
I agree. And we talk a lot in these hearings in Congress, with agencies about, you know, asking agencies to do more with less. It seems like when we have witnesses come before this committee from just about any agency, one of their complaints is that they don't have enough people. Their resources are stretched too thin. And so I just wanna point out that this is one of the solutions to that problem.
So do you anticipate that by standardizing the agency's approach to permits, this bill would reduce litigation and conflict, and make permit enforcement simpler?
Speaker 6
So the short answer is the permit it the so the permitees are the ones who are gonna benefit from this because they won't have to go through a re... Reapplication process, or once their permit comes up for renewal. Like I said earlier, they would be first in line, and then the authorization would make the process faster.
Speaker 9
Okay. Well, that's everything that I had to ask. Thank you, and I will yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields, and I'll recognize the gentle lady from Wyoming for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for allowing me to wave on to this meeting of the Federal Lands Subcommittee and for your consideration of my bill, H.R. 6300, the Grasslands Grazing Act. I am pleased that the subcommittee invited my constituent, Ty Checketts, who ranches on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, to testify on the merits of this bill. Because this bill is truly a grassroots product whereby producers brought their specific concerns and recommendations to congressional offices. Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy Management Act or FLPMA authorizes grazing permits for 10 years on national forest and BLM lands, with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance. Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for ten years, but is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLTMA.
Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experienced unnecessary hurdles from the USDA in obtaining these renewals. H. 6,300 amends shipment to conform to Congress's existing definition of the National Forest System, providing statutory clarity regarding permit renewal eligibility on national grasslands. The statute's current lack of clarity regarding the broader National Forest System harms producers, with negative impacts on rangeland health and rural economies. So, Chief Crockett, I just have a couple of questions about the clarification that you've requested us to make with regard to HR 6300.
In your testimony you indicate that my bill, the HR 6300, the Grasslands Grazing Act, you recommend additional changes to the underlying FLTMA statute to properly extend this bill to all ranchers on national grasslands, which would include Texas. And this would make it so that all of the places where we do graze on national grasslands would be covered. Is it your testimony that striking Flippmann's limitation to the 16 contiguous Western states would ensure that the bill's policy of solution applies to ranchers operating on grasslands in Texas and all other states as well?
Speaker 10
Okay. And would expanding grazing access on all federal lands and all possible states align with the administration's stated goals to expand grazing access on federal lands? Yes. Okay. It is my commitment to work on an amendment to the Grasslands Grazing Act to broaden its relief to all states that have national grasslands grazing.
And there was no intent to exclude any particular state. We actually just used the existing language in FLTMA, as it was before we sought to change it. And it is my full intent to always expand opportunities for American ranchers and producers in every state. It is clear that FLTMA grazing law needs more than just the single modernization proposed in the introduced versions of the bill, and I look forward to making further reforms to provide parity and relief for all of our American producers. With that, I thank you for being here.
I thank you for providing us with that clarification. I look forward to working with you to make sure that it becomes a reality. And, mister chair, I yield back.
Speaker 2
AUC. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Bush, Yolanda, excuse me, Yolanda Burgess has emailed a statement to the committee staff on this issue. And mister Fuchs, who's here, also has a statement on Fort Pillow.
And I would like to ask for unanimous consent for those to be entered into the record.
Speaker 1
And I'll recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for his five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, mister chair and chief deputy chief, thank you for being with us. You mentioned that the possibility of an administrative correction to this issue could be issued, and I'm certainly willing to consider it. Why is it for years then that that has not been issued in this case of the STARS Bangalore Summit Act?
Speaker 6
Yes. So thank you for the question. So as I stated earlier, it's about getting the flag under a special use permit. And I know it can be awkward for me to sit here and try to defend our actions around the American flag. And we have a responsibility to that anytime there's an unauthorized use put on a national forest, you know, our local managers are gonna anchor to their guidance around what it takes to get it under unauthorized use, which is a special use permit.
We look forward to working with Mister Collins on getting the special use permit approved and having the flag, once again, fly over the mount.
Speaker 4
I'll just point out for the record and for the public that's listening, at this point, it's already three years that this individual has been banned from having a 20-foot flag and a five by eight flag on that flagpole. Sorry. It's a 20-foot flagpole and a 5 by 8 flag fly between the early parts of June to October. The individual with the Boy Scouts and other community members that might hike to the top of this peak, they it's a four hour hike. It takes half an hour to put up this temporary flagpole.
It's between two rocks that he said he does this. He takes a small bit of cement to cement the flagpole in between these two rocks. When he comes back in early October to take that all down, he breaks the cement up, disposes it as if it was pebbles and rocks. This is not a permanent structure, but he's been told by the local forest service that it's a permanent structure he puts in place. And it's interesting to think about this being the United States flag.
It's a local community member that brought up the initial protest with this and took a hacksaw to that 20-foot flagpole, as if putting a flag up is some sort of offensive event. It's almost a reflection of if this individual could get to the moon and kick The United States flag on the moon down, maybe he just finds that to be offensive to nature, that there's United States flag in various parts. But I don't understand why the well, I do understand after being here for a year in Washington DC, it just takes forever for government. Even governments willing to consider conversation with citizens to get anything done. So that's where the special use permit that I don't like us to have to take this path of legislation, but it's already been three years and no work has been done.
And the local forest service doesn't seem to be willing to engage the way you seem willing to engage in this committee today. So that discrepancy is something that I'm not clear on. Why is that discrepancy present?
Speaker 6
Yeah. So, thank you for sharing the history. And I can't attest to everything that has happened historically, but I'm here before you today to say that if mister Collins, when mister Collins submits his application for the permit and the plan for the operation and maintenance of it, would expeditiously approve his permit.
Speaker 4
That sounds great. And, I don't know how to get that in contract today, but it's a good public statement. And I appreciate your willingness. I think most people would see this as a reasonable thing. Tell me about the difference between what I've described: a 20-foot flagpole, concrete, and two rocks to put a temporary structure.
And this individual would take it down. As I mentioned, he put it up in June and takes it down in October, is what he tells me. And he's been told that administratively, that's considered a permanent structure. Can you tell me why that would be considered a permanent structure when the individual has not left it year round, and it's just essentially a crack in the rock that he's put this in and used some cement to kinda glue it in. Tell me about that.
