Legislative hearing on six bills: • H.R. 34 (Rep. Gosar), “Land and Social Security Optimization Act” or the “LASSO Act” • H.R. 1329 (Rep. Malliotakis), “Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Act” • H.R. 3553 (Rep. Min), “Building Resiliency and Understanding of Shrublands to Halt Fires Act” or the “BRUSH Fires Act” • H.R. 5478 (Rep. Moore of UT), “Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act of 2025” • H.R. 5911 (Rep. Hurd), “Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act” • S. 282 (Sen. King), “Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument Access Act”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Just last week, this subcommittee hosted an oversight hearing marking one year since the LA fires. It's clear we need better tools, better information, and real follow-through. And, ultimately, we need the Senate to pass the Fix Our Forest Act. Finally, we will consider S 282, the Catawba Woods And Waters National Monument Access Act. This national monument in Maine has become a popular destination for outdoor recreation, but access, especially from the South, remains limited.
This legislation seeks to address that, as well as enshrine protections for existing uses like hunting and fishing in the monument. Taken together, today's bills reflect what this subcommittee should be focused on: solving problems, cutting unnecessary bureaucracy, improving access to public lands, and being better stewards of both taxpayer dollars and America's natural resources. I wanna thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. With that, I yield back, and I now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee.
Speaker 6
Mister chairman, well, you piqued my interest a moment ago because it's the first time I think in this Congress I've heard my Republican friends say they wanted to dig into some oversight, ask some hard questions. But it's not about anything that the Trump administration is doing. It's not about this crazy MAGA cultural revolution that's being imposed on the Park Service and the Smithsonian and others to rewrite our history and whitewash all the unpleasant parts. It's about a bill involving women's history to make sure we'll see, but presumably to make sure it's not too woke. Make sure they're not gonna tell the full story of women's history.
I have a suggestion, folks. How about we just let the Smithsonian, the Park Service, and the other folks tell the truth? How about the truth? And let's just live with the complexity of that truth, because there's a saying that kinda sprang up, became popular following World War Two. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
And it's pretty horrifying that some of the things that the world endured during that very time frame are repeating right here, in this dark, dark moment that we are living through. Militarized federal forces are terrorizing communities as we speak, carting families away to detention centers, murdering people who stand up for their neighbors. Journalists are getting arrested for telling the truth, and this administration is literally erasing history from the public record. Our national parks and museums are where we bring our children to learn where we came from. They are where we go to understand the full story of our country, the good and the difficult, the triumphs, and the struggles that our nation has progressed through.
For over 100 years, the National Park Service has told America's stories, and not just the happy ones. The Park Service's Organic Act clearly states that the agency must, quote, conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. That mission is under attack right now. I need my colleagues to understand what we are witnessing. This administration is conducting a purge, a systematic campaign to erase black history, indigenous history, LGBTQ history, even the scientific basis of climate change from our public lands and our national park system.
In Philadelphia, park workers were forced to rip down the exhibit honoring the 9 people that George Washington enslaved at the president's house. Gone. And that was two weeks before Black History Month. At Harper's Ferry, they removed materials about John Brown's stand against slavery. Just this past Friday, the anniversary of the day in 1963 that NAACP leader Medgar Evers was shot and killed by a self-described racist, reports emerged that the administration will remove mention of racism from the Medgar Evers National Monument in Jackson, Mississippi, a monument that President Trump himself designated in his first term.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent, Mister Chairman, to enter into the record an article from Mississippi Today about the administration's planned changes at this monument.
Speaker 6
Thank you. The administration posted signs at parks asking visitors to report anything, quote, negative about Americans. They want you to turn in a park ranger or a docent for actually teaching history, for telling the truth. This is unrecognizable. This is a magicalultural revolution that, chairman Mao would certainly appreciate, but not anyone who truly loves this country.
And the executive order driving all this calls our museums oppressive for teaching about slavery. And forget it, this executive order gives JD Vance, our vice president, the power now to purge any exhibit that he personally thinks is ideologically impure. The guy who called Renee Good a domestic terrorist is now in charge of deciding what parts of our history we're allowed to talk about. I'm glad the Smithsonian is here testifying today, because I have a lot of questions about how they're interpreting President Trump's demands to sanitize history. Reports that artifacts are being removed from the National Museum of African American History are deeply concerning, but they're sadly right in line with everything else the administration is doing in its culture war.
Every day that I'm in Washington, I witness families traveling from across the country to be here and experience the museums, the monuments, that tell the story of our country. Millions of American families do that every year. And the completion of the Smithsonian's American Women's History Museum and the Latino History Museum would create another avenue for a more complete full story about our nation's history. It's imperative that as we approach the 200th of the country's founding, we tell the whole story, the truth about the whole story, the founding ideals, and the people who were excluded from them for too long, the progress that we've made and the work that we still have to do, that's true love of country. That's patriotism.
Our parks and museums should hold all of our history. The full record, not just the parts that are comfortable, not just the parts selected by politicians who are scared of what people might think, because you can't build the future on a lie. Truth is not dangerous. Truth is not divisive. Truth is how we learn and grow.
Truth is how we build a more perfect union. Real Americans understand that, and we're not giving up our truth. I yield back.
Speaker 2
We will now move on to our first panel, which consists of members who are sponsoring today's legislation. First, I'd like to recognize Representative Gosar for five minutes on H.R. 34. The floor is yours, sir.
Speaker 7
I thank the chairman and the subcommittee for allowing me to wave on today to advocate for my bill of land and social security optimization or Lasso Act. Americans suffered under Biden's radical 30 by 30 agenda. A land grab attempting to lock up 30% of our nation's public lands and waters by 2030. Property rights were infringed upon, grazing permits were revoked, energy development was halted, and the multiple use doctrine was abandoned, all fueling the affordability crisis felt by millions of Americans today. Luckily, President Trump swiftly reversed his scheme through executive orders expanding timber harvesting, unleashing domestic energy dominance, and exploring the feasibility of a sovereign welfare fund.
My bill, H.R. 34, numbered after the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, ties the future of Social Security to the efficient management of our public lands. Mister chairman, I know this is not the be all, today, and all solution to Social Security solvency. But the Lasso Act puts the future of Social Security into the hands of the American people who pay into it, and also puts the public lands where it belongs, with the people. White collar bureaucrats in Washington, DC have failed to secure the future for American Social Security, leaving it vulnerable to rampant abuse and potential insolvency. Instead, the Lasso Act puts hardworking Americans in the driver's seat by reinforcing the multiple use doctrine of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to bolster the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund or Social Security, which pays the Social Security benefits of retired workers and their dependents.
Stewardship of public lands according to the multiple use doctrine generates revenue for both the local and federal economies, fueling solutions to affordability. Importantly, the bill has been cleared by the National Association of Counties, the American Exploration and Production Council, and the American Petroleum Institute for concerns about local revenue sharing. Simply put, mister chairman, the last act is a win-win. It encourages recreational energy mining, energy mining, and agricultural potential on public lands and funds Social Security for American seniors. The more responsible stewardship of public lands, the more money is deposited in the Social Security account.
But, ultimately, it gives everyday Americans a chance to build their own success story. This is important. They're not dependent on the federal government for that success story. They build their own success story. I think they'll do a better job than we do.
I thank you, and I look forward to productive conversations with the administration to perfect the Lasso Act, and I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Representative Gosar. I'll now recognize Representative Heard for five minutes on HR 5911.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and ranking member Nagus. Thank you for holding this hearing, and for the opportunity to speak in support of my bill. H.R. 5911, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act. This bill is a common-sense, locally driven solution. It's the House companion to bipartisan Senate legislation introduced by both of Colorado's senators, and it reflects a principle I've long believed.
Public land conveyances should begin at the local level with clear public support and a clear public purpose. That is exactly what we have here. This legislation was requested by my constituents in the city of Urae, Colorado. Urae is often referred to as the Switzerland of America, not just for its setting, but for a tradition of careful, consensus-driven local decision making. This proposal reflects that approach.
Crystal Reservoir sits roughly six miles south of town and has long served multiple essential functions: wildfire suppression, municipal and agricultural water supply, recreation, and support for the city's hot springs. In 2024, the US Forest Service drained the reservoir after identifying structural concerns at Full Moon Dam. The result has been the loss of a critical water and public safety asset for a small mountain community. Under this bill, the city of Yurea is prepared to step up. The city would assume full responsibility for repair, operation, maintenance, and liability, relieving the forest service of those obligations at a time when federal land management agencies face significant deferred maintenance backlogs.
This approach is fiscally responsible, and it reduces the federal administrative burden. Importantly, HR 5911 includes strong protections, permanent public access easements, continued recreational access, no commercial development, and reversionary clauses if the land is misused. The land remains open, protected, and publicly accessible, while being locally managed by the people who rely on it most. In the West, we often say that water is life. This bill recognizes that reality while respecting federal land policy, local stewardship, and taxpayer dollars.
I appreciate the witnesses joining us today and look forward to their testimony as the committee considers this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, Colorado yields. I now recognize representative Min for five minutes on HR 3553.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Chair Tiffany, for allowing me to introduce my bill, the Brushfires Act. What the Brush Fires Act would do is provide critical guidance and policies in aligning federal wildfire prevention policy with the best practices that we know exist to actually help firefighters on the ground, particularly when it comes to brush fires in areas dominated by chaparral. A little later today, we're gonna hear from my witness, Chris Ham, president of the Orange County Firefighters, who also brought along with him his colleague, Justin Dillon, the vice president of the OC Professional Firefighters. And as the 2024 LA wildfires have made clear, our national and state approaches to combating wildfires, which largely take a one size fits all approach, are no longer appropriate given the growing threat of brush fires in dry, chaparral dominated regions like Southern California. According to recent research, two-thirds of all recent wildfires in the last few decades have occurred outside of traditional forest ecosystems, primarily in shrubland and grassland.
And Southern California, including Orange County, which I represent, don't really as much as we face the problems of these brush fires, dense forests are not really part of our ecosystem. It's the chaparral that often lies right next to residential neighborhoods, creating very real threats to residents that I represent. What we've seen over the last decade, as climate change has continued to dry out our ecosystems, is a vicious cycle. Chaparral is naturally adapted to be drought- and fire-resistant. But as we've had more and more intense wildfires over year after year, that has led to a loss of native species and an encroachment by invasive species and highly flammable weeds and grasses, which then combined with the strong wind conditions we face in Southern California, create essentially a tinderbox condition.
And we saw that really visibly arise with the LA wildfires, something that's been matched many times in recent years in Orange County. We had a 2024 airport fire that occurred in the Cleveland National Forest, which I think my witness is gonna detail in testimony. That was caused by a small manmade ignition and dry brush before it quickly grew, burning over 23,000 acres of land in a few days, destroying 160 acres, 160 structures across Orange and Riverside Counties. And so what my bill would do is try to refocus some of the federal government's resources and attention away from forest fires to the growing problem of brushfires. Brush fires act has the support of local fire chiefs in California and other leaders in the fire management community.
And what it would do is can direct the US Forest Service to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its fire prevention practices in shrubland ecosystems, from the effectiveness of existing fuel treatments to protocols to reduce accidental manmade ignitions. It would also require the forest service to report to Congress and the public on its findings, clearly identify best practices that land managers and fire officials can take advantage of, and evaluate ways that can enhance collaboration with regional partners on wildfire resilience. Now with that, I wanna thank Chair Tiffany. I wanna thank my witness, Mister Ham, ranking member, Negus, for the opportunity to speak on my bill. I look forward to presenting, and I hope you will consider supporting my bill.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from California yields. I now recognize Representative Malia Takis for five minutes on HR 1329.
Speaker 9
Thank you, chairman Tiffany, ranking member Nagus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of HR 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act. I'm here because of one simple fact. The Smithsonian Institution has 21 museums, 11 of them right here in the National Mall. Now one of them is dedicated to the history of American women.
This bill fixes that, and it finishes what Congress started on a bipartisan basis five years ago. In 2020, a Republican president and a Democratic Congress came together to authorize the creation of this museum. President Trump signed the law, and he has continued to champion this effort at the White House this past March. He expressed his support for a big, beautiful museum and told us that he would back it 100%. That kind of top-to-bottom bipartisan commitment is rare in Washington, and it tells you something about how important this project is.
