    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    NO MORE STANDOFFS: PROTECTING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND ENDING THE CULTURE
                     OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT ATTACKS AND ABUSE

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Tuesday, October 22, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-26

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-270 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                        DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                   ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Paul Cook, CA
    TJ Cox, CA                           Bruce Westerman, AR
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Garret Graves, LA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Debra A. Haaland, NM                 Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Daniel Webster, FL
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Liz Cheney, WY
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Mike Johnson, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Wm. Lacy Clay, MO                    John R. Curtis, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Kevin Hern, OK
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Russ Fulcher, ID
    A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Darren Soto, FL
    Ed Case, HI
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Vacancy

                         David Watkins, Chief of Staff
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                    Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                          DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Chair
                    DON YOUNG, AK, Ranking Republican Member

    Joe Neguse, CO                       Louie Gohmert, TX
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Paul Cook, CA
    Steven Horsford, NV                  Bruce Westerman, AR
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Jody B. Hice, GA
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Daniel Webster, FL
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                John R. Curtis, UT
    Ed Case, HI                          Russ Fulcher, ID
    Paul Tonko, NY                       Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
    Vacancy
    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                    ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, October 22, 2019........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Haaland, Hon. Debra A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Mexico........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Fennell, Anne-Marie, Director, Natural Resources and
          Environment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
          Washington, DC.............................................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Nichols, Dan, Rancher and Former County Commissioner,
          Diamond, Oregon............................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Tubb, Katie, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation,
          Washington, DC.............................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Walker, Dr. Peter A., Department of Geography, University of
          Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.....................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    38

     OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NO MORE STANDOFFS: PROTECTING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
          AND ENDING THE CULTURE OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT ATTACKS AND ABUSE

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, October 22, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives

           Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Debra A.
    Haaland [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Haaland, Lowenthal, Tonko,
    Grijalva; Webster, and Curtis.

        Ms. Haaland. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
    and Public Lands will now come to order. The Subcommittee is
    meeting today to hear testimony on anti-public lands extremism.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority
    Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other
    Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record,
    if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today.

        Hearing no objection, so ordered.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBRA A. HAALAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you all for being here today for the
    Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
    hearing on combating anti-public lands extremism.
        We are here today, in part, to review the results of a
    recent Government Accountability Office report detailing the
    impacts of anti-government extremism on public land managers
    and Federal facilities. As we will hear, that report found some
    shocking details about the threats these Federal employees face
    just doing their jobs.
        Federal land managers and law enforcement personnel have
    been followed around in stores, had their homes staked out, and
    have even faced attempted murder at the hands of those who
    promote anti-government ideologies. I hope that we can all
    agree that this is unacceptable. These people are hardworking
    public servants employed by the Federal Government. No one
    should face fear and harassment in their place of work or in
    their communities.
        I also think it is important that we keep the larger
    context of these incidents in mind, because these extremist
    ideologies do not develop in a vacuum. Anti-government rhetoric
    more frequently being adopted by officials in positions of
    power is being used as a weapon against our public lands and
    the public servants who manage them. Attempts to push this
    ideology into the political mainstream has a very real impact
    on people's lives.

        As GAO found, ``Some field unit employees said that in
    certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats a normal
    part of their job. . . . Officials described being threatened
    while off duty, such as being harassed in local stores or being
    monitored at their home, which officials said in some cases
    they did not report because it was a common occurrence.''
        If we could turn to the screen, we will see a handful of
    statements public officials have made in recent years.

        [Slide.]

        Ms. Haaland. ``What Senator [Harry] Reid may call domestic
    terrorists, I call Patriots,'' former Senator Dean Heller of
    Nevada on the 2014 armed Bundy militia standoff in Bunkerville,
    Nevada.

        ``The BLM has become a bureaucratic agency of--basically--
    terrorism. So, at what point do we band together as elected
    officials and say, `Enough is enough of the BLM?' '' And that
    was from State Representative Michele Fiore of Nevada.

        ``The federal government, the BLM, the Forest Service, the
    FBI, the DEA, any of those guys, they're not elected. Those
    other entities, they answer to me.'' Beaver County (Utah)
    Sheriff Cameron Noel.

        ``You, the people of Nevada, not Washington bureaucrats,
    should be in charge of your own land. I will fight day and
    night to return full control of Nevada's lands to its rightful
    owners. Its citizens.'' And that was from Senator Ted Cruz of
    Texas.

        This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012, Utah
    Governor Gary Herbert signed the Utah Transfer of Public Lands
    Act, which required Federal agencies to cede ownership of most
    Federal land to state control after 2014.

        A researcher at the University of California, San Diego
    found that in the year after Utah and other western state
    legislatures made their land transfer demands, those states saw
    a nearly 11 percent increase in violence directed at Federal
    public lands employees.