Speaker 6
Yeah. So let me take this approach because if I try and have a conversation around the flag and the flag being on the mountain, it's a no win situation. So think about any time somebody has put something on a national forest that's not authorized to be there via that special use permit. And that is the mechanism that makes sure that if something, if a flag is put up, that is properly maintained or if a structure is put up, it's properly maintained, and it doesn't pose a risk. And all of those things that are part of an operation and maintenance plan under a special use permit.
And I know we're here to talk about the flag, and I just gave you my commitment around the flag.
Speaker 4
I love it. Thank you. And I'll just point out for the public who don't know this area, well, not that far away. There is a large Y representing Brigham Young University on the side of Y Mountain, and that's been there for ages. And it was representative Jason Chafetz years ago that had to get more than a special use permit.
He had to get legislation to actually designate that area so that Y was not gonna be torn down. We've got a big G on a mountain in my county. We've got a big Y on the mountain. These are obviously human made interventions in our beautiful natural landscape, and I love our natural landscape. At the same point, sometimes it takes legislation, Mr. Chair, to actually move these things forward.
So thank you, deputy chief, for being here, and certainly want to engage in the conversations. And, mister chair, thank you for the time. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen's time has expired, I'll recognize the gentleman from Idaho for his questioning.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Crockett, thanks for being here. Thanks for your testimony today. I'm gonna deviate a little bit from the, maybe, the mainstream of the conversation just to share about the circumstances in my home state of Idaho. I'm sure you're aware generally.
But just to frame this dialogue, we're somewhere in the neighborhood of about 1 million acres a year that typically goes up in terms of wildfire. This is a huge deal for us. And it's almost, well, it has created this kind of business of firefighting. I mean, it's a major enterprise. It has to be for the circumstances right now.
And I wanna just talk to you about that a little bit. We've got a study coming up here in the HR thirty nine twenty two, the Cross Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act, which hopefully will shed some more light on this. But you work on this on a routine basis. I get exposed to it every time I go home in one form or another because every seems like every constituent group that I represent, that I meet with, this is front and center because it's in our backyard and it's mammoth. It's a mammoth issue.
In your view, what has been generally the reluctance for local involvement? The we've got resources, we've got state resources, we've got local resources, and I know there's been liability concerns. There are sometimes access concerns. But from your vantage point, what's been the reluctance, generally speaking, for the Forest Service to engage with more local resources when it comes to fighting some of these fires?
Speaker 6
Okay. Thank you for the question. So, I'm actually not aware of any reluctances. What I would say is we have a lot of authorities now to work with state, local, and county individuals. The Good Neighbor Authority provides us with that flexibility to work across boundaries.
We've got obviously, the legislation speaks to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that does that. We work through community wildfire defense grants. And so but there may be a local example that I'm not aware of where we're running into issues.
Speaker 11
Just for the sake of not using up this time right here, I would just like to connect with you and share a couple of thoughts. But I get the sense on the ground because we've had some forums, and we're having more of those. There are concerns of liability, and I understand that. Right? If, you know, if somebody gets involved, gets hurt, then how do we handle that?
And I just need to get, I wanna get that dialogue going with you. There's also, I think, in some areas, in some regions, there's a cultural component, not in my backyard kind of protectiveness. And so I'm just gonna share that with you publicly, that that's something that I see. And I would like to talk to you in the future. We'll have to do it right now.
Sure. So I'd ask for that meeting in advance. Yes. The other thing I wanted to talk with you about is there are certain circumstances where there is a let it burn policy. And I know that there's gotta be some rationale and some thought process.
Can you talk about that a little bit? Under what circumstances are you
Speaker 6
generally supportive of the let it burn policy? So let me provide a clarification. So we don't have a let-burn policy. Every fire that we get has a suppression strategy associated with it. Sometimes that suppression strategy provides for direct attack.
Sometimes it provides for an indirect attack with broader containment.
Speaker 11
I respect your response, but I'm using terms that come out of your own department. And it's probably their way of saying indirect, but indirect to some people means let it burn for a while. So I just want to clarify that. Okay.
Speaker 6
Yeah. And so if a fire has been assessed and we make a priority to put resources towards other fires rather than that one, that's part of that local decision making around, to go indirect. The thing that we wanna anchor to is what are the values at risk? And so if a community is at risk, that is part of that 98% success rate that I mentioned earlier around doing the initial attack. If the community is not at immediate risk, then that gives us more flexibility around what our response would look like.
Speaker 11
Okay. I'm out of time, but I will be asking just to meet with you to constructively have some more dialogue on this. Thank you for being here and for your input today. Thank you. Mister chairman, you're back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, I'm going to ask a few questions of our witness. So, Crockett, the term is used 98% of these fires are put out. What if 98% is not a success? You know, I think back, when I was in school, 98%, pretty good. Right?
You get an A. But what if 98% is not a success?
Speaker 6
So let me speak to the 2% that generally is the fires that you see on TV. Those.
Speaker 6
The ones that when they go beyond initial attack, generally, there's some weather-related issue that pushes it beyond our ability to catch it small. And so we're managing with multiple circumstances at that point. And it also depends on the time of the year of the fire. And so if we're catching fires when we've got plenty of resources available to put towards it when we're at preparedness level one. But when we're at preparedness level five, which means that all of our resources are stretched thin, and we're then managing that 2%, risk, two percent of the fires that have grown beyond the initial attack stage.
Speaker 6
So let me respond this way. If we are managing the forest before the fire starts, it allows us to catch it early in a smaller state for and during initial attack.
Speaker 1
Let me repeat. Let me make sure I heard that. So if you are actively managing the forest, it gives you a better chance to suppress the fire.
Speaker 1
I understand the forest service has brought forest supervisors from across the country to DC to discuss the administration's goals to increase active forest management and expand timber harvest from our federal lands. Can you talk about what is hoped to be achieved in 2026 by the Forest Service?