The numbers speak for themselves. HR 1329 has over 225 cosponsors, more than enough to pass in our chamber. Over 100 of them are Republicans, and the support spans the Republican Study Committee, the Main Street Caucus, the Freedom Caucus, and it is a priority of the GOP Women's Caucus. On the other side of the aisle, the support is just as deep. This is not a bill that splits along party lines.
It is actually endorsed by the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. And more than half of the committee members on this committee are sponsors. I ask that my colleagues not politicize this museum because it is so important for our country's future, for young people to understand the role that women have played in our history, and that it has such broad support. It is something that actually unites us across the political spectrum. And it's because of the amazing women we seek to honor.
Betsy Ross stitching a flag for a brand-new nation. Harriet Tubman risking her life on the Underground Railroad. Susan B Anthony and the suffragists who fought so that women could vote. As you mentioned, chairman, your state of Wisconsin, the first to ratify the 19th amendment. Jeanette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to Congress.
Nelly Taylor Ross of Wyoming, the first woman elected governor. Utah's Martha Hughes Cannon, America's first female state senator. Antonio Coelho Novella of Puerto Rico, the first woman to serve as a US surgeon general, championing women's health and AIDS research. Sally Wright of California, breaking Earth's gravity as the first American woman in space. Oregon's Lola Baldwin, the nation's first policewoman.
And Oregon's Stacey Allison, the first American woman to summit Mount Everest. And let's not forget, of course, the Rosie the Riveters, the millions of women who stepped into factories during World War II, and the black angels from my district who were courageous nurses who helped find the cure for tuberculosis. And think about the millions of women whose names we do not know, the pioneer wives, the gold star mothers, the military service women, and the teachers and nurses who build families, communities, and nation, this nation. It's exactly why we need this museum. And at its core, the museum celebrates American achievement and American, it is patriotic history, plain and simple.
I also want to assure this subcommittee that the bill was put together with great care to make sure it is done the right way. The legislation requires a non-advisory council to review exhibits and ensure that the museum accurately represents the varied cultures, histories, and political viewpoints of women across America. It mandates biennial reports to Congress so that you will always have the oversight of how the museum is developed and curated. This was built to be balanced, representative, and accountable. The bill requires no new federal spending.
It simply authorizes the Smithsonian to place the museum within the reserve of the National Mall, and directs the transfer of the land. The museum has already raised roughly $70,000,000 in private donations. New construction on a vacant site is the most cost-effective path. The proposed site is metro accessible, high traffic, and above the flood plain. It is a smart location, and it also will save taxpayers money, by choosing a new vacant land.
The National Mall is where our nation honors its history, and women's history belongs there. America's story is incomplete without the women who built it. A museum without a home cannot fulfill its mission, and now is the time to finish the job. I respectfully ask the subcommittee to advance HR 1329 so that future generations can see, learn from, and be inspired by the trailblazing women who shaped our country right where they should be, at the heart of the nation's capital. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
General lady from New York yields. I now recognize Representative Moore for five minutes on HR 5478.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chairmans Tiffany and Westerman and ranking member Nagus for including the Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act in today's hearing. I'm excited to be back in the natural resources committee to speak today in support of my bill, and thrilled to welcome my constituent, Darren Franzdon, to Congress. Thank you for being here and taking the time to testify on this bill. My bill would convey 295.89 acres of undesignated federal land within the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest to the city of Fruit Heights in Davis County, Utah. This would be for public purposes and trail maintenance.
This land would be used to connect two currently disconnected portions of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and build on the existing Fruit Loop trail system. Utah is home to some of the most iconic natural landscapes and trails in the country. Consistently ranked as one of the best states for hiking, it has nearly 3,000 trails spanning across the entire state. More than 70% of Utah is public land. We have relied on partnerships with federal agencies to promote the best use of this land, while ensuring that future generations can take advantage of Utah's natural beauty.
While in many cases these partnerships have been strong, there are scenarios like this where I believe local control makes more sense, particularly when the land borders the city, or when the city may be in a better position to keep up with maintenance needs. The effort for this conveyance began when former Fruit Heights mayor John Pullman approached me to find a solution that would maximize access to the trail system and be most beneficial for both the land and nearby residents. For years, the city and its surrounding communities have attempted to work with the US Forest Service to improve and expand the trail networks on this land. Difficulties have arisen in providing the necessary maintenance for the heavy trail use in the area. This has greatly decreased its overall quality and has further disrupted the natural vegetation.
Many local leaders and organizations have communicated that because of its current state, several unofficial trails have been created, making it profoundly confusing and very difficult to navigate. To be crystal clear, this bill has nothing to do with additional development in and around Fruit Heights. It is solely about ensuring recreational opportunities in the Fruit Heights area. This bill includes language requiring the land to only be used for public purposes. If the city breaks that promise or attempts to break that promise, the 295 acres would be returned to the federal government.
That said, I'm confident in the city's ability to be good stewards of this land, and I do not anticipate this becoming an issue whatsoever. I'd like to thank Congresswoman Malloy for being an original cosponsor of this bill. I'm grateful to the Wasatch Front 100 mile endurance run, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Trails Foundation of Northern Utah, the mayors of Kaysville, Farmington City, Utah, and Bikers Edge Company who voiced their support conveying this land and asked for unanimous consent to enter their letters of support into the record. That objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again, mister Franzen, for being here and for all you do for the Fruit Heights community. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Utah Yields, and we will move on to our second panel. Let me remind our witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button of the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green.
At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. First, I'd like to introduce Doctor David Lytle, deputy chief of research and development at the United States Forest Service. Doctor Lytle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 3
Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany. Ranking member Huffman and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Agriculture on those bills today that have Forest Service equities. My name is David Lytle, and I serve as the acting deputy chief for fire and aviation management in the US Forest Service. The four bills I'll be testifying on today address a range of issues from the study of wildfire mitigation approaches in shrubland ecosystems to land conveyances to policy regarding the retention and use of revenue generated on National Forest System lands.
I'll discuss each of the four bills briefly, and direct the committee to my written testimony for a more detailed explanation of the department's views on these matters. Starting with HR 3553, the Building Resiliency and Understanding of Shrublands to Halt Fires Act or the Brush Fires Act, the bill would direct the Forest Service to study how effective current wildfire mitigation strategies are in shrubland ecosystems, including impacts on nearby communities, with the goal of identifying strategies that would be effective in reducing wildfire risk and damage in and around shrubland ecosystems. The bill also requires the agency to produce a report to Congress summarizing findings and offering actionable recommendations. The report would include best practices, knowledge gaps, and identification of administrative and operational limitations. There is also focus on improving coordination with non-federal partners to reduce risk to homes and infrastructure in and around the wildland-urban interface.
USDA supports HR 3553 and appreciates the intent behind the proposed report. The agency anticipates learning from the outcomes of the study to improve wildfire mitigation efforts and share those findings with the USDA and DOI as we work to unify the wildland fire management mission. HR 5478, the Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act of 2025, and HR 5911, Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act, would direct the Forest Service to convey certain National Forest System lands to the cities of Fruit Heights, Utah, and Yurea, Colorado, respectively. While the details of the individual land conveyances are distinct, in both cases, the Forest Service is working with the affected stakeholders and would appreciate the opportunity to work with the bill sponsors and committee to arrive at a solution that meets the needs of all interested stakeholders. HR 34, the Land and Social Security Optimization Act, or Lasso Act, would establish a mechanism to direct a portion of revenue generated from public lands to the Social Security Trust Fund.
While the department appreciates the intent of the bill to strengthen Social Security consistent with the president's unbreakable commitment to protecting and strengthening this vital program, as currently written, the department opposes HR 34. We would recommend additional discussions between the Forest Service, the bill sponsor, and the committee to better understand the mechanics of the proposed bill and explore the potential impacts on other statutes that define the terms for the collection and use of revenues on National Forest System lands, and the trade-offs with activities that support and protect rural communities. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear today. It truly is an honor, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Doctor Lytle. Now I want to introduce Mister Ronald Cortez, undersecretary for finance and administration at the Smithsonian Institution. Welcome, sir.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Ngoose, and all members of the committee for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 1329, a bill to permit Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to be located within the reserve of the National Mall. I'd also like to thank the sponsor of the legislation, Representative Nicole Maliatakis, along with more than 225 cosponsors. Congresswoman Malia Takas has been a tireless champion for the museum and the Smithsonian, and we deeply appreciate her commitment to its success. My
Speaker 11
I am Ron Cortez, and I serve as the undersecretary of finance and administration, and I'm the chief financial officer for the Smithsonian Institution. I oversee all central operational offices, which provide critical support across the entire institution in human and financial resources, information technology, procurement, safety, and security. And most importantly, for today's hearing, our facilities planning and operation. In 2020, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law a bill authorizing the creation of the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum. That legislation directed the Smithsonian Board of Regents to select a site for the museum.
Further, it enumerated specific sites for consideration, including the site I'll discuss today, and a clear expectation that the museum be located on or near the mall. After passage, we immediately got to work identifying sites. In all, we evaluated a total of 27 locations in Washington, DC. We then evaluated them on the broad criteria and considered location, accessibility for visitors, proximity to other Smithsonian museums, and cost. We sought input from regulatory bodies, local elected officials, community groups, supporters, and congressional stakeholders.
The list of sites was narrowed to a handful of locations that were considered by the Smithsonian leadership, our board of regents, and the American Women's History Museum Advisory Council. Ultimately, this nearly eighteen-month process identified an optimal location on the South Monument site, which mirrors the location of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, balancing the development on the South Side of the National Mall. This was the top-listed site for consideration in the authorized legislation, and precisely where the original sponsors envisioned the museum. The South Monument site provides various advantages. As an unoccupied space, there would be no need to relocate any offices or demolish any existing structures.
We've been able to build a custom facility that meets the programming needs of the visitors. We would also be able to move quickly, prevent cost escalation, and meet the public expectation that this museum would be a prominent addition to the National Mall. However, the 2020 legislation did not empower the Smithsonian to move forward on this recommendation. Recommending use of the reserve for this museum is not a suggestion we make lightly. Our nation's capital, specifically the National Mall, must have space for Americans to gather.
This need will be made even more clear this summer when we gather to commemorate 250 years as a nation. But the National Mall is not just a place to gather. It conveys a message about our shared national values, our achievements, and our history. The Smithsonian plays a key role in creating the mall's powerful sense of place and purpose. It's a responsibility we take seriously and are honored to steward.
This museum is a public-private partnership with the Smithsonian coming to raise half the funds needed to construct it. And to date, this museum has raised over $71,000,000. Identifying a site will demonstrate the federal commitment and inspire confidence from additional donors. Should this bill become law, we'll be taking a paramount step toward the museum's opening day. While there still is a long way to go, establishing this site would prevent additional delays and their associated costs, as well as permit the museum to begin planning its long-term vision.
If signed into law, we are confident that we can deliver a world-class museum at this location that is worthy of the Smithsonian and the American people. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I welcome your questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Cortez. Before we move on to questions from the panelists, I'm going to recognize Representative Golden in regards to the bills that we have before us for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the flexibility here. I'm gonna be changing the subject here very briefly, and then I'm sure you'll have plenty of good questions. I'm gonna take a moment to discuss the Woods and Waters Access Act, which I'm glad you've included in today's hearing. For those of you who don't know, Cottonwoods and Waters is a national monument in Maine's 2nd Congressional District.
About 88,000 acres of rivers, streams, and woods in the region around Mount Cotton. It's the tallest mountain in Maine, at the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. It draws tens of thousands of visitors each year. Given the monument's location in the northern part of the northernmost northeastern part of the Lower 48 states, nearly everyone who comes to visit the monument comes from the South. The largest communities in the monument's vicinity, Milenakke, East Milenakke, are also at its southern end, making them a natural gateway to Catan Woods and Waters.
The challenge currently being that while there are roads on a parcel of land connecting these communities to the monument, there's no guarantee of public access. In other words, we have gateway communities with no gateway leading into the monument. This bill is a simple light-handed fix. It authorizes the National Park Service to secure a legal interest over that existing road and public access into the park. I'm glad to report one thing the bill does not do is mandate the federal government to buy the land.
It will simply allow MPs a seat at the table with local landowners to help secure public access to the monument. The underlying bill is already, I'm sorry. The underlying land is already for sale, we expect the Penobscot Nation, a federally recognized tribe in Maine's 2nd District, to purchase it. The Penobscot support the bill, along with local businesses and community groups, nearby town governments, and many others. It would complement the existing private sector investment in Continental Woods and Waters, which already far outweighs any direct federal appropriation for its management and maintenance.