        In that context, it is particularly disappointing to see my
    Republican colleagues invite a witness today with little
    experience on the issues we are here to discuss, and who has
    written favorably about giving away Federal land to state and
    private control.

        Former BLM Director, Bob Abbey, said in 2014, ``The
    political rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increased
    tension, and there is a belief because of that rhetoric that it
    is OK to do certain things outside the law, and some people
    believe that they are going to get away with it.''

        Today, I hope we can examine this rhetoric and the danger
    it creates, so that we can consider how to protect public
    employees, promote collaboration, and end the culture of
    threats and violence.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Haaland follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Debra A. Haaland, Chair, Subcommittee on
                   National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
        Thank you all for being here today for the Subcommittee on National
    Parks, Forests, and Public Lands hearing on combating anti-public lands
    extremism.
        We're here today, in part, to review the results of a recent
    Government Accountability Office report detailing the impacts of anti-
    government extremism on public land managers and Federal facilities. As
    we'll hear, that report found some shocking details about the threats
    these Federal employees face just for doing their jobs.
        Federal land managers and law enforcement personnel have been
    followed around in stores, had their homes staked out, and have even
    faced attempted murder at the hands of those who promote anti-
    government ideologies. I hope that we can all agree that this is
    unacceptable. These people are hard-working public servants employed by
    the Federal Government. No one should face fear and harassment in their
    place of work or in their communities.
        I also think it is important that we keep the larger context of
    these incidents in mind, because these extremist ideologies do not
    develop in a vacuum. Anti-government rhetoric more frequently being
    adopted by officials in positions of power is being used as a weapon
    against our public lands and the public servants who manage them.
    Attempts to push this ideology into the political mainstream has a very
    real impact on people's lives.
        As GAO found, ``Some field unit employees said that in certain
    circumstances, they consider receiving threats a normal part of their
    job . . . Officials described being threatened while off-duty, such as
    by being harassed in local stores or being monitored at their home,
    which officials said in some cases they did not report because it was a
    common occurrence.''

        If we could turn to the screen, we'll see a handful of statements
    public officials have made in recent years:

         ``What Senator [Harry] Reid may call domestic terrorists,
                I call Patriots.''--Former U.S. Senator Dean Heller (R-
                Nev.), on the 2014 armed Bundy militia standoff in
                Bunkerville, Nevada.

         ``The BLM has become a bureaucratic agency of--basically--
                terrorism. So, at what point do we band together as elected
                officials, and say, `Enough is enough of the BLM?' ''--
                State Representative Michele Fiore (R-Nev.).

         ``The federal government, the BLM, the Forest Service, the
                FBI, the DEA, any of those guys, they're not elected. Those
                other entities, they answer to me.''--Beaver County (Utah)
                Sheriff Cameron Noel.

         '`You, the people of Nevada, not Washington bureaucrats,
                should be in charge of your own land . . . I will fight day
                and night to return full control of Nevada's lands to its
                rightful owners. Its citizens.''--U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-
                Texas).