Speaker 6
Yes. So thank you for the question. And, yes, we do have all of our, we call them, line officers, four supervisors, some of our district rangers, regional forces, those that are responsible for implementing the activities on the ground. We do have them in town this week, setting leaders' intent around what it means to implement our active management strategy, and we're finding that there are opportunities for them to do cross training and cross learning with each other, as peers as well. And so this is anchoring to our priorities around implementing our active management strategy.
Speaker 1
I am going to yield and recognize the gentleman from Colorado for his questioning for five minutes.
Speaker 13
I thank the chairman, and thank the deputy chief for being here. And, actually, I don't have any questions for the deputy chief, but I do want to make a couple of statements for the record. My apologies for the delay here with the competing committee hearing to this one. But, nonetheless, I am grateful for this particular hearing and the bills that we'll be considering today. I'm grateful that we can have an opportunity to come together on issues that I know we care deeply about on both sides of the aisle with respect to both forest health and the wildfire crisis.
The wildfires that continue to metastasize across the Western United States and challenge various communities, including communities in my state of Colorado. We might not always agree on how to address these challenges, but appreciate that we continue to create opportunities for bipartisan action on this issue. And one of those ways in which I think we can make progress is legislation that I've introduced today, which I know we'll talk a bit more about, the Cross Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act, which ultimately ensures that we're studying existing federal programs, rules, authorities for wildfire mitigation across federal and nonfederal lands, really improving collaboration between landowners and government agencies to help mitigate the most severe wildfire risks while protecting vulnerable communities. Legislation comes directly from the Bipartisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission's report. We know, and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the lands are federal, state, private, or tribal, when a wildfire starts moving.
And our response must be cross-jurisdictional too. This bill will help us better understand the authorities that we have and how to expand those to protect fire-prone communities across the country, including the ones that I'm very lucky, really blessed to represent. With that, I know there are a number of other pieces of legislation that we're gonna be discussing today, and I appreciate the deputy chief's testimony regarding the same, and, of course, appreciate all of my colleagues with respect to the pieces of legislation that they've proposed. And I will yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. And if there are no further questions, we will now move on to our third and final panel. Thank you, Mr. Crockett. I'd like to thank the witness for his valuable testimony. While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witnesses of committee rules.
They must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five-minute statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning.
Speaker 1
Yeah. First, I'd like to introduce the honorable Tyler Clancy, representative for District 60 in the Utah House of Representatives. Representative Clancy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the committee. And I'd also like to add my condolences to the passing of your colleague, congressman Limalfa. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As mentioned by Congressman Kennedy, I represent House District 60, which is Provo, Utah, and the Utah House of Representatives. I'm here today to speak in support of H.R. 4684, also known as the Star Spangled Summit Act.
For generations, Kyve Peak has been a place where families hike, where scouts learn perseverance, and where our community looks out over the home we love. Long before modern trails, the peak held meaning for the Northern Ute tribe and later became a focal point for pioneers in the Utah Valley. For more than 20 years, Provo resident Robert Collins has hiked that mountain after the snowmelt to raise the American flag and then returned in the fall to respectfully take it down. He did this with his son, his scout troop, his neighbors, and members of the community who came together to honor the ideals that bind us together. The peak in the flag at its summit is deeply woven into the cultural identity of Utah Valley.
It stands out in the work of local artists as a defining silhouette on our skyline and as a shared point of reference that has literally become the symbol of Provo and the surrounding communities. Yet in 2021, the Collins tradition was abruptly halted. Not because it harmed the land or endangered the public, the hangup came from a federal permitting policy that treats a small seasonal flag display the same as a permanent commercial structure, all but banning Mr. Collins' patriotic display, and the Star Spangled Summit Act fixes that and lets our flag fly again. This bill directs the forest service to issue a special use permit for this one specific purpose, and provides for review, renewal, or termination if the terms are violated. In short, it restores common sense while respecting environmental stewardship.
It's a shame our permitting process has become so far-reaching that we need a bill to raise and lower a flag somewhere. This is really the dark matter of permitting in America. These issues uniquely impact Utah because nearly 70% of our land is managed by the federal government. Decisions that would normally be handled locally in other states often require congressional action in ours. Our state has been suffocated by these federal rules, and to your point, Congressman Kennedy, that's why it takes five years to put up and take down a flag.
HR 4684 also connects us with something deeper. Chris Barnard, the president of the American Conservation Coalition, has talked about how our environment has connected us to our national character and to who we are as Americans. Further, President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote, the nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets, which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value. He also believed that time and nature strengthen citizenship, courage, and moral clarity. Standing on a pristine mountain peak above your home, looking out over the valley, does exactly that.
And moments like these connect us to place, to responsibility, and for many, to the divine. I also wanna briefly recognize the meaningful work this committee takes on. The House Natural Resources Committee has shown the ability to solve real problems. As recently as December, this body came together in a bipartisan way to pass the SPEED Act led by Chairman Westerman and Congressman Golden to modernize a permitting system that had become slow, costly, and disconnected from its original intent. That legislation sent a clear message that we can protect the environment while also restoring common sense to federal permitting.
The Star-Spangled Summit Act fits squarely within that same tradition. This legislation is targeted and grounding in practical problem solving. It does not weaken environmental stewardship in any way. It simply fixes a narrow issue where bureaucracy has overstepped. This proposed fix from Congressman Kennedy respects both the land and the people who care for it.
As one of Utah's representatives from Provo, I can tell you this absolutely matters to my constituents and to thousands of families across the Utah Valley. At a time when Americans are hungry for institutions that work and symbols that unite, allowing the flag to fly once again over K2 Peak is a small but meaningful affirmation of our shared patriotism. I respectfully urge this committee to support this effort and to stand with Utahns who believe that honoring our land and honoring our flag are not competing values, but complementary ones. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative Clancy. I will now recognize Mr. Ty Checkets, president of the Association of National Grasslands. Mister Checketts, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, chairman Tiffany, Ranking member Nagus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of legislative measures that grant equal rights to producers who hold permits and use federal lands. Currently, I serve as president of the Association of National Grasslands. I'm a member of the Wyoming Stock Growers, NCBA, and hold the privilege of having a seat on the board of Public Lands Council. Most importantly, I'm a husband and father trying to carve out a living as a rancher, playing my part to build a legacy for generations to come.