The goal is a system of shared management and partnership that keeps the land in private hands, while creating certainty for a broad range of stakeholders. That includes people looking to pass through into the monument. It also includes hunters, fishermen, foragers, and other sportsmen, as well as loggers and others in the timber economy. Depending on where you're from, this kind of arrangement may seem unusual, but in Maine, it is certainly the norm. Private landowners all over Maine routinely make their land accessible for recreation in the natural resource economy.
This bill simply gives the NPS the ability to participate in those arrangements and secure access to Catawba woods and waters. The bill is a carefully crafted solution with an appropriately limited federal role, relying on the kind of practical local partnerships that my constituents are familiar with. It's a light-touch approach to supporting communities in Maine in a way that makes sense for Maine. So with that, mister chair, I thank you very much for including this bill in today's hearing, and I look forward to advancing it out of this committee.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields. And we will move back to our panel two, and members will be able to take five minutes for questioning. I will go to start that questioning. Under Secretary Cortez, on 03/27/2025, there was an executive order that was issued restoring truth and sanity to American history. This executive order stated in part that the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women's History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women's sports.
Was there any content like that being considered for future exhibits?
Speaker 11
Thank you for that question. As I stated in my testimony, I'm the undersecretary for finance administration, and my role has been in finding the site for this very important landmark institution and making sure we deliver a first class facility that aligns with congress intent. Having said that, as a senior member of the Smithsonian leadership team, I know we're committed to providing exhibit content that is rooted in rigorous scholarship and expertise, nonpartisanship, age-appropriateness, and accuracy. We take extra review of exhibitions and material that may touch on sensitive, controversial topics to ensure the content meets our high scholarly standards. I would be happy to arrange a visit or a meeting with one of my colleagues who was more expert on content issues from the Smithsonian.
Speaker 11
There is, and I will make sure to work with your staff to arrange that if you need.
Speaker 2
You know, in the discussions that you've had, I understand that, perhaps we should talk to someone else, but are there safeguards that are currently in place to make sure that the history and achievements of women in America are not missed? Do you have any safeguards like that in place?
Speaker 11
Again, I will respond with that by saying my professional expertise is with finance administration and citing this museum, and I would be happy to refer any questions in that regard to the experts at this vicinity who could answer those questions.
Speaker 2
Yeah. If you'll share with us who we should contact in regards to that, that would be greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2
Chief Lytle, why are we not able to find an administrative answer to this concern in regards to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Why are we not able to get an administrative agreement on this, rather than having to bring a bill forward in order to do this? Chairman Tiffany, thank you for the question.
Speaker 3
We have been working with Davis County as well as with the city of Fruit Heights to develop the trail plan through the parcel that is of interest, as well as a couple of bridges that are important to connect the trails through this five mile parcel. We continue to engage with the city, including last week when we met to talk about the progress that we had been making. And we are about six months from being able to break ground on trail construction and maybe a year from breaking ground on bridge construction in that parcel, which we think is very good news. We also think that this is the time to enhance our coordination with the city so that we can continue to integrate their interest with the trail development plan that we have.
Speaker 3
Make coordination easier? That is one option for the coordination, mister chairman. A continued work on the administrative side that can achieve the same results. And we would like to continue to coordinate with the bill sponsor, with the city, with the county, with this committee, to make sure that we have the most expedient way to move forward.
Speaker 2
Yeah. We really hope that you can expedite that process administratively, so that this can be accomplished. Sounds like it's a good project. I yield the balance of my time, and I now recognize Miss Randall for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 13
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'm so glad that we are here discussing my colleague from New York's legislation to move forward the Smithsonian American Women's National History Museum, a project that has been years in the making. But I am disappointed, mister chair, that we're not simultaneously considering Rep. Molly legislation to do the same for the National Museum of the American Latino, despite both of these museums being established by Congress at the same time. Earlier this morning, in the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, we had a similar conversation about the whitewashing of American history happening under this administration. And as I think many people watched on TV, Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio put it so beautifully in his Super Bowl halftime performance, together we are America.
And as una latina orgullosa, seeing my culture, boda y barrios, a wedding and neighborhoods, niños y trabajadores, kids running around in workers in sugarcane fields and fixing power lines, reflected on one of the biggest stages in the country, was a reminder of exactly why the National Museum of the American Latino matters so much. For every brown kid that flies across the country to visit DC and see our museums, it's important for them to see themselves and their contributions to our country highlighted. I wanna shift gears and talk to Deputy Chief Lytle about wildfires. The Pacific Northwest, my district included, has seen historic and devastating wildfires over the past decade. And just last year, for months, firefighters fought the Bear Gulch wildfire, which at its peak was over 20,000 acres and was the largest wildfire on the Olympic Peninsula since 1951.
The forest service partnered with federal, state, county, tribal, and local entities to prioritize public safety and protect critical values. And my district is home to 12 federally recognized tribal nations who have developed deep ecological knowledge of fire management and landscape health, not just recently, but over millennia. And I'm so grateful to those local tribal leaders for their partnership and collaboration in fighting wildfires like Bear Gulch, and I'd like to see the federal government proactively working with tribes on how best to steward our forests and prevent wildfires as well. The bipartisan wildfire commission report recommended that Congress provide the Forest Service with standalone authorities to enter into co-management agreements with tribes. And just a few weeks ago, GAO released a report recommending Congress pass additional and expanded collaboration and co-management authorities so that we can strengthen land management agreements with tribes.
Doctor Lytle, would the creation of new tools for tribal co-management help address the wildfire crisis, in your opinion?
Speaker 3
Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. Excuse me. We share the same values that working with our tribal partners, bringing their experience, their knowledge, their interests to the questions of resource management, are very important. And we work through a number of tools that we already have to do that. Good Neighbor Authority, Shared Stewardship, Tribal Forest Protection Act, 638 Authority.
All of those tools we make use of and we continue to grow because we see the importance of engaging with our tribal communities. Should Congress choose to provide us with additional authorities, we will certainly take full advantage of those.
Speaker 13
Thank you for that very diplomatic response. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, lady yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Idaho for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, this, first of all, thank you to the panel for being here and for your testimony today. This is always an education for us. My first question is for mister Lidl. Has to do with the Brush Fires Act.
In my home state of Idaho, we're not immune or a stranger to wildfires, and that's pretty well known, think. Just as an example to set the stage for this question, we've in 2024, we had just under 1,500 different fires and about a million acres. And, unfortunately, that's not uncommon in our state. Very similar to my colleague from Utah. We've got about the same percentage of landmass that is federally managed and a lot of very similar challenges.
But in regard to the Brushfires Act, can you provide a percentage of, in your mind, what percentage of wildfires occur on forest service shrublands? Do you have any idea what that might be?
Speaker 3
Congressman, thank you for the question. I don't have that specific information, but I'm sure my team can provide that to you.
Speaker 14
Okay. And that would be helpful. In that regard, what's the challenges that has prevented the forest service from addressing some of those fires in the past or doing so optimally? What are some of the challenges?
Speaker 3
Yeah. Again, thank you for the question. There are something on the order of 350,000,000 acres of shrublands in the US, and most of those are in Western US. And they provide different challenges for fire management and wildland fire risk reduction than do forest ecosystems. They respond differently to wildfires.
The tools that we have are not as durable on troubland ecosystems, meaning that they recover from those treatments more quickly. And so we have to go back and continue to work in those lands to mitigate fire risk on an ongoing basis. But we also have different tools that we can use. A grazing, targeted grazing, for instance, is a tool that we can use in shrubland ecosystems that we can't use as effectively in forest ecosystems. And so there is an ongoing challenge that we have in managing those ecosystems to mitigate fire risk.
But we are working to protect communities, to protect lives, to protect property with those activities in shrublands as well as in forest.
Speaker 14
So in you mentioned the different tactics and whatnot used for these fires. Could effective methods for fighting wildfire in shrublands be applied to other ecosystems?
Speaker 3
Congressman, I think the answer to that is yes. And the tools that we apply, the tactics that we apply are chosen by the local fire managers based on the conditions on the ground. And these are experienced teams, experienced individuals, and they're the ones who are making the decision on an ongoing basis.
Speaker 14
Is it common to share those strategies or strategize jointly with, like, for example, State Department of Lands and Locals?
Speaker 3
Absolutely. Wildland Fire Response is an interagency, multi-agency endeavor. And we engage with the federal government, with our state partners, with tribes, with local governments, to both mitigate risk and to suppress wildfires when they occur.
Speaker 14
Just for a future conversation, I think it's so important. You know, we've especially in the West where we have such a broad amount, a vast amount of these lands, if we're not leveraging the strengths of each other, we're not gonna succeed in the management. So thank you for that. And I'm gonna transition over. I've got about a minute left, mister Cortez.
This is in regard to the Women's History Museum. National Mall is one of the most recognizable, iconic areas in America. And I think this is great. But when the project like this comes along, how can we ensure that this museum and how it's laid out and where it's placed and all that honors the prestige associated with the potential location on that mall. How do we keep that iconic nature with new additions?
Speaker 11
Sir, thank you for that question. As noted in the testimony, we do not make the suggestion of building another reserve lightly. If Congress were to enable this location, it would be our obligation to make the decision worthwhile. Building on the South Monument site will systematically mirror the National Museum of African American History and Culture in the mall setting. Completing the north and south lines of the museum and federal buildings that line the mall's green space.
The design of the American history museum will create a stronger experience for National Mall visitors. Currently, visitors walk east from the Washington Monument, first encountering the Witton's Building West parking lot. Designing and creating the signature American architecture can strengthen the transition between the Washington Monument grounds and the Central Mall space.
Speaker 14
And I thank you for that. I've used up my time. So I've something tells me that you might have anticipated that question. But.
Speaker 14
Alright. Alright. So thank you for that. We all need to be mindful of this, looking forward. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen Yields, I'll now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Huffman, for his questions.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I have to say I'm disappointed because, in your opening, you said you were gonna ask some hard questions about the Women's History Museum and the planned content, and you didn't do that. You instead breathe life into a really tired and completely refuted old lie. And so for the record, mister chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter a 03/28/2025 article from the Washington Post into the record where a spokesman for the Smithsonian who was authorized to talk about this very question, which was swirling in the fever swamp of right wing fever swamps, whatever they do there, and completely refuted it. I'll just read a quote from the Smithsonian spokesperson.
I can just say that's not true. We don't have an exhibit open or planned on the subject of, as they put it here, the exploits of male athletes participating in women's sports. So, it was a lie. It has always been a lie. It is the lowest form of bottom-feeding politics to keep regurgitating stuff like that.
Speaker 6
Now, mister Cortez, I do wanna ask you about this request from the White House, August, to review the content, exhibits, and interpretation of exhibits at eight museums, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the National Museum of the American Indian under the guise of, quote, reviewing exhibits ahead of America's 250th anniversary. Could you please tell me how you're responding to the White House request?
Speaker 11
Sir, as I mentioned earlier, that is not my area of expertise, which is content. But having said that, as a senior member of the Smithsonian, I'm aware that we're continuing a dialogue with the White House, providing information related to our current exhibitions, educational materials, and guidelines. We have also offered to brief them on our process and procedures when it comes to exhibit design and construction and our policies related to document creation. But other than that, I can get more information from my colleagues who are more steeped in this information.
Speaker 6
Can I ask you, has the Smithsonian removed any exhibits or interpreted materials as a result of this request?
Speaker 11
I'd sir, I'm not in a position to answer that just because that's not my area of expertise.
Speaker 6
Alright. Have you heard you are at the Smithsonian. Have you heard about any plans or concerns about removing exhibits in response to this request?
Speaker 6
Concerns of items being removed. Yeah. Well, obviously, that's something that I think many members of this committee would be very interested in. And so I would appreciate it if you would pass it along to your colleagues at the Smithsonian. Our interest in hearing from them about how they plan to respond to the president's request, and certainly, if any action has been taken to change content or remove contact content in response to this, we need to know everything about that.
So thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields? Is that correct? Okay. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Two Duluth curlers won the mixed doubles silver medal today. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I'm proud to support and cosponsor H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act introduced by my good friend and colleague from New York, Representative Maloney. I'm glad to see the work that the Smithsonian has made thus far working to build the museum, and I'm glad this legislation is moving forward to ensure we are able to finally make this important project a reality. The National Mall is a special place for all Americans, and it's important that congress, the National Park Service, the Smithsonian, and other federal partners carefully work together when planning and designing monuments, museums, and other public areas on the mall, especially within the reserve area.
Frankly, much of the space needs to be preserved, and we just can't build anything, we just can't build anything here. That said, I believe the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is one of the few projects that does, in fact, merit this distinction. Undersecretary Cortez, thank you for testifying today, thank you for the work of you and your colleagues to advance this important project and help make it a reality. Can you please expand on your testimony, specifically as to why it makes sense to build a museum within the South Monument site within the reserve.
Speaker 11
I'm prepared. As this is an important site. A lot of good work has gone into the evaluation process as well. There are a couple of things that make it a really good site. First, it's positioned in the mall as you enter this particular area, and it's the mirror side of the National Museum of the African American History and Culture.
It's get which is actually one of the most visited sites in the world. The land is flat. It's unoccupied, and it has numerous conditions that are positive. For example, it's not in the floodplain. It has adjacencies to all the number of the museums.
So.
Speaker 15
The cons planning and construction then be relatively easier than in another space?
Speaker 11
Yes. The construct, the design, construction, and planning will be easier in this space than in other spaces. Absolutely.
Speaker 15
And then can you also expand upon the funding for this museum as a private public partnership on, one half of the cost of the construction will not come from taxpayer but will come from privately raised funds. Is that correct?
Speaker 11
That is correct. 50% of the money will be raised from private donations, and I think they've done a wonderful job already raising over $71,000,000 today.
Speaker 15
That's wonderful. So with my remaining two minutes left, I want to allow the author representative Nalia Takis to take it.
Speaker 9
You could've given me a heads up you're gonna do that. Well, I just wanna say thank you very much for your work on this. I wanna point out that the advisory council has really spent a lot of time, years actually, to identify the proper site. As I mentioned, building on a clean site, which was identified, it's about an acre, would be much more cost effective than to try to replace an existing building. And, is that so, Mister Cortez, based on the evaluation of Smithsonian?
Speaker 11
Representative Malulothokis. That is correct. It'll be much cost effective, and it'll actually be quicker to build, which will also save us money in the future.
Speaker 9
Wonderful. And, I just wanna thank Mister Huffman for submitting that article into the record. I think it is important that we have clarification on what the intention is and the content. And I think the quote provided by the spokesperson from the Smithsonian that was on record and submitted on record today was very helpful in clarifying and addressing any concerns that members may have, so we can focus on the real issue of this museum, which is gonna be a wonderful tribute and dedication to the women of this country who have helped build The United States and have done so much and sacrificed so much to bring us to where we are today. So I wanna thank you again for yielding your time, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 15
Thank you, representative Maliatakas, for your hard work on this. This is really worth it. Now yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize Miss Ledger Fernandez for her questioning. You have five minutes, ma'am.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you so very much, mister chair, and thank you, representative Maliatakas, for bringing this bill and for witnesses today. You know? And I'm like so many Americans who are lucky enough to be able to come to the mall and to come to the Smithsonian museums. We love them. Right?
We love the way the galleries unlock the stories. They tell us of the struggle, the struggles to get to space, the struggles that different peoples have encountered here. The gowns that the first ladies have worn. I can't wait till we have a gown that the first woman president has worn to the inauguration. But, you know, these are, in fact, stories.
They're stories that are real, that are based on our history. But the best stories always have a protagonist, a struggle, and then how you overcame that struggle. It's the hero's journey. And that's why I think it's important that we allow the Smithsonian and the different museums that make up the Smithsonian to tell the stories from the perspective of is it the women? Is it the Native Americans?
Is it what's happening in space? Because they are the ones who are best equipped. And for women's stories, I think it's the women who should be telling the stories. And it should not be politicians of either party, especially male politicians, telling us what stories are important. Because I wanna hear the stories of, we all know about Rosie the Riveter, but what about the farmer rats?
Right? In 1917 and 1919, the women who left their farms to come and work because the men were off at war. What about the fact that it took women so long to get the right to vote? We had to march, protest, and starve ourselves. We're white so we could get the right to vote, and how we are going to always fight for that right to vote.
How about all of the amazing women artists who are out there? Do you know that there's only 13% of the art in the world's museums with women artists? Imagine the beautiful women that are going to be in that museum. New Mexico has one of the only museums dedicated to a woman artist, Georgia O'Keeffe. We're so proud of that.
So that's why I think it's really important to have this museum. I also think it's incredibly important to move the Latino Museum and the Women's Museum together. They have always gone together and been supportive of each other as we move this process forward. In 2020, Congress supported the creation of both the women's and the Latino museums in the same bill. And I think that it is important that we continue as we move this bill, that we also move the Latino museum forward, because both of them deserve to be on their National Mall.
And, mister Cortés, isn't it true that there's enough room? Dependent you know, and we might be we might not know exactly where each one will be, but there is enough room on the National Mall to accommodate both museums. Is that correct?
Speaker 11
Madam, the Smithsonian did recommend two sites that are on the Mall. The regions did approve and recommend that.
Speaker 5
Right. So there's space for both of them, and I think we should continue to move both of them. And the other thing that is interesting about needing to move both of them and pass both of these bills and keep them going is that there are impacts on fundraising, I understand. Like, if we don't have the space preserved and identified, we're not doing a great job on the fundraising. But wouldn't it be better if we could actually start saying this is where it will be?
Congress has said we're gonna find a place for both of these incredible stories of our American history on the mall.
Speaker 11
Both the Women's History Museum and the National Museum of American Latino have been equally successful in raising funds, now approximately 70,000,000. But it is true when you get federal support for the designation of the site, you actually have the site designated. That does encourage and provide much more opportunity to raise funds after the site is designated.
Speaker 5
So let's get the site, let's get both of these sites designated, and then we'll continue that hard work raising the money to tell these incredible stories. The hero's journey that is America, that is about struggle, that is about overcoming all of the struggles we've had in this nation over the last 250 years as we pursue that happiness that is part of our constitutional forthright. And with that, madam chair, well, see, won't it be nice to be able to say madam chair all the time? Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
I would just point out to you that Georgia O'Keeffe has her roots in the state of Wisconsin.
Speaker 2
To recognize miss, see, we're getting them all mixed up here. Miss Malloy from Utah, we'd like to recognize you for.
Speaker 17
I thought you were gonna call me madam chairman, which would be inaccurate, but flattering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Lidl, I'm gonna go over some legal truths that I know you know, but just to set the stage for the questions I want to ask you. So Congress has plenary jurisdiction over federal land, and Forest Service has delegated authority from Congress to manage national forests. Then we, Congress, have an obligation to oversee how the Forest Service uses that delegated authority.
And this is the second hearing I've been in in the last month where we've had an issue in Utah where a local entity in counties in Utah is trying to get something done on forest service land, and we've ended up having to write legislation to get it done. And then the forest service shows up at a hearing like this and says, we wish you would just wait and let it go through the administrative process. And the reason I wanna talk through all that is because I think we have this upside down or backward or somehow out of order where the agencies that Congress authorized are coming and telling us to wait for the agencies to do their work and that we shouldn't be legislating it. And, generally, I think the government should do whatever it's doing in the most efficient, most cost effective way that serves the people. And I agree with you in theory that administrative processes should be the most efficient, most cost effective way.
But when we have people calling us and saying, we've been trying to work with the forest service for years on what should be a simple permit, and we're not there yet, then legislation starts to look like it is actually more efficient. And while I agree that it should be easier to go into your local forest service office and work through a permitting process, that just doesn't seem to be the case. And so we end up legislating, and legislating is well within our job as legislators, but it's also well within our plenary jurisdiction on public land. So will you walk me through why the Forest Service thinks that going through an administrative process to complete the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is a better solution than legislation?
Speaker 3
Congresswoman, thank you for the question. You're welcome. We feel like we are in a good place right now with the progress that we have made. As I mentioned earlier, we are six months away from construction on the trail, perhaps a year away from construction on two bridges that would tie the trail through this parcel. That being said, we want to work with the city, with the county, with this committee, with Congress, in whatever ways can do this most expeditiously.
And we think right now where we are positioned, the administrative processes will yield a result more quickly than a land conveyance might because of some of the technical aspects of what we have to do to convey land. Now we would be happy to talk with the committee, with the bill sponsor, and others about what those technical issues might be, to see if we could clarify and move forward in that way. But we feel like we're in a good place right now, and look forward to continuing to work with the county and with the city.
Speaker 17
So can you tell me how long ago Davis County started this process with the Forest Service?
Speaker 3
I do not know. This is I cannot speak to anything, to the long history that exists in this place. What I do know is that we are committed to working with the city and with the county to resolve this. We understand how important recreation is to the local community, to the citizens, to economic development. And we are committed to working with the city and the county to make sure that happens.
Speaker 17
I like hearing you say that, and I hope that we can get this done expeditiously. Excellent use of a $5 word. But my notes say that it's been at least 3 years that the county's been trying to get this done. And this is creating access in an area that's mostly developed so that people can get out, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise, enjoy the forest service, and the land that's in their backyard. It just seems like we've got to come up with a better solution, where doing these hearings about really simple permits isn't the most efficient way to solve problems.
We created agencies to serve the people, and it seems like what we're getting is a lot of roadblocks and a lot of stalling. I mean, even your answer, which I think is an accurate and fair answer, is that if we do a conveyance, then there's more process that's going to take even longer. And the process is supposed to facilitate solutions, not be the reason we never get to solutions. And I see that I'm out of time. So with that, I will yield quickly in 5 seconds.
Mister Cortez, I also support the idea of having a women's history museum.
Speaker 2
General lady yields, I now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Nagus, for his questions.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses, and of course, thank you to the members. And I apologize. Thank you for indulging me as we have multiple committee proceedings today. But, it is a pleasure and a privilege to be here and to continue doing our important work addressing the wildfire crisis.
I'm grateful to my colleague, representative Min from California, for his leadership on the Brush Fires Act, a vital step towards mitigating wildfire risk in sagebrush and ecosystems, requiring unique tools from other forested areas. Of course, I know we're also discussing today the bill led by Senator King of Maine, to expand the Waters National Monument in Maine, supported by a wide variety of different stakeholders. Certainly grateful that the Smithsonian is represented here today to share their views on HR 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, a bipartisan bill that's been cosponsored by more than half of the House, and certainly time that we enacted into law. I would be remiss if I didn't similarly urge consideration of HR 1330, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Latino Act. These key institutions deserve prominent places on the National Mall, they lift up stories that add to the incredible fabric of our country, especially important as we mark the 250th anniversary of this country.
I will also consider representative Hertz, Bill, my friend from Colorado, HR 59 11, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act. Appreciate his leadership on that particular piece of legislation. Know how important it is to Western Colorado, which we both proudly serve and certainly support that bill. And I know that we'll also be discussing the Lasso Act from my friend in Arizona. I suspect he knows my views on that bill, given that we've had discussions on that in the past in this committee.
And while I disagree with the legislation, I look forward to the robust discussion that I know we'll have on the same. With that, I want to say thank you to both of our witnesses for being here. I know that my colleague, the ranking member, covered some ground, Mister Cortez, with you regarding the directives that the White House has issued to the Smithsonian that I find rather profoundly problematic. But I also recognize you are a career official at the Smithsonian. And so in light of that, I will simply say that I echo the sentiments that were expressed by the ranking member, with the hope that you and your colleagues at the Smithsonian, those who have jurisdiction or, you know, authority over this particular issue, will come back to us with the information that he requested.
You can imagine as we mark Black History Month, this month, on the heels of celebrating the first Martin Luther King Day holiday in which national parks no longer had a fee holiday by virtue of this administration's decision. And in light of that letter that was issued to the Smithsonian, you could imagine the concern of me and many of my colleagues. So, anyway, I'm not necessarily a question. Just want to reiterate mister Hoffman's concerns.
Speaker 16
And secondly, mister Lytle, of a similar vein, because I know that you are also a career official. As you might imagine, we, well, speak for myself, but I think I can fairly say on my side of the aisle, has some very profound disagreements with the way in which the Department of Agriculture is administering a variety of different programs impacting our national forests through your agency. And one of those is the reality of the administration's plan to eliminate regional research hubs. And while I know that's not, I suspect it isn't a plan that you helped devise or author, given that you were formerly the head of research at the Forest Service before your current position? You can disabuse me of that, obviously, if I'm wrong on that front.