My wife and I, with our children, own and operate the historic Fiddleback Ranch in northeast Wyoming. We run about a thousand head of black Angus on 65,000 acres. I affectionately say I'm retired and on vacation, because I love what I do. Federal lands make my dreams possible. Without land use permits, there's no way I could afford to ranch on this scale.
The Association of National Grasslands is an organization consisting of grazing associations and direct grazing committees working in cooperation with the United States Forest Service in the protection, improvement, development, and administration of the national grasslands. We represent 30 national grasslands, grazing associations, and districts with about 1,275 members that utilize 1 million AUMs and graze on roughly 4,000,000 acres. The Association National Grasslands appreciates congresswoman Hageman's efforts in sponsoring and the subcommittee's consideration of House Bill 6300. The proposed legislation seeks to give national grassland committees the same due process rights the Bureau of Land Management and National Forest committees currently enjoy. The legislation will replace the words lands within the national forest with the words National Forest System lands.
In section 1752, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, also known as FLPMA. During the congressional deliberations of FLPMA in 1976, original language included national grassland permittees in the due process protections of USC 1752. However, the national grassland permitted protections were removed in the committee. The final version of FLTMA amid the national grassland permittees, granting those due process rights only to the national forest and BLM permittees. The development of USDA grazing regulation 36 CFR 222.3 resulted.
This regulation creates two classes of permits, forest service having more rights, and national grasslands having less. The basis for these two classes is due to Fletma's exclusion of the national grasslands in 43 USC 1752. Congresswoman Hageman's legislation will remedy this long-standing inequity. The proposed amendment would allow national grassland permittees the following permit securities. One, the right to tenure permits.
Two, first priority for a seat of new permit. Three, entitlement to written notice of any permit violations, and an opportunity to achieve compliance before cancellation or suspension proceedings related to the permit. And, four, in case of an emergency, no permit would be allowed cancellation without two years' prior notification. These protections of the Forest Service and bill BLM permittees currently enjoy would enhance the relationship between the Forest Service and the National Grassland permittees by creating more stability and a clearer set of rules governing the relationship. According to the USDA census of agriculture, the average age of ranchers is 58 years old.
A lot of these producers are gonna work till they can't and be forced to sell out, because the next generation needs a better foundation to forecast a more stable future. Putting their grasslands on equal footing will give the younger ranchers more confidence to continue producing high-quality products as part of our national food security. Since 2017, the US has lost over 17% of cattle ranches, more than 150,000 operations. The national herd numbers are at a seventy-five year low, while consumer demand for beef has grown 9% the past decade. We can't afford to lose any more ranchers, and we can't afford to lose any more AUMs.
The value of grazing can't go unrecognized. More than 60% of the western beef herd grazes on public lands, and more than 50% of the breeding used too. The DOI estimates grazing generates 1.5 billion dollars in direct economic impact to the West each year. Grazing generates 8,580,000,000 in ecosystem services annually. Mister chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, the proposed legislation seeks to give the national grassland committees the same due process rights that BLM and Forest Service committees currently enjoy.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
Speaker 13
Of the subcommittee for an introduction of our next witness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to introduce our next witness and one of my constituents in Fort Collins, State Forester Matt McCombs from the Colorado State Forest Service. Mister McCombs has served the state of Colorado as state forester since 2022 and has had a successful career across natural resources, forest management, and government. He previously worked in the US Forest Service in both Colorado and North Carolina, served as an aide to US senators Ken Salazar and John Tester, and is a veteran deploying with the Colorado Army National Guard and Montana Air National Guard.
He brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to his position and has certainly been a trusted partner for me and my office throughout his tenure with the Colorado State Forest Service. So it is great to welcome Mr. McCombs back to the committee today. Good to have another fellow Coloradan here in the hearing room, look forward to hearing his testimony. And I thank the chairman for his indulgence. Thank.
Speaker 16
You, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Ngoose, members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Again, my name is Matt McCombs, and I serve as the state forester in Colorado and the director of the Colorado State Forest Service. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I wanted to begin by thanking Congressman Miss Naguse for his leadership in reintroducing the Cross Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act. This legislation reflects the reality of how wildfire actually behaves on the ground and represents a meaningful step forward for the nation as it prepares for, responds to, and ultimately learns to live alongside wildfire.
In Colorado, wildfire has always been a part of our landscape and our ecology. Fire plays an important role in sustaining healthy and productive forests and grasslands. But what we are experiencing today is fundamentally different in the scale, intensity, and consequences. A warming climate, prolonged drought, accumulated fuels, and expanding development in fire-prone areas have dramatically increased both the likelihood and the negative impacts of fire. The 2020 fire season was a turning point for our state.
The Cameron Peak Fire became the largest wildfire in state history, burning more than 200000 acres across federal, state, and private lands. Beyond the immediate fire impacts, the long-term consequences are still unfolding. That fire burned in critical watersheds that supply drinking water to many Colorado communities, increasing the risk of flooding, sedimentation, and long-term treatment costs that will be borne by the state for decades. That same year, the East Troublesome fire demonstrated just how quickly wildfire can overwhelm our traditional planning and response. In a single day, the fire crossed the continental divide, something many of us previously thought was unlikely, threatening the town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park.
It moved seamlessly across ownership boundaries, underscoring that fragmented land management leads to fragmented outcomes when wildfire occurs. Right on the heels of the East Troublesome and Cameron Peak Fire, a year later, the Marshall fire reinforced an even more sobering reality. Wildfire is no longer confined to remote or forested landscapes. In December '21, extreme winds drove a grasp of fire through suburban communities along the front range, destroying more than 1,000 homes in a matter of hours. Many of the affected residents did not consider wildfire to be a risk to their homes.
That had then exposed significant gaps in assessment, coordination, and preparedness, particularly in the wildland-urban interface, gaps that this legislation directly seeks to address. The Crossboundary Wildfire Solutions Act reflects that what many of us that work in fire and forest management see every year. Wildfire does not respect ownership boundaries, jurisdictional lines, or administrative authorities. Fires move across federal, state, tribal, and private lands based on weather, fuels, and topography, not on land ownership. In Colorado, our most successful fuel reduction forest health projects are those that are planned and implemented across entire landscapes.
When federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, utilities, private landowners, and ranchers are aligned around shared priorities, we see measurable reductions in risk, improved firefighter safety, and better protection of communities, watersheds, and infrastructure. Conversely, when projects stop at property lines, we leave gaps that fires inevitably exploit. From a state perspective, this bill aligns squarely with what we know works. It emphasizes proactive risk reduction rather than reactive disaster response. It reinforces shared responsibility across all levels of governance, and it supports that coordinated science-driven action that allows partners to move faster and more effectively before the next fire starts.
Importantly, this approach also makes fiscal sense. Every dollar invested in mitigation and cross boundary planning reduces future suppression costs and disaster recovery expenditures and long term impacts to water supplies, infrastructure, and economies. States like Colorado are ready to be strong partners in this work, but we need federal resources that match the scale and complexity of the problem we face together. I also wanna emphasize that other states are experiencing this exact same challenges. Many of the states represented today in this committee.
Same thing that they're facing here in Colorado. Many of our neighbors could share very similar stories on recent wildfires and impacts, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in strength on behalf of my fellow state foresters nationwide. United through the National Association of State Foresters, we share a common goal to conserve, protect America's forests, and reduce risk to all lands across all boundaries. I'm grateful to Congressman Ngoose. And this committee for prior to his prioritizing solutions that reflect the realities on the ground and strengthen our collective ability to live with wildfire.
I'm also grateful to the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission for drafting the report whose recommendations underpin this legislation, and to my colleagues in Colorado, including Colorado Department of Natural Resources executive director Dan Gibbs, Colorado Division of Fire Protection and Control director Mike Morgan, Denver Water's Madeline McDonald, former undersecretary of state forester Jim Hubbard, and Scott Miller of the Wilderness Society for serving on the commission. This legislation represents a forward-thinking, actionable approach, and it's ultimately gonna improve our resilience to wildfire, one that recognizes wildfire as a shared risk requiring shared solutions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, director. Finally, I'd like to introduce Mister Pat Russell, fire chief of Anaheim Fire and Rescue. Chief Russell, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Ngoose, and all members of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on HR 4038, the wildfire response and preparedness act of 2025. I'm Patrick Russell. I serve as fire chief of N. Fire and Rescue, with over 40 years of fire service experience and decades of frontline leadership. I have a clearer perspective on these threats facing our communities today.
Wildfires are not an occasional challenge for us. They are a constant and escalating reality we face year after year. Unlike many other emergencies, wildfires can either be natural or human caused, often unpredictable, and capable of overwhelming entire regions in a matter of hours. When response is delayed, fire behavior escalates, risk to firefighters increases, property loss threatens increase, civilian lives are placed in jeopardy, critical infrastructure and cultural values are at increased risk. In 2025, we saw both progress and vulnerability.
While the number of fires did not decline significantly, the total number of acres dropped sharply. This was encouraging, but driven largely by favorable weather and aggressive early response, not by a systematic change. Those conditions will not always exist. Early indicators already point to a more active 2023 fire season. At NIM Fire and Rescue, we are proud of our capabilities, but wildfire response is never a local effort alone.
It is a shared responsibility among federal, state, and local partners, especially during the initial attack, when minutes matter most. When federal resources are delayed or unavailable, the consequences are immediate. Small fires grow into major incidents, state and local agencies stretch beyond capacity, response times increase, firefighter safety is compromised, and civilian lives and property are placed at greater risk. This strain is not sustainable. There is one constant in wildfire management.
Our greatest chance of success comes from a rapid, well-resourced initial attack. Early commitment, early containment protects firefighters, saves lives, preserves property, and significantly reduces suppression costs. When responses are delayed, risk multiplies, and losses escalate. To improve outcomes, we must modernize the systems that support wildfire response nationwide. First, resource ordering must be faster and cleaner.
All available resources, federal, state, local, and contract, must be visible in one unified system so they can be deployed without delay. Second, dispatch capacity must match the real world risk. During periods of high fire danger, dispatch centers must be fully staffed around the clock. Fires do not wait until the next morning, and neither can we. Third, year-round readiness must become the standard.
Wildfire risk is no longer seasonal, yet many federal staffing and contracting models will reflect outdated assumptions. Federal firefighting resources, including contract crews and aviation assets, must be available based on risks, not calendars. Year-round, we must operate at maximum readiness. However, too often, national fire management systems rely on limited staffing outside of their maximum availability period or on-call resources. When IROC notifications are missed, the orders are not processed until the next day, we lose their replaceable time.
Wildfire conditions also vary greatly across the country. The East and the West face different challenges, but both depend on strong federal coordination and consistent standards. That's why I strongly recommend establishing a national wildfire standard to cover the framework. One that identifies minimum staffing levels, ground and aerial resource availability, year-round initial attack readiness, and the regional flexibility based on fire probability. This framework would ensure that no single level of government carries the burden alone, and that every community receives constant protection.
HR 40 30 moves us in the right direction. It strengthens coordination, improves accountability, and helps ensure that when the next fire starts, and it will, we are ready together. Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chief Russell. We're now gonna recognize members for five minutes for their questions. We will start with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Ngoose for holding this hearing. And, chief Russell, I spent twenty three years as a police officer in the great city of Duluth, Minnesota, and I was always very proud of our firefighters. I am deathly afraid of fire. So when there was one, there was nobody driving over those houses. I protected you.
No matter what hydrant you connected to, I had your back, and my firefighters knew that. But to the two firefighters behind you, I want to thank you for your service and sacrifice. Police and fire, public safety, EMS is very near and dear to my heart, and we will take care of you, in good times and bad. And I'm that's my commitment to you. With that being said, Chief Russell, thank you for joining us today, and thank you for the incredible work that you and your department do every day to keep us safe.
How often does your department respond to wildfires alongside other jurisdictions or partners, including federal land managers?
Speaker 12
Thank you, sir, for the question. In peak fire season during traditional summer months or into the fall where we may be dealing with our classic Santa Ana wind conditions in California, we can anticipate regularly responses on a daily or on a weekly basis. Not all of those fires are, yeah. Large, well developed fires, but sometimes the responses to those. We live in a very challenged or work in a very challenged area where we have cross jurisdictional lands with federal, state. Yeah.
County.
Speaker 17
and my agency. And that brings me to my next question. When we respond to these, with other partners, how often are the respective partners' responsive policies, practices, and standards aligned with one another, and how often do they differ?
Speaker 12
They align quite well. Again, I have to say we're very resource heavy. We have that luxury in Southern California where some not necessarily in other places in the country. However, some of our policies do come in conflict that we have to look at and evaluate.
Speaker 12
It doesn't impact our ability to respond because we will always send closest units, especially on initial attack, but it does impact long term ability for resources to come in and replace, say, like, my resources to get them back in service in the city of Anaheim.
Speaker 17
Okay. In your experience, earlier response often correlates with a more successful response. Would that be correct?
Speaker 17
You know, I recognize our wildland firefighting agencies face funding, personnel, and equipment constraints just as any agency. That said, do you think being overly cautious about responding too quickly is negatively impacting our ability to fight fires?
Speaker 12
If I understand your question, sir, correctly, I would say no. Just because there's an early response doesn't necessarily mean, as it was stated earlier, the tactics that are taken may vary. As an example, in Northern California or places, if they have a lightning bus going on, those resources may respond, but they may sit there and monitor and come up with plans, wait till after the lightning goes, so they can safely engage. So, if I understand your question correctly, I don't think a rapid or initial attack response is inherent by those issues.
Speaker 17
You know, I think the goal is to make from the federal standpoint, reference 4038, is to make sure that the federal government with the interior and the land managers have that response coordinated with you. So I think it's important. And I appreciate that when we work together, we can literally save lives. Right? And that's the first priority, and then, of course, structures.
And I think that the goal of the legislation is to get the federal government to take it more seriously and quicker to have those assets deployed, helping out with the, you know, in the staging area and the command center to make sure that they're doing it right and getting it done. So I just appreciate, again, mister chair, this hearing, and to be able to, you know, talk about the legislation. And I will tell you that ranking member de Goose, these are these hearings, we can battle and we do. Right? But this is the bipartisan pieces of legislation that a lot of people don't see in our nation.
And we have experts here testifying, and I just appreciate you and the chairman bringing us together, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields, and I recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chairman, and certainly agree with my colleague from Minnesota, and appreciate his remarks. And I think the more that we can find ways, avenues, to try to consider these issues in good faith on a bipartisan basis, certainly, the better it'll be for our shared constituency.
Speaker 13
Appreciate that, chairman. Mister McCombs, wanna talk to you about our bill, rather, and grateful again that you're here in Washington DC. In your testimony, you outlined that the most successful forest health projects are the ones that are implemented across entire landscapes and across jurisdictions. And I certainly couldn't agree more, which is really the impetus for HR 3922. And grateful for your support, and I think you articulated well the reasons why this bill makes a whole lot of sense.
Something you and I have talked about fairly recently is the pine beetle outbreak in Colorado, which threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of Coloradans up all the way north in Larimer County, the Wyoming border, down south through Douglas County and Jefferson County and elsewhere. And I wonder if you might be able to expound a bit on why this type of cross boundary landscape program and projects would benefit the current circumstances that we're facing in Colorado, or rather help us ameliorate the challenge that we're facing with respect to the pine beetle outbreak, which is a real, in some respects, existential challenge for our forests in Colorado.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Becky, ma'am, for that question. You know, the way I describe this is no one sector on its own. All sectors working together, we have a fighting chance. And, you know, acknowledging the fire doesn't know our boundaries. And if every resource, across all the different ownerships, could come together in five ways to ameliorate these challenges, we can move forward together in a way that allows this never to happen again.
The bill in particular calls out, or puts resources behind how do we identify those barriers that either are seen or unseen. And, hopefully, we'll put forward recommendations that we can, working through this committee and elsewhere, bring into law and then translate those into implementation on the ground. Anytime that we bring together all the different actors that have responsibilities for the public safety of our communities as well as the health of our forest, we find opportunities for innovation. We find on our opportunities for joint investment, and we have opportunities to make durable solutions that will outlast, you know, myself and outlast those that perhaps come behind us. This is a long game.
This is a decadal effort we're involved in, and we're engaged in it. And our responsibility is to work together to move as efficiently with a sense of urgency and a bias towards action.
Speaker 13
Yeah. I couldn't agree more. I think you described it well. And something that I think is often lost on my colleagues who represent the Eastern Seaboard. Perhaps on both sides of the aisle, I mean, none of the, I guess, no one here on the aisle, but our colleagues from Utah, of course, and we'll include Wisconsin, you know, Midwest, the Greater West.
I think it's lost on them that these landscapes are very complex, and there are multiple jurisdictions that ultimately have authority over the landscapes. And, you know, certainly in my district and wide swaths of land in Western Colorado, you're talking about areas in which you might drive, you know, three miles. And during that three mile drive, cross, you know, traverse private land, state land, federal land, BLM managed land, forest service managed land. And that creates a number of challenges, right, when you're talking about something as existential as wildfires. So in any event, I think our bill, of course, is a step in the direction of trying to address what you described as a challenge facing our communities in the West, and, hopefully, we can use that as a building block for more.
So, but again, grateful to the state forester and grateful, I should say, to all the witnesses, but in particular, to chief and to your personnel, fighting fires each and every day. We're certainly grateful for the work that you all do, putting your lives on the line, sacrificing for our communities. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
The ranking member yields, and I now recognize Miss Molloy from Utah for five minutes of March.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Clancy, thanks for being here. It's good to see you 2,000 miles from home for both of us. There are probably easier ways for us to get to talk to each other. But I guess, first of all, I just wanna say I appreciate my colleague doctor Kennedy testifying that it's hard for even a very fit person to hike to the top of that peak, because I have hiked it, and it was very difficult.
And there's not a lot of oxygen up there. I can't imagine doing it with a 20-foot flagpole. But, Tyler, you know as a state rep that it's never just about the flag or the flagpole. In states like Utah, where we have so much federal land, everything local governments are trying to do runs into federal barriers. I've got a story from just up I-15 in my district where there was a youth group trying to clean up trash on forest service land, and they couldn't get a permit to go pick up trash.