I were you involved in the plan to eliminate research hubs? I take it no.
Speaker 3
Ranking member, no. I was not directly involved in those discussions. Yeah.
Speaker 16
And so I would just simply say, you know, rather than belaboring this and hectoring you, I think, really, what we need is testimony from the political appointees within the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior about the reorganization plans, among many other issues, which I think, again, as I said, there are substantive disagreements. And that is less a question to you, and I think more a signal to our chairman here than for the chairman of the full committee, that we're overdue for an oversight hearing in that regard so that we can ask some tough questions about both of the subjects that I just mentioned. But with that said, I will yield back the remaining one second of my talk.
Speaker 2
Banking member yields. I now recognize Mister Gosar from Arizona for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 7
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Doctor Lidl, in your testimony, you mentioned the forest service opposes the Lasso Act as currently written because revenues are not defined. We agree. Would you commit to a conversation to further discuss the mechanics of this bill and identify eligible funding sources?
Speaker 7
Gotcha. Well, you know, I for long have been have seen our problems with the public lands, and we seem to get more and more regulations to them, and they get all the off from us. And if I know one thing, you have to empower the people to have that jurisdiction. Would you also agree on that?
Speaker 7
Yeah. Now the Secure Rural Schools program was created to supplement the loss of revenue for the decreases in local timber sales on federal lands. President Trump's March 2025 executive order expanding domestic timber production was an important step to solve this problem. Are the US Forest Service lands currently being used to their maximum potential under their multiple-use doctrine?
Speaker 3
Congressman, thanks for the question. We are focused on a number of priorities. Timber management, timber production being one of them, but also oil and gas development, mineral development, wildfire mitigation, as well as recreational opportunities. We are focusing on all of those and trying to deliver them for the American people.
Speaker 7
So what you're describing to me is FLPMA or the Taylor Grazing Act, jurisdiction. Where did that be? Yes, sir. Okay. So last summer, Northern Arizona was devastated by the Dragon, Bravo fire.
Forest management techniques like thinning and grazing mitigate the risk of wildfires, but the Biden-Harris administration failed to responsibly manage the Forest Service lands. What successful techniques has President Trump and Secretary Rawls deployed to mitigate these wildfire risks?
Speaker 3
Congressman, again, thanks for the question. As I mentioned, we are focused on a number of key priorities, and we are working very hard to mitigate wildland fire risk across the country, especially in those places with immediate risk to the lives, property, and infrastructure.
Speaker 7
So I guess I since I got a little time here, I guess I'll go down this Adventure Ring Road. So there's lots of opportunities within the public sector. Right? You know, Taylor Roosevelt took a lot of land into custody, and thank god he did. But then the Taylor Grazing Act, people came and collected a lot of the other ones.
They used the words must and shall. Right?
Speaker 7
Yes. Yeah. And grazing rights. Now grazing was supposed to be improved, was it not? You had to improve it year to year.
Right?
Speaker 7
The grazing rights under the Taylor Grazing Act was you had to improve the grazing rights. Right?
Speaker 3
Sir, that is a little bit beyond my area of expertise. But what I can tell you about our approach to grazing is that we are working very hard under the secretary's direction to expand access and expand grazing opportunities on our service lands.
Speaker 7
So you'll agree that multiple use docks and then that you have many things going on at the same time in a piece.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields, and I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado for his questioning.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Chief Lido, thanks for being here. And I appreciate the constructive testimony you gave on my bill, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act. And that bill includes a number of terms and provisions meant to protect the federal and public interest. And I'm just actually reading from your testimony things like the bill requiring the city to grant an easement for each trail and road in existence as of the day of the conveyance.
The city of Yurea, taking responsibility for the cost of the Full Moon dam and related infrastructure. The city is maintaining the land in perpetuity for public access and recreational activities. The bill would also prohibit development, commercial operations, construction other than is needed for maintenance and operation of the dam and the reservoir, and would also prohibit expanding the historical footprint of Crystal Reservoir in a manner that would harm any of the wetlands that are upstream. Can you comment on those parts of the bill and on protecting the federal and public interests more generally?
Speaker 3
Congressman, thanks for the question. We value the partnership that we have developed with the city of Urae, and we share many of the goals, actually, probably all of the goals that the city has for that property. We are generally supportive of the bill, and we have a few technical areas of interest that we would like to work out regarding water rates, for instance, and regarding a drainage ditch, a water conveyance ditch that we would like to make sure that we are handling properly.
Speaker 4
Great. Terrific. Happy to look at that with you. From the forced service perspective, does transferring ownership to a capable and willing local government reduce federal liability associated with aging infrastructure like, for example, the Full Moon Dam?
Speaker 3
Congressman, in this case, absolutely. The Full Moon Dam, we know has some structural deficiencies that we are concerned about, which is why we open the headgates. And we are very pleased that the city is willing to partner with us and take responsibility for that. That's a wonderful step, and we look forward to working with the city on that.
Speaker 4
Great. And given the Forest Service's deferred maintenance backlog, can you talk a little bit about what a locally funded conveyance like this does, with respect to the agency's long-term fiscal and operational responsibilities? Congressman, you are.
Speaker 3
Correct that we have a substantial deferred maintenance backlog, and all of the public private support that we can generate to help address those issues is welcomed. And this is one example of a public partnership that I think can really serve the public's good.
Speaker 4
Perfect. Thank you so much, Deputy Chief Lidl. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman Niels, I now recognize a gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore, for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman. I really appreciate the gentle lady from Utah, Miss Molloy's involvement in this and then what she just communicated and the questions that she's and your guys' interaction. Fully associate myself with that. I wanna build on that. The only thing I care about here, and I'm sincere and as transparent as I can say it, is a proper outcome.
So that's all I care about. I want a proper outcome for my community, my constituents, and the area that I represent. We both actually share this county and care deeply that this gets handled. That's it. It is very simple.
What is the goal? What is the outcome? The outcome is access, maintenance, and stability for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. It's one of the most unique elements, along the Wasatch Front in our entire region, for recreation. We need different sections of this to be continuous.
We've done multiple things like this. Representative, when he was in the house, Representative Curtis had done Bonneville Shoreline Trail work. This has always been something that's collaborative. Recognize that there's a need. I believe it is a shared goal and something that we can accomplish here.
So, a few questions for discussion, doctor Lytle. Is there any law that prohibits the Forest Service from continuing work on federal land when a proposed land conveyance is being considered by Congress?
Speaker 3
Congressman, I don't have direct knowledge of all of the laws that might apply, but to my knowledge, no. But we can get back to you with more specific information on that.
Speaker 10
Would it be reasonable for the forest service to pull out of ongoing, or would it be normal to pull out of ongoing conversations with a local government as a result of land conveyance being considered? Maybe not yet enacted, but being considered by Congress.
Speaker 3
Congressman, it is our goal to work hand in hand with the communities in which we exist and where we partner. And in this case, we want to continue to work with the city of Fruit Heights, with the county, to ensure that we can connect the trail through this parcel.
Speaker 10
And mentioned other ex experiences with congress, local, and forest service where we've done that numerous times in our communities. Will you commit the forest service to meeting with my office, the city of Fruit Heights, and Davis County to coordinate efforts with this land and sign a memorandum of understanding that creates a clear timeline for work to be completed on this land regardless of the status of this bill before it could get signed into law.
Speaker 3
Congressman, we are more than happy. We look forward to sitting down with your office, with the city, with the county to work out the details of implementation of a plan for finishing the trail work in this parcel. Whether an MOU is the right mechanism, I can't speak to. There may be other mechanisms that would serve that purpose. But, yes, we will absolutely sit down with you, and I commit to that.
Speaker 10
Our concern is that this isn't just communicate. We want to think there needs to be something concrete. That is what the concern is here. Right? Is that we've gotta have this to be concrete, not just because there's a threat of legislation.
Like, this is good legislation. The city has come to us. This is something that they want. I'm ready to move forward with it. This is I really appreciate the committee for being willing to move this in a in a good solid way that has viability.
But if we can get this done, like, we're all in as well. And, we look forward to being able to finalize those plans. With that, I yield back. Gentlemen. Yes.
Yes, please.
Speaker 7
Yes. I wanted to ask one more question, chief or doctor. People would take care of the land if they were given custody of it. Would you agree?
Speaker 3
Congressman, I think that's a more there's a larger question that you're asking there about the responsibility for public lands. And we are entrusted with the care of the public lands that the Forest Service is entrusted with. We do our very best to care for those lands. Under conveyance where those lands may be transferred to another jurisdiction, we will work with those jurisdictions to make sure that happens well, and that we do this in the right way.
Speaker 7
I guess my whole point is stewardship is closest to the land, the peoples of the land. Right? You would agree with that?
Speaker 3
Congressman, absolutely. Stewardship is a responsibility of those who are there on the land, whether that's our federal employees who care very deeply about the lands that they are entrusted with, the other local governments that we work with, or private individuals.
Speaker 10
Thank you. I'll just briefly end with, like, we're so committed to this, and we appreciate your testimony. I think there is plenty of precedent in our state to be able to get this done. We look forward to working together, and I also support the Women's History Museum.
Speaker 17
Does the gentleman yield? Gentlemen. You. If there are no further questions, we will now move on to our third and final panel. I'd like to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony.
You are now dismissed. While the clerk resets your witness table, I will remind the witnesses that under 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 when you speak. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. First, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mister Heard, for 30 seconds to introduce our first witness.
Speaker 4
Thank you, madam chair. It's my pleasure to briefly introduce our witness from Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, Michelle Metier. Michelle currently serves as the administrator of URA, where she is leading efforts to responsibly manage and maintain critical water infrastructure, including the Crystal Reservoir and Half Moon Dam. Michelle brings more than 15 years of municipal leadership experience from her time with the town of Midterm, culminating in her role as town manager. She is a graduate of Colorado State University and has degrees in biology and organizational leadership.
And with those degrees, she combines technical knowledge with strong administrative expertise. I appreciate her willingness to share her insights today, and look very much forward to her testimony. Thank you, madam chair. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 17
Thank you, representative Heard. I will now recognize Miss Michelle Metier, city administrator for the city of Urae, Colorado. Miss Metier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Ngoose, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Mayor Underwood and the entire Urae City Council, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act. I would also like to very much thank Representative Heard for his leadership in sponsoring this bill and introducing it during a government shutdown, given the urgency of enabling the city of Yurea to take ownership, repair the Full Moon Dam, and refill the reservoir. The Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act directs the secretary of agriculture to convey approximately 45 acres of land underlying and surrounding Crystal Reservoir and Full Moon Dam to the city of Urae, Colorado.
We are here today because the reservoir has been drained while the United States Forest Service reviews the options available for the dredging, the repairs, and maintenance needed to operate the Full Moon Dam. The city recognizes the need for improvements and repairs to the Full Moon Dam in order to refill the reservoir. And due to our dependence on the reservoir's storage water, along with other benefits this asset provides, we are uniquely positioned to execute the proper repairs and ongoing maintenance of this facility while simultaneously supporting this asset remaining open and accessible to the public. The benefits of the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act include, one, the restoration of local control. Two, the repair and refill of Crystal Reservoir, while relieving the United States Forest Service from the burdens of operational costs, maintenance, and liability.
While this bill allows for the conveyance to occur at no cost to the city, in exchange, the city will assume all future costs and liability for repairing the full moon dam and refilling the reservoir within the original footprint of the lake. The congressionally directed conveyance is the most efficient and effective way to swiftly restore Crystal Reservoir's function and beauty. The city will work with the state of Colorado, the division of water resources, the department of natural resources, the design and dam safety engineer, along with the city works, public works, engineering, and legal teams to implement the repairs at its own expense. The city will take responsibility for all future operations and maintenance of Crystal Reservoir, Full Moon Dam, and associated infrastructure, also at its own expense. 3. Restore drought resistance and water security that was lost when Crystal Reservoir was drained.