And it sounds really reasonable to say we have processes. You have to follow these processes, but sometimes the results are absurd. Would you just speak a little bit to that local perspective, you're in law enforcement and in local government of the trust that gets eroded sometimes and what it's like?
Speaker 14
Absolutely. Thank you, representative, for the question. And you're right. There's a thousand stories just like the one that you mentioned. Representative Jack, the chair of Utah's Environmental Stewardship Caucus, shared that it would be funny if it wasn't critical infrastructure, but there was a critical infrastructure project that the state was working on building.
But the permit was being held up because one area of land that they were trying to build through was actually the habitat of a cuckoo bird. The challenge is the cuckoo bird is not native to Utah, and there were no cuckoo birds in the state of Utah. And those are the kinds of things where I think many times we have a reaction where if it's federal land, it's protected, and it's done effectively. But, actually, there are ways that we can protect land. We can protect environmental stewardship, particularly with that local knowledge, as you mentioned before.
And so whether it's law enforcement, but particularly in the environment, I think that local expertise is so important. Thank you.
Speaker 9
I agree. And sometimes the things we talk about here sound like we're really caught up in the thick of thin things, but there's always a lot of other things piled up where we have to be able to live with these federal lands in states like Utah. And there just has to be a more efficient way to make decisions, a better way to work together. So thank you for flying all the way out here to testify about that. I'm gonna give you a break for a minute.
Mister Checketts, I really appreciated your testimony. And you talked about how the age of ranchers is getting higher and higher. Every time I start talking about Harriet Hageman's bill, she walks in. Makes me a little nervous. I don't know what spy software she has.
But can you talk about how that permitting uncertainty and the extra hoops you have to jump through on grasslands make it harder for the younger generation to want to take over and live the kind of lifestyle that you eloquently spoke about, how much you love?
Speaker 15
Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. Three quick things. One, as a rancher, we have debts. Most ranchers do.
And so it's a concern if we don't have a permit that is solid. Secondly, for our children to come, they wanna come and build a home, be there forever. It's a concern for them to know that they have stability, that they want to invest their lives, invest their education, blood, sweat, and tears, like we have to be there. Thirdly, there are different grazing associations that have lost AUMs because this bill hasn't been passed yet, and that scares a lot of people.
Speaker 9
Yeah. I'm one of them. You know, sitting here listening to all the testimonies today, it sounds like we're talking about fixing a lot of technicalities, and they are technicalities in the law. But for people who are out on the ground trying to do things, these technicalities really matter. Whether you can put a flag up on a peak or renew your permit on a grassland or respond quickly to a fire, all of those are real world problems that we have a responsibility to solve.
And I just appreciate you all being here to talk about what it means to you, so that we can get it right. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you again, Mr. Chair. And representative Clancy, thanks for coming all the way out to witness for us as to the Star Spangled Summit Act. I've heard from local media as well as a variety of constituents about the impact of this flag. What sort of impact have you heard from constituents in your area, the area that you represent as a state legislator, as to the fact that between June and October, this flag flies above one of our university football stadiums, and people can have an opportunity to see it for several months each year until it was forbidden by the United States Forest Service just several years ago. What constituent feedback have you heard about the impact of this flag?
Speaker 14
Well, one that comes to mind is the Sandstrom family, Jesse and Abby Sandstrom, who I know you know well, Congressman. They are avid hikers and being on the Utah climbing alliance as well. They're out in the outdoors all the time. It's been 5 years since they saw the American flag up on Keyve Peak. This is an opportunity now where they have three young small children, and they're constantly going on these hikes.
This is an opportunity to look up at the flag and talk about these moments. More than anything, what I hear is about these symbols that unite us. In such a divided time, the American flag really centers us on who we are as a country and inspires us to be a little better.
Speaker 4
What does it mean? Thank you. Along those lines on a corollary basis, when we forbid such activities from happening, what is the act, what is the impact that that might have not only on those that can't participate, but also those in the future, the young ones that might look at that opportunity, the scouts and the scout troop that say, well, we've been doing this. Why can't we do it? And the scout master's response has to be the federal government has forbidden us from putting up the United States flag in a place that can be seen.
Tell me what kind of impact you would estimate from the Forest Service's interpretation of what is obviously a very temporary structure. It was put up in June. It was taken down in October. It was a crack between two rocks. He put up a 20-foot flagpole with a little bit of concrete.
He would come in and responsibly take it down in October. What is the impact if we're not allowed to be able to put up the stars and stripes in a visible location on our mountains?
Speaker 14
Well, certainly. And the Star Spangled Banner Act, I think, speaks to the broader concern. What happens when folks across the country, and particularly in Utah, see incidents like this, they begin to lose trust in government. And that's our social fabric starts to fade away. And so when they see something on the news or their scout master says, you can't fly the flag on one of the most important hikes in our valley, people just start to check out.
And they say, yeah. The government doesn't care about me. And that's really where I think that while this bill is targeted, it's small, it sends a really important message that people can have faith that we're out here solving problems, whether it's, you know, 2,000 miles away. But that's the importance, I think it has.
Speaker 4
I talked earlier in my introduction of you, you're one of the youngest legislators in The United States Of America. If you don't mind revealing that, how old are you? I'm 28 years old. 28 years old. You've been in the state legislature for how long?
Congresswoman Hegeman is also 28 years old. Was just telling me that. And how long have you been in the state legislature now?
Speaker 4
Excellent. And during that period of time, tell me what the youth, the young people, your generation thinks about our federal government or the government in general.
Speaker 14
Right. Well, I think it goes back to what I mentioned previously that I think when you see extremism and the divisiveness start to arise, it's because people feel checked out. They feel that Washington DC is a place 2,000 miles away where people don't care about folks like you and me. And me having the opportunity to work with so many great people, I know that is not true. But when things like a permitting delay or a permitting prohibition, simple things that matter to people, these are, I see them as opportunities to continually, you know, put coins in the proverbial piggy bank of trust.
And I think that's something we can all focus on.
Speaker 4
When your optimism to run for office, to serve in office with your wife, Leah, supporting you along the way, the fact that you are actively involved in your community as a law enforcement officer in the community, the fact that you come here to talk about a common sense but, frankly, nonsensical fact, mister chair, that we have to run legislation to put a United States flag on a mountain peak is a reflection of why a lot of people do feel like government just doesn't work for them. And I'm grateful for your optimism. I share it. We need to make sure that those young men, young women, and that the people in the community can look at the government as something that actually works. And it's sad that we have to take an active Congress to do something that's patriotic, like put up a flag.
But god bless America because we'll do it if we need to, to reflect the fact that there is hope for this great country, 250 years old, and we hope for another 250 years in the future. So representative Clancy, thanks for being here to bring out those important symbolic aspects of what is a relatively simple bill. But, mister chair, I'll just say we will not stand down in whatever way we need to. We'll make sure that the United States of America and its flag can fly everywhere in this country in an unfettered fashion. Thank you, representative Clancy.
Thank you, Mr. Jerry. I yield back.
Speaker 10
Thank you. And, again, thank you for allowing me to weigh in on your very important committee. First of all, I wanna commend the forest service for the work that you do. If you have watched over the last couple of years with the Biden administration, when forest service employees came before our committee, I was pretty hard on them for good reason. We need to better manage our national forest system lands, and I know that is what you want to do.
It is a goal of yours. So many people don't realize that under the 1897 organic act, the forest service was created within the department of agriculture, not within the department of interior, specifically for the purpose so that we could use these lands for commodity production, whether that is timber production, production of water, grazing. Those are all things that are incredibly important. And it was the very purpose of why these 192,000,000 acres were eventually set aside, including the national grasslands. I want to make sure that our national grasslands are properly managed and that they are used by the people who can benefit not only our communities, but ultimately it benefits all of us.
By clarifying that FLP grazing provisions are to apply to the entire National Forest System, we will be putting national grasslands on parity in terms of provided to permits in the FLPMA statute. And, mister Checketts, why is certainty so important for current operations and future generations who want to engage in this agriculture way of life?
Speaker 15
Thank you, Congresswoman Hageman, and thank you again for sponsoring this bill. The reason that certainty is so important, as I noted earlier, we've lost 150,000 ranches. It's so important that we have surety to know that our kids can come, that we can pay our bills, and that we can protect and preserve the grasslands for future generations. The ranchers are the original conservationists. We want to take care of the ranch, the land, more than anyone else.
With that surety, we can develop, improve, and make the grasslands better than they've ever been.
Speaker 10
You can invest in the resource, whether it is needed land or it is the land that you are managing as part of a permit with the National Forest Service. Is that a good way of putting it?
Speaker 10
Alright. There are 20 publicly owned national grasslands, ranging from the Rocky Mountains to the Badlands, to North Central Texas and into the Great Plains. You have described many of the challenges that folks on those national grasslands have faced. As the president of the Association of National Grasslands, are you able to speak as to whether these challenges are shared by ranchers operating on grasslands across several states?
Speaker 15
Some of the challenges is the loss of AUMs. There's been some AUM loss, two different grazing associations. The Grand River and the Fort Pierre in South Dakota have both lost AUMs. We're currently working to get them back, and making good progress with the forest service. But it's a continual thing that is a scare tactic, used by the forest service, and I too am very grateful for the forest service.
Many friends with the Forest Service, and I always publicly thank them for the great. There's been a good positive movement with the Forest Service, and I really appreciate the Forest Service supporting this bill.
Speaker 10
Well, one of the challenges that we have in the West are the catastrophic forest fires that we have experienced over the years, both within our national forests such as in the Big Horn, or, yeah, the Big Horn National Forest or within on the grasslands. And grazing is a very important part of mitigating the risk of wildfire, isn't it, Mr. Checketts?
Speaker 15
Yes, ma'am. 45 to 50% reduction in wildfires with grazing, and up to 80% with targeted grazing in areas of concern.
Speaker 10
So it is a very important part of the way that we manage this resource, and I think that it is absolutely critical that we make whatever adjustments are necessary working with the forest service and practitioners and legs, our state legislators, as to what kinds of changes and tweaks do we need to make or fundamental changes do we need to make to the statutory framework to make sure that these gentlemen sitting at the table with you are better able to do their job. Can you briefly describe what is the value to our nation's food supply and overall economic health from grazing on national grasslands and other public lands?
Speaker 15
Food security is national security. Having that healthy food to raise our children, to feed our families, there's nothing more important. There's nothing more organic than being able to graze on federal lands. It's the greatest thing that's ever happened to ranchers, and it's the greatest thing to feed our country. And our country is an example of taking care of all the citizens by that.
Speaker 10
And we often talk about the Maha movement to Make America Healthy Again. We just saw the complete inversion of the food pyramid. My father has been talking about was talked about that for sixty or seventy years, about how the food pyramid is issued by the federal government or put forth by the federal government. It was always backwards. It was always wrong.
And now what we're seeing is we're focusing on the healthy meat and dairy and fruit and vegetable products that we produce in this country. Again, very briefly, how would the Grasslands Grazing Act help maximize the positive contribution of the national grasslands to our nation?
Speaker 15
It would help by the Maha movement. It would help by taking care of the local communities so that the dollar turns around and that the ranchers can stay on the ranch and raise their families and keep rural America rural America like it's been for generations.
Speaker 10
Wonderful. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you both for traveling here. Again, I want to commend the folks in the National Forest Service for your work to actually implement what the original organic act intended and to make sure that we can manage, protect, and in the long term use these incredible national resources. So thank you very much.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentlelady yields, and as usual, she hits a tripwire. I was not going to say anything, but it's time for the food pyramid standards to be changed. It is about time that it happened, and we are celebrating today because the whole Milk for Kids Act is being signed at the White House as we speak.
Speaker 1
There we go. We should be celebrating, and I was one of them that did not adhere to those standards over the course of the past number of decades. Bacon, beef, and butter have been an integral part of my family's diet for a long time, and we are not going to stop. Keep raising that beef out there on the plains, if you would. So, anyhow, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the members for your questions.
Members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for our witnesses today, and we'll ask that they respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Tuesday, 01/20/2026. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. If there's no further business, without objection, subcommittee on federal lands stands adjourned. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.