Ownership of Crystal Reservoir will enable the city of Urae to enhance water security for its residents, improve drought resilience, and implement conservation strategies consistent with the Colorado Water Plan's objectives. Additionally, the city of Urae currently has decreed water rights for the exchange and storage of the Crystal Reservoir through the Red Mountain Ditch. The city needs this augmentation water from the Crystal Reservoir to legally and reliably operate its municipal water system under Colorado law, particularly during times of low flow conditions. 4, repair a critical public safety and wildfire response asset where it is needed most. With increasing threats of wildfire in the San Juan Mountains, the reservoir serves a critical role in regional wildfire mitigation.
Urae County sheriff Justin Perry has expressed the need for this critical resource as follows, quote, Crystal is a crucial water source for fast, effective fire suppression. To ensure we're prepared for future emergencies, it's imperative that we refill this reservoir and make it a key asset in our wildfire response strategy, unquote. Five, provide permanent protections for free and full public access to the reservoir and the adjacent national forest lands. The Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act includes strict requirements to keep the land as undeveloped, public, open space with free access for fishing and trails in perpetuity. Six, the upstream fen and wetlands ecosystems will be protected from impairment or harm from the operation of the reservoir.
Seven, the city will safeguard all valid existing rights while prohibiting future development and related conflicts, and will return Crystal Reservoir and Full Moon Dam to the status quo conditions and uses enjoyed over the last 90 years. And lastly, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act will satisfy broad and strong local support for the conveyance, repair, and restoration of this resource. We have broad support from the Red Mountain project proponents who purchased Crystal Reservoir over two decades ago. We also have support from local entities, including the Colorado River District, the Urae County Sheriff's Office, and the Board of County Commissioners, many neighboring municipalities, as well as watershed, trail, and historical organizations. I would especially like to thank Urae County Commissioner Lynn Paget for her support of this conveyance, including joining us here today.
This concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer questions from the committee. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Miss Matter. I will now recognize Mister Moore from Utah for thirty seconds to introduce his witness.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chairwoman. I'm honored, and one of my favorite things is to be able to introduce local officials in these hearings. Darren Fransden is the Fruit Heights city manager. He has had a little bit of time in public service previously, City Works director, and he's been working for the city for, I believe, over thirty years. Brings a wealth of knowledge, and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Franson.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Moore. I will now recognize Mister Darren Franson, city manager of Fruit Heights City, Utah. Mister Franson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 1
Chair and ranking member Ngozi and honorable members of the subcommittee on the federal lands, thank you for inviting me to testify for Fruit Heights City's Land Conveyance Act. I appreciate Congressman Blake Moore and his office for their continued work and support on this legislation. My name is Darren Fransen. I have worked for Fruit Heights City since 1993, beginning in the parks department, later serving as public works director, and for the past 2 years as city manager. Fruit Heights is a small bedroom community of approximately 6,000 residents, and is nearly 97% built out.
The city is located in Davis County, Utah, 20 miles north of Salt Lake City. It is situated along the east bench of the Wasatch Mountains, commonly known or referred to as the Wasatch Front, and is directly adjacent to a critical yet partially unconstructed gap in the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, the BST. In 2023, Fruit Hives began to explore opportunities to add additional recreational trails to those that have already been built. One of these trails is known as the Fruit Loops Mountain Bike Trail. The Fruit Loops are used by local high school mountain bike teams for training and competitions, families, recreation biking groups, and riders of all ages and skill levels.
The Fruit Loops have become a popular destination, not only in from the surrounding communities, but all of Davis County. I personally have talked to families that had heard about the Froot Loops and came to see and ride the Froot Loops from Idaho. With very limited open space remaining within the city boundaries, former mayor John Pullman in early 2024 began working with the US Forest Service to explore opportunities to add additional trails on the Forest Service property. Fruit Heights submitted a formal needs occur request to the Salt Lake City Forest Service. Mayor Pullman and city staff actually met on-site with the Forest Service representatives to discuss the potential of trail locations on the Forest Service property and the city's long-term vision for recreation and connectivity.
While the forest service did not object to the proposed trail system, they identified several requirements that would need to be addressed, including issues related to the BST. The Bountiful Shoreline Trail is a popular scenic multiuse trail designated to follow the ancient shoreline of prehistoric Lake Bonneville along the foothills of the Wasatch Front. Davis County, along with other counties and municipalities, has worked with the Forest Service for many years to construct and connect this regional trail system. Challenges associated with the segment of Beirut Heights have slowed the progress in this area, resulting in the city missing a grand opportunity for which it otherwise would have qualified. In response, mayor Pullman discussed potential ways to streamline and accelerate the process, which led to discussion with congressman Moore regarding the possibility of fading the land to Fruit Heights and to the city of Farmington.
The BST alignment now has been determined, the before portion above Fruit Heights is scheduled to start summer 2026 if everything is correct with the forest service in the county. Fruit Heights supports the building of the BST and appreciates all the work that Davis County and the forest have done to this point. The goal of this land is conveyance is to preserve undeveloped open space that will remain protected from development, and provide recreational opportunities for Fruit Heights residents and surrounding communities. By building additional trails, connecting the cities of Farmington, Fruit Heights, and Kaysville to Duana Oaks Shoreline Trail, supporting local schools through accessible trail systems, and encouraging residents to engage in outdoor activities. Fruit Heights is committed to expanding recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.
Communities that promote outdoor activity and access to recreation can experience improved public health outcomes and reduce long term health costs by preserving open space and developing accessible trail systems. Fruit Heights seeks to create a lasting benefit for its residents and for the Wasatch Front as a whole. Thank you for your time and your consideration, and I am available for questions you have for me. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Franzen. I'd now like to recognize Mister Chris Hamm, president of Orange County Firefighters IAFF Local 3631. Mister Hamm, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, Miss Molloy and subcommittee members. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Chris Ham. I'm a fire captain, I have the honor of being the president of Orange County Professional Firefighters representing 1,200 men and women that serve 23 cities, county unincorporated areas, state, and federal lands, including areas that border the Cleveland National Forest. In Southern California, the line between wildland and built space is no longer aligned.
It is a blur. Our homes, schools, hospitals, and critical infrastructure sit directly against shrublands, canyons, and federal forests. So it starts as a brush fire on a slope, becomes an urban problem in minutes. The coastal fire in the Guen Niguel in May '22 is a clear example of this. A rapidly moving brush fire outside our typical fire season, and without significant winds, ignited dry coastal vegetation.
It burned roughly 200 acres, destroyed 20 homes, valued at nearly $200,000,000, while damaging at least a dozen more. All in a community in South Orange County that the layperson would characterize as a suburban community. To make matters worse, this community had no defensible space and was built with strict wildfire construction codes. Those homes were not remote cabins. They were multimillion-dollar residents in a dense coastal community with steep slopes and limited ways out.
High localized wind, drought, stress, brush, and invasive grasses allowed that fire to run quickly up canyon walls and into backyards. Overwhelming, well prepared defensible space and preposition hone lines hose lines. Subsequent investigations have tied the ignition to electrical equipment, showing how quickly a spark in the wildland urban interface can translate into a mass evacuation event, with families fleeing for their lives. Thanks to the rapid response and hard work of our firefighters, no deaths were attributed to this incident. We saw the other side of this problem with the airport fire adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest on September 20, 2024, and ultimately burned 23,000 acres across Orange and Riverside Counties, primarily under the jurisdiction of the Cleveland National Forest.
That fire threatened and destroyed homes in communities like El Carizo Village, Deckard Canyon, and burned through recreational cabins on federal lands, and forced long-term closures in Tribuco Ranger District to protect public safety because of hazards like unstable slopes, damaged roads, and tree fall risk. That forest now is kept under much of that burn scar closed in 2020. From a firefighters' perspective, there's a fundamental operational difference between fast moving fires in light flashy fuels and fires burning in heavy timber and large 10,000 hour fuels. In the light fuels that dominate our coastal slopes and much of the wildland urban interface, annual grasses, invasive weeds, and shrublands, fires ignite easily, respond almost instantly to wind, and erase any meaningful separation between the wildland and structures. In heavy timber and large downed material, fire behavior can be intense and long in duration.
But the boundary between the forest and the developed area is often more defined, which allows for clear planning, constructive fuel breaks, and defensive tactics around structures. The challenge in Southern California is that we have both conditions layered together. A fire may start in light flashy fuels below a neighborhood, quickly transition into structure fires as embers land on roofs and in backyards, and then run into the forest. Heavier brush and timber on federal wild lands, becoming a large, long-duration incident like the airport fire. Means when we respond, we are simultaneously managing a wildland fire, multiple structure fires, and a federal land incident, often being managed by the initial responding units.
Fire is and always has been part of our natural landscape, but what we're seeing now is not the historic fire regime for those ecosystems. Year after year, fires prolong drought, and the spread of invasive grasses and weeds have fundamentally altered the shrubland ecosystems like chaparral and coastal sage scrub. These invasives create continuous carpets of fine fuel that dry early, carry fire farther and faster, and then reestablish quickly after a burn. Along with more developments encouraging encroachment into the wildland, we are locked into a cycle of shorter fire return intervals, higher intensity, and more frequent structure loss at the edge of communities. This is exactly the pattern along our coastal slopes and in canyons draining into the Cleveland National Forest.
That is why I'm here in strong support of Congressman Dave Minns' Brush Fires Act. Our frontline firefighters and communities we protect, this bill matters because it acknowledges that shrubland fire is its own problem, not just a smaller version of a forest fire. It will force a hard look at which stages, which strategies work under Southern California's wind, slope, and fuel conditions, where we should prioritize treatments in the wildland-urban interface, and what policy and budget barriers keep us from doing the right work in the right places. In my view, the Bushfires Act is not an academic exercise. It is a necessary step towards a realistic, shrubland-specific playbook for places exactly like the communities my members serve.
I urge the subcommittee to advance the Brushfires Act and to pair it with sustained support for implementing its findings in shovel and dominated high value, high population regions like Southern California. Our firefighters are ready to do the work. We need the federal government to give us specific science, policy, and tools to match the threats we face. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Ham. Next, I'd like to introduce Miss Margaret Beifeld, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty. Miss Beifeld, you are now recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 20
to. Okay. I'm since we had my switch, thanks to your bill. So, chairman Malloy, representative Gosar, and honorable members of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of passing the Land and Social Security Optimization Act, the Lasso Act. My name is Margaret Byfield.
I serve as the executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, and we're a property rights organization that has been around for about 34 years. We have members all across the nation, many of whom are the people who steward our federal lands. They are the ranchers, farmers, timber producers, miners, oil and gas developers, hunters, and recreationists. The people who have made these lands their homes and who support our vital communities. I was raised on a large livestock operation in Nevada where we held the right to graze on lands managed by the Forest Service and the BLM.
Through both personal and professional experience, I have seen the damage caused to families, communities, and economies when our federal lands are not utilized as Congress intended. This is why I believe the Lasso Act is needed. First, it will highlight the federal mismanagement of these lands and help correct this by creating a direct link for every American citizen to benefit from the important multiple uses of our natural resources. Second, it incentivizes the proper stewardship of these lands by tying the citizens' prosperity to the flourishing of our abundant natural resources. And third, the bill helps accomplish the original purpose for these lands, multiple use, and sustained yield.
It is Congress that determines the purposes for these lands, not the federal agencies. And this body has made a distinction between lands that are to be protected and lands that are to be productively used. Those that are protected are done so through laws such as the National Parks Act, Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National Wildlife Refuge Act, and more. The remaining federally owned lands outside of what is owned by the Department of Defense are generally identified as multiple-use lands. These have been set aside for the specific purpose of providing our nation with the natural resource commodities we need to support the health, safety, and welfare of the people, and the continued prosperity of our nation.
Congress has directed the federal agencies to manage these lands in such a manner that all of the uses can occur concurrently as appropriate. When any of these agencies determine that the lands must be restricted, conserved, or locked up, it is an admission that they have failed in the charge given to them by this body. We have seen this occur in the West, where the federal government owns roughly 50% of our land. Most recently, the BLM attempted to circumvent Congress and administratively change the purposes of these lands from multiple use to a conservation policy that eliminated all other uses. The productivity of these lands is vitally important to the local communities that steward the resources.
The federal government does not pay property taxes as a private landowner would. It is the revenue generated from the commodities produced that makes up this deficit. In simple terms, if the people cannot utilize the natural resources, the dependent communities die. There will be no closed services that can quickly rescue a stranded hiker or an injured hunter. No gas stations or grocery stores.
No necessary services that allow the public an opportunity to enjoy these lands. It is a simple principle. When the people's livelihoods are tied to the productivity of these lands, they take better care of the resources. This is why private lands are more productive than federal lands. The small landowners' entire paycheck now and in the future is determined by how well they take care of their land today, not by how much they extract.
They must steward their properties so that it continues to produce resources well into the future. That land is a small landowner's 401k retirement plan, and it's what they leave to their children. In the same way, the Lasso Act ties every citizen's future Social Security retirement funds to the productivity of our federal lands. It creates an intrinsic motivation for all of us to support actions that foster better stewardship of these lands. This brings us back to the reason we need the Lasso Act.
It also allows Americans to directly benefit from the productivity of these lands as part of their retirement. I was gonna close with the story, but I think I'm gonna run out of time. So let me just conclude. The Lasso Act, I think, is just a really smart approach that ties together everything that we should be getting driving from these federal lands and lets everybody benefit from them.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Miss Byfield, for your testimony. Now I'd like to recognize Miss Jane Abraham, former chair of the American Museum and Women's History Congressional Commission. Ma'am, you have five minutes.
Speaker 21
Mister chairman, mister ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to join you here today. This committee is being asked to approve a narrowed land transfer necessary to carry out a decision Congress has already made, and the Smithsonian has already validated. I proudly stand in support of House Resolution 1329 to permit the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum to be located within the reserve of the National Mall and to transfer the land to the Smithsonian for that use. While I currently serve as co-chair of the advisory council for the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, I have personally been involved with the creation and establishment of the museum for over a decade. In 2014, I was Senator McConnell's appointee to the American Women's History Museum congressional commission impaneled to determine the feasibility of establishing a women's history museum and recommend a pathway forward if we concluded such an institution should be established.
That bipartisan commission was composed of eight women from different professions, regions, and backgrounds, and I was elected chair. I often tell the story of the first time the eight of us met. Given that we were selected in a political setting with four of us Republicans and four of us Democrats, you might say we were all a bit apprehensive about the situation. Well, that lasted about 10 minutes. As we went around the room to introduce ourselves and articulate why each of us had agreed to this assignment, it became clear that there was far more that connected us than divided us.
We all envisioned a place that represented everyone and shined a light on the many roles and accomplishments of women no one knew about. So we simply kicked politics to the side, rolled up our sleeves, and got to work. After eighteen months of work, the commission unanimously recommended that such a museum is needed and should be part of the Smithsonian. The commission focused much of its effort on determining where this museum should be located. We established a list of 10 key criteria on which to evaluate potential sites, including location, private and public funding attractiveness, visitor attractiveness, and public transportation access.
We did an extensive review of dozens of potential sites, including reuse and off-mall sites, but determined that the South Monument site met the commission's criteria and desire for a prominent location on the mall as one of our preferred sites. Since Congress passed the legislation establishing the museum and President Trump signed it into law, there has been a groundswell of bipartisan support from women and men throughout the country, and already over $71,000,000 has been raised. While great progress is being made in terms of raising private funds and generating support for the museum, congressional approval is needed for the land to build the physical museum. In 2022, after a rigorous process examining over two dozen locations, the Smithsonian Board of Regents recommended the South Monument site as the optimal location for the museum. Each year, millions of visitors come to the National Mall to learn about the past and present of our nation.
This location and a new structure are paramount to ensuring the success of the museum. Just as importantly, it is where women should be represented at the forefront of history on America's front lawn, illuminating their stories in an originally designed building that reflects the spirit, essence, and strength of American women. This bill is needed to transfer the land to the Smithsonian. I wanna thank Representative Meliotacus for sponsoring this legislation, and Representatives Chu, De La Cruz, and Dingle for being original cosponsors, as well as the other cosponsors, including several of you on this committee. The bipartisan list of 230 cosponsors is testimony to the widespread support this museum has throughout the country and the commitment to it to be built on the National Mall.
In closing, I'd like to emphasize the following points. First, this is not authorizing legislation for the museum. Congress has already authorized it. And second, this is not appropriation legislation. There's no request for funding in this bill.
This legislation's purpose is to allow the museum to have a home built on the National Mall alongside many other Smithsonian buildings, accessible to visitors from all over the world. We urge Congress to support this legislation and provide us with a site that can serve as the primary repository of America's artifacts, stories, and memories of the contributions that American women have made to this country's founding and its experiences since. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I encourage unanimous support for this legislation, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you for your testimony, Miss Abraham. Thank you for all the work that you've put into this over the years. It's greatly appreciated. We're gonna move on to questions. I'm gonna start out with a couple questions.
Miss Byfield, I have a question. In regards to the Lasso Act, do you think it effectively incentivizes, I think something you cited, to make our public lands more productive?
Speaker 20
Yeah. Absolutely. I think the more we can get the people tied, the people involved in the policy outcomes, the more we're gonna see better stewardship of the land and productivity of the land. I mean, this is just a core principle of stewardship. And representative Gosar alluded to it earlier in his questions.
The
Speaker 2
And do you believe it leads to better management of our federal lands? Because we've seen some of our federal lands that have really just went into disrepair, and it's one of the objections that I've had is that, you know, before buying more land as the federal government has contemplated, it's much like a homeowner whose roof is leaking. Why would you buy another home next to you if you can't take care of what you have now? Doesn't this incentivize better management of our federal lands?
Speaker 20
Absolutely. I think if you trim the federal agency's budget, it's going to create more efficiency. And let me give you an example, a real-life example. Two summers ago, we were in Jackson Hole with the Western Caucus, and the forest service drove us by land outside of Jackson that they wanted to purchase or the government wanted to purchase for $100,000,000. Then they get us up to the forest service site and give a presentation and explain that they need $218,000,000 for a backlog of maintenance.
And I think all of us were sitting there thinking, why are you trying to purchase more land when we can't take care of what we have? So, what this does is it incentivizes them by trimming the budget really by 10% and paying the American people first.
Speaker 2
Thank you for that. And I yield back, and I now recognize the author of the Lasso Act, Mr. Gulsar, for his questions.
Speaker 7
Miss Buckfeld, we're gonna kinda go down memory lane as a state. Okay? So can you describe what is in the equal footing clause?
Speaker 20
Well, the equal footing means that the states, as they came into the union, should be on equal footing with the other states. They should have been able to own their land.
Speaker 7
Right. And there you go. That's where I was after. Now, how has the government actually rewarded that? They gave us filled and secure rural schools.
Right? It's pennies on the dollar that he promises. Right?
Speaker 20
Yes. Those that never come close to actually paying for what they should be paid, and they're never fully authorized.
Speaker 7
Unbelievable. It is unbelievable. So now, where does the multiple use doctrine originate? It's not a new concept, is it? And is it mandatory?
Speaker 20
Yes. It is mandatory. Taylor Grazing Act is really the one that brought that forward, although it was a concept long before that.
Speaker 7
Yeah. Some say the Lasso Act only benefits energy development under the multiple use doctrine of FLPMA. What other ways can these public lands be used?
Speaker 20
Well, so multiple use. The brilliance of that concept is that a rancher can be grazing the land at the same time the miner can be used in that land and mining it. And oil and gas can be produced, and timber can be harvested all in the same piece of land, as well as recreationists having access to it. And really, when you have all those uses occurring on the land, they work together intrinsically. They support each other.
And, for instance, the rancher is the one who puts in the water developments. So, like, on our ranch, we made sure we had water every 3 miles because that's about what livestock needs in that area. Well, developing those waters means that also the wildlife has more water. And so we see as livestock grazing increases and the waters were developed, so does wildlife. So those two things are intrinsic.
Mining, oil and gas, timber, they produce, they develop a lot of the roads that allow hunters and recreationists to get back into very remote areas that otherwise they'd never be able to see. So there, all of those industries work together intrinsically and improve the land and really make it a better experience for all Americans.
Speaker 7
So, you know, if the Lasso Act were enacted, do you think it's excessive leveraging of those public lands to bolster Social Security? It would bolster Social Security as compared to just increasing the national debt, and that will spark or for the out of the general treasury fund and furthering the increasing the national debt. Will that spark some of the positive outlooks in regard to the financial markets?
Speaker 20
Yeah. I think it will. I really think that once we tie America's retirement to the production of the federal lands, we're gonna see people more invested in the actual policies on the ground. And so I think that's how we get people involved in better management, better stewardship of our land.
Speaker 7
So, like, opportunities like CCC for young people to be involved with the land, improving those lands. Do you see that as also helping that?
Speaker 7
Now, some have said that this will never accomplish anything. It's only worth right now 2 to 4,000,000,000 according to CVO scores. But I see something different because once you get in the vaults here, you partake of, what's in it for me? I think that mantra goes far. Would you agree?
Speaker 20
I would agree. Definitely. You know, and I think we're gonna see productivity increase because, I think it was during the Obama administration on the Bureau of Land Management's website. They were bragging about how they had reduced livestock grazing by 50% since FLTMA had been passed. On our forest right now, we know that grazing those forests are not being grazed to the level that they are required to be grazed.
And that, thankfully, is something that this administration is changing. I know on our own property in Nevada, we've believed we could have doubled the capacity, and actually improved the resources by doing that. So our history over the last 30 years has been to shrink production, and we definitely have the capacity to increase production. So they may give us a low number or a number that people don't think is very worthwhile by putting 10% into the Social Security. But I think what you're gonna end up with is ultimately a much bigger number as productivity is supported more.
Speaker 7
So one real quick question. Can you describe why this is necessary based on the land and conservation health that was tried to be passed by the Biden administration?
Speaker 20
Oh, absolutely. That was a scary proposal. First off, it is congress that decides what the uses of the lands will be, as now chairwoman Malloy had pointed out earlier. And what they tried to do was the agencies, the federal agencies tried to replace and circumvent congress's authority by literally eliminating multiple uses. So instead of issuing a grazing permit, they would issue a conservation permit.
And then when they issued that conservation permit, that permit said all other uses had to stop because now conservation was the highest and best use. So it was.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Gosar. I'll now recognize Mister Minh for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 8
Thank you, madam chair. It's good to see you up there. I wanna thank and introduce Chris Ham, my witness. I wanna thank you for your 19 years of service as a firefighter. Currently a captain at the Orange County Fire Authority, president of the Orange County Firefighters.
Also, look at you. You're a politician, our former politician, council member, and mayor of the city of San Clemente. So, thank you for your testimony. Really appreciate it. And I think you highlighted some of the challenges that are unique to Southern California and to areas that have lots of brushland.
I wanna highlight one quick thing that you kind of touched on, but you'd mentioned that there's a lot of multimillion dollar homes in the area that you serve in Orange County. What is the potential threat of a, if we had an LA style fire, like the 2024, what would be the economic impact of that? Just back envelope in your mind. Like, what are we talking about here? Hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions?
What are we talking about?
Speaker 19
Yeah. Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I think it is right in alignment with the Palisades fire. Billions of dollars in structural loss and an untold number of lives. And I think, really, what this comes down to is risk versus benefit from the federal government's perspective.
And so I'm sure there are many other shrublands in the Western United States, Colorado and Utah, that have similar shrubland risk, but they don't have the same life or property value risk that we see in Southern California.
Speaker 8
And as you mentioned, it's right on top of some of these brush fire areas are right on top of homes. So we're talking huge risks here. And an ounce of prevention, as they say, is worth a pound of cure. So a little bit of money invested upfront is probably worth it. Now you touched on this a little bit, but I just wanted you to elaborate.
From a firefighter's perspective, what makes the wildfires in Southern California so challenging to prevent and control?
Speaker 19
Yeah. So prevention is a big issue for us. And so while we do a significant amount of mitigation work in our off season, which is now a smaller window every year, really, it's about initial response and getting the appropriate number of resources to that area. But, a bill such as yours that's gonna study the specific impacts in our region, I think, helps us better prepare not only next season, but the following season and year after year. That's why.
Speaker 8
And we, of course, have the Santa Ana winds that run through every year, now getting faster and faster than ever, that kinda whip up the winds and potentially turn a little bit of tinder into a huge wildfire. Now you mentioned the data. In 2021, the US Forest Service conducted a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of different fire mitigation techniques, including fuel treatments across North America. What they found is that only projects in forested ecosystems had any concrete data. So I assume that if we were able to get more data to you around what field treatments and other fire mitigation efforts work best, that would be helpful to you in trying to combat fires in an area like ours in Orange County that has so much chaparral.
Speaker 19
That's correct, sir. And I think a more regional approach like you're describing is gonna be beneficial, not only to the residents and firefighters in Orange County, but across the Western region.
Speaker 8
Fantastic. And maybe you could elaborate a little bit on that enhanced federal local coordination. What do you think are some of the more obvious ways? Our bill, of course, would require the US Forest Service to evaluate ways to enhance collaboration with federal and local partners on wildfire resilience. But do you have any ideas at the top of your head on ways the federal government right now without this bill could work better with regional partners?
Speaker 19
Yeah. I think communication is probably the key. We have really good partnerships at the local and state level that exist today. And so really honing in on what has been done correctly for local and state jurisdictions and just mirroring that exact same programming with the federal government is really the key to success.
Speaker 8
Fantastic. And I will just state, you know, my view of this bill, it's an important step. It's not a panacea. This is not gonna solve the problem of wildfires. But by starting to create the bridges and relationships, better relationships between federal, state, getting better data on what actually works in different ecosystems could help identify ways in which Congress and the US Forest Service can further assist you, whether that's funding, whether there's dedicated resources down the line.
So I just wanna thank you again for your service. We know we've had some tough losses of personnel in the past decade in Orange County. I wanna thank the brave firefighters for always being out there and fighting these fires, and thank you for your service, Chris. Thank you, Concha. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 17
Thank you. I'm now gonna recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Mister Franzen, I understand this is your first time testifying in front of congress, so I'm gonna tell you a story really fast before I ask any questions. I did this once when I was a deputy county attorney down in Washington County. I came and testified before this committee.
Rob Bishop was in this seat. I was in your seat. And I was really nervous about the questioning part. I didn't want a bunch of members of Congress grilling me. And until they started asking me questions, then I realized I was the most prepared person in the room.
So you can relax. This is going to be really easy. You're also the smartest guy in the room on this topic. We're talking about working with the Forest Service to make sure we can finish the Bonneville Shoreline Trail through Fruit Heights in Davis County. Has the Forest Service consistently met with Fruit Heights to make sure that they're meeting your needs as far as being able to take the next steps towards completing the trail?
Speaker 1
So I would have to say that the county, Davis County, has been the big push on the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and has worked with the Forest Service for multiple years trying to get that trail finished through Davis County, through their NEPA study, through the alignment. And Fruit Heights was a very challenging place with crossings going over a couple of canyons and hampered bridges and those kind of things. When we did meet with the forest for the first time, we were actually wanting to add additional trails. We have our current trails that are used, you know, to the max. And we wanted to be able to spread that out and give more recreation opportunities to everybody who goes up there and uses those trails and connect the communities together.
Because we have surrounding communities that are right next to us, and that's their access to the trails from Kaysville to Farmington. And so as we started that process, it was just like, well, your part of this is kind of not the priority. The priority is the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Well, where's that? But we're working on it.
And it just never seemed to be moving. Even with the county, it just didn't seem to be moving. So, our previous mayor said, well, we gotta streamline things, and we gotta do things. And that's when we contacted Blake's Moore's office, and it did. It accelerated things, I believe, to where I was invited to a meeting last Friday before I left, with the forest service in the county, and they now have said, hey.
The alignment's approved. You guys can start working on this summer, which was just kind of a surprise to me. And I think it was a surprise to the country how fast things changed. And if that's great, if that's the plan and we can move forward, I'm in support of that. I don't want to see money wasted.
And because of communities and how much time is spent, I don't want to see that wasted. But we do wanna see progress, and we just feel like there has not been any progress.
Speaker 17
Thank you. You've kind of covered it, but is there anything else that you want to share with the committee about what has worked for your community and what hasn't in this process?
Speaker 1
Well, I will tell you, a few years back, when Senator Hatch was here, we had some land conveyed to Fruit Heights, and we actually built the Fruit Loop Trail system on there, which is a mountain bike, which is very well known, through Davis County and far beyond that. I know there are people that come from the surrounding counties that just come up to ride those trails, to bring their small kids up because there are so many different, you know, trails, easy to hard. And I know the mountain bikes teams from the high schools use that trail, and they're always looking for more places to ride because there is so much use there. We have multiple volunteers that help come up and keep the garbage cleaned up, keep the trails in good condition. And one great thing about that is the local youth have a buy-in to the trail system, and they wanna be there, and they wanna make sure it stays clean.
They make their own schedule, where they set up service projects. They come up and pick all the garbage and make sure things are still looking nice. And it's just a community that loves to do those kinds of things because of the access, and we just wanna see that continue.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Miss Beifeld, good to see you. I had to cut you off earlier. I have 20 seconds left. Do you wanna finish your answer about the conservation rule and why that would be detrimental?
Speaker 20
Well, I think it pretty well covered it. But I think that we have to put some durability into preventing federal agencies from doing that again. And I think this is one way to do it. Congress holds the purse strings. So if Congress wants to pay the American people first, before the federal agencies, I think that's a smart move.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Now I'm out of time, so I will yield and recognize Mr. Heard for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, madam chair. Miss Meyer, thank you for coming to Washington to testify in favor of the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act. I also wanna thank URA county commissioner Lynn Paget for being here today as well. I remember the city and county actually pulling me out on a freezing winter morning to look at the site, and it really clarified what was at stake here. And I appreciate, the, it's a testament to your persistence, with respect to this bill.
So thank you for being here. Can you walk, Miss Meyer, can you walk the committee through the city's plan to finance, repair, and maintain the Full Moon Dam and confirm that the city is prepared to assume full long-term responsibility for this liability?
Speaker 18
Thank you, Congressman Heard, for your question. Yes. So the city has done a fiscal review of where we're at in the ability to, first and foremost, make the repairs necessary, and then manage the facility moving forward. So with that, after an analysis of our water rights portfolio, we're able to conduct some of these repairs through our general fund. Our general fund is through, of course, property and sales tax that contribute.
And with that, we have over a six-month reserve right now for operating in our general fund. So we feel very prepared to take on these expenses. In addition, in order to know what those expenses look like, we've already started talking with some geotechnical and civil engineers who have done an initial review, although without a conveyance, we don't want to go too far down that road, of what some of those pieces of repairs could look like. It's looking like they're all quite manageable from a city perspective, and well within our scope and ability. So once a conveyance is conducted, we would look to start that process pretty much ASAP, knowing that we would still need to work with the secretary of agriculture to fully execute that conveyance.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you for that. Can you tell me what specific risks the city of Urae faces without the Crystal Reservoir, particularly during wildfire season and low flow periods? How would local ownership improve the response capability?
Speaker 18
Absolutely. And having a fire expert here, I will acknowledge I'm a little out of my expertise on that front. However, we, as a local story of ours, had a wildfire last summer. It was very close in proximity to the Crystal Reservoir. However, we were not able to use the bucket of water that Crystal Reservoir could have provided to put that fire out because it had been drained.
Other buckets of water in the area were not accessible to aircraft carriers due to the trajectory of the aircraft that they would have to commit to in order to get the water out of the water source. Again, non-technical. So I will say from a wildfire perspective, we've also had our emergency manager, Glenn Boyd, who has identified this is a key aspect in us being able to really hit those hard to reach places that the San Juan Mountains create with their geography. Yeah.
Speaker 4
Very good. What level of support has this proposal received locally from residents, water users, and public safety officials?
Speaker 18
It's been really heartwarming to see the regional support. So we've gotten support from our regional municipalities. We've received support from our board of county commissioners, our local sheriff who's in charge of wildfire preparedness and mitigation when a wildfire occurs. We've also received support from the Colorado River District, which is a big piece. I know, you know, we're here in DC, but in Colorado, that's a big piece of it for our area.
And so with that, we feel very strongly that there's a lot of regional support in order to get this done, and the city of Your Ray is ready to take that on.
Speaker 4
That's great to hear. And you have federal support as well, hopefully officially from my colleagues here on the House side too. So, with that, madam chair, I would like to yield my remaining time to Mr. Gosar from Arizona.
Speaker 7
I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Miss Byfield, I wanna kinda go over this one little section again, and it's about what happens with markets. Okay? So when we see better use and we see money coming into the environment, that's usually an impulse. Right?
It causes a growth spurt. Right?
Speaker 7
So the multiple use is pretty good paying jobs, right, for rural America? The mining jobs, energy jobs. I mean, this is pretty influential. I know cattle, I hope we get our beef back down so it's not $54 for a steak. But, all those things act as an impetus so that we see the markets change.
That could be even a stock market change. Right? Or the bond market.
Speaker 20
Yeah. I think what we forget about those uses is they are really the infrastructure of the West. So, like, your rancher, your miner, they're the people who are sitting on the fireboards, on the school district boards, on all of that. We find that that dollar that comes out of those productive resources stays in the community and turns over many times. And so you just have this, the more production, the more the local economy is raised up financially.
And there's a really good example of what happens when we eliminate production. And we can see that happen when the Conservation Reserve Program was put in by the USDA, and people were paid to take their lands out of production. And when you'd go through the West in some of these areas, and I see it in Texas, you can identify the communities that were once very vibrant. Once all those conservation lands came into place, now you have boarded up storefronts in the downtown, and you see that all through these areas. That's what you get when you don't produce from the land.
But when you produce from the land, that dollar turns over and over again locally, at the state level, and then ultimately up into the national economy.
Speaker 7
Mister chairman, I would like to submit to the record. I ask unanimously to consent into the record four letters of support from 60 plus association, the association of mature Americans, citizens, the coalition of Arizona, New Mexico counties for stable economic growth, and domestic any producers alliance. Forwarded.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, time has expired. I now recognize Mister Moore for five minutes for his questions.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman. Mister Franzen, again, thank you for being here. Thanks for taking the time to fly out to the capital for this very important hearing. Could you describe the importance of recreation to the city of Fruit Heights and how this impacts your role as city manager?
Speaker 1
I really believe that any kind of recreation where people can get outside builds a community. Our community is a bedroom community. We have one commercial business in Fort Heights City. So recreation is what brings our community together. Both families, seniors, all that.
And the mountains being right there and being able to access that land is a benefit to everyone.
Speaker 10
And did you just also speak to, like, the ability to actually connect these two? Right? I mean, we all know recreation is important, but for folks that don't necessarily get the Wasatch Front, large Wasatch Mountain Range, Bonneville Shoreline Trails, the old Lake Bonneville that existed in the bed. And there's just all along that Wasatch Front, there's a pretty continuous trail network. But what about near Fruit Heights?
Speaker 1
So in Fruit Heights, once again, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail right now is not there. There are places that people do go up and hike. But the amazing thing about, I will tell you, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail is it connects clear into Salt Lake and beyond Salt Lake South and goes into Weber County. And Weber County has a lot of that trail that is built, which Davis County would tie into. But it just creates miles of recreation where people can see, honestly, how beautiful Utah is.
When you're up there on that bench and you're walking or you're riding your bike, you can look over the whole valley and see how much it's grown over the years or how much, you know, people have that opportunity. And it's just one of those things that builds communities, it builds a state.
Speaker 10
You mentioned during Miss Malloy's questions to you that you've seen some uptick in interest. The forest service has been more engaged recently. Do you attribute that to the existence of this legislation and how it's progressing?
Speaker 1
I will tell you. I was really surprised when I got called into the meeting last week, and just, you know, the Forest Service was there. I was, actually, I was excited that they were moving forward, because for two years, we had not heard anything as far as contact. I know the county had even talked to them, things were just moving very slowly. And it was just, like, pretty surprising that things had moved forward.
I don't know if this legislation's what did it or if they finally just got everything approved and move forward.
Speaker 10
What we've heard today, it feels like there's strong commitments to be able to move forward regardless of the status of this legislation. I'm thrilled that we're this far along, and we wanna continue to see this through. But, if they're gonna work with our county and municipal leaders. Like, I'm Miss Molloy and I are thrilled to be a part of moving this along, and we wanna be supportive however we can and keep pushing in areas. But we got really good commitments out of the forest service, and I take them for their word that we can move forward.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen Yields, I wanna thank members for your questions here today, and especially wanna thank our witnesses for your testimony. Thank you very much. Members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for our witnesses today. We will ask that you respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Friday, 02/13/2026.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for those responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee on federal lands stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.