        This rhetoric often turns into violence. In 2012, Utah Gov. Gary
    Herbert signed the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act, which
    ``required'' Federal agencies to cede ownership of most Federal land to
    state control after 2014.
        A researcher at the University of California, San Diego, found that
    in the year after Utah and other Western state legislatures made their
    land-transfer demands, those states saw a nearly 11 percent increase in
    violence directed at Federal public lands employees.
        In that context, it is particularly disappointing to see my
    Republican colleagues invite a witness today with little experience on
    the issues we're here to discuss and who has written favorably about
    giving away Federal land to state and private control.
        Former BLM director Bob Abbey said in 2014, ``the political
    rhetoric today does lead to animosity and increased tension, and there
    is a belief because of that rhetoric that it's OK to do certain things
    outside the law and some people believe that they're going to get away
    with it.''
        Today, I hope we can examine this rhetoric and the danger it
    creates, so that we can consider how to protect public employees,
    promote collaboration, and end the culture of threats and violence.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. With that, I would like to recognize Ranking
    Member Curtis for his opening remarks.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely no one in
    this room, on either side of the aisle, condones violence or
    threats against Federal employees. It is unfortunate that I
    feel I need to even make that statement.
        Our boots on the ground are often in difficult positions.
    They may have to enforce unpopular laws and regulations that
    have a great impact on local communities and people's
    livelihoods. Their safety should be, and is, of the utmost
    importance.
        While I am supportive of the practical recommendations made
    in the GAO's report we are looking at today, I am concerned
    that the title and narrow focus of this hearing may be
    misleading. I take issue with the assertion made that there is
    a widespread problem of anti-government threats and abuse
    occurring in the West. Being from the West and representing a
    state with a high percentage of public land, I would like to
    set the record straight.
        Calling for local ownership and control of public lands
    does not embody an attack on the Federal Government. As a
    matter of fact, many of my constituents feel just the opposite.
    The vast majority of my constituents impacted by the Federal
    Government's public lands management decisions are hardworking
    taxpayers raising families and contributing to their
    communities. They love the beautiful public lands that surround
    them, and want to be good stewards of them and part of the
    decision-making process. This does not make them bad people.
    They are not dangerous or threatening to Federal land managers
    in the field. In fact, I frequently hear how much they
    appreciate and work well with the local agents of these Federal
    agencies.
        Landowners and users who disagree with specific management
    decisions should not be made to feel that somehow they will be
    placed on a government watch list of potential threats.
    Villainizing Westerners, and those who disagree with management
    decisions, does nothing to build the bridge of trust and
    cooperation that is vital to proper stewardship of the land.
    And, as is the case with most of our politics, finger pointing
    and divisiveness is counterproductive in the long run.
        We will hear from the GAO witness today regarding the
    report that the Full Committee Chairman asked them to compile,
    which looks at the progress that the BLM, Forest Service, Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service have all made
    in recent years to bring their human-occupied facilities into
    compliance with post-9/11 Federal security standards.
        This report, while important to consider, only took into
    account 4 years' worth of data of recorded threats among the
    four land management agencies, which each had different and
    often inconsistent methods of recording. There also does not
    appear to be a way to differentiate between the most serious
    threats of violence and incidents as minor as a parking ticket.
        I believe Republicans on this Committee largely support the
    recommendations made in the GAO report for the agencies to
    continue to make progress in taking common-sense efforts to
    secure Federal facilities. However, nothing in the report makes
    any mention of the existence of a ``culture of anti-government
    attack and abuse,'' which is the title of this hearing.
        My hope is that, through the testimony of the witnesses
    here today, we can all learn the powerful lesson that the vast
    majority of citizens are not like those in the rare, high-
    profile, headline-grabbing incidents that will be showcased
    today. My constituents do not wish to have conflict, and
    naturally seek compromise and cooperation from their
    government.
        I hope to hear examples today of how Federal land managers
    and local citizens have worked to listen to each other, seek
    mutual understanding, and come up with collaborative, on-the-
    ground solutions which netted the most positive outcome for all
    concerned.
        As a committee, we should be promoting and fostering more
    of these cooperative and collaborative efforts, which will do
    far more to facilitate safety than spending even tens of
    millions of dollars to create hardened, secure fortresses.
        With that, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the witnesses
    for being here today. I look forward to their testimony, and I
    yield my time.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]
      Prepared Statement of the Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in
                        Congress from the State of Utah
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Absolutely no one in this room, on either side of the aisle,
    condones violence or threats against Federal employees--unfortunately,
    I feel the need to make that perfectly clear.
        Our boots-on-the-ground are often in difficult positions. They may
    have to enforce unpopular laws and regulations that have a great impact
    on local communities and people's livelihoods. Their safety should be,
    and is, of the utmost importance.
        While I am supportive of the practical recommendations made in the
    GAO's report we are looking at today, I am concerned that the title and
    narrow focus of this hearing may be misleading. I take issue with the
    assertion made that there is a widespread problem of anti-government
    threats and abuse occurring in the West. Being from the West and
    representing a state with a high percentage of public land, I would
    like to set the record straight.
        The vast majority of my constituents impacted by the Federal
    Government's public lands management decisions are hard-working
    taxpayers raising families and contributing to their communities. They
    love the beautiful public lands that surround them and want to be good
    stewards of them and part of the decision-making process. They are not
    dangerous or threatening to Federal land managers in the field.
        Landowners and users who disagree with specific management
    decisions should not be made to feel that somehow they will be placed
    on a government ``watch list'' of potential threats. Villainizing
    Westerners, and those who disagree with management decisions, does
    nothing to build the bridges of trust and cooperation that is vital to
    proper stewardship of the land. As is the case with most of politics,
    finger pointing, and divisiveness is counter-productive in the long-
    run.
        We will hear from the GAO witness today regarding the report that
    the Full Committee Chairman asked them to compile, which looks at the
    progress that the BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    the National Park Service have all made in recent years to bring their
    human-occupied facilities into compliance with post 9/11 Federal
    security standards.
        This report, while important to consider, only took into account 4
    years' worth of data of recorded ``threats'' among the four land
    management agencies which each had different, and often inconsistent,
    methods of recording. There also does not appear to be a way to
    differentiate between the most serious threats of violence and
    incidents as minor as a parking ticket.
        I believe Republicans on this Committee largely support the
    recommendations made in the GAO report for the agencies to continue to
    make progress in taking common-sense efforts to secure Federal
    facilities. However, nothing in the report makes any mention of the
    existence of a ``culture of anti-government attack and abuse,'' which
    is the title of this hearing.
        My hope is that through the testimony of the witnesses here today,
    we can all learn the powerful lesson that the vast majority of citizens
    are not like those in the rare, high-profile, headline-grabbing
    incidents that will be showcased today. My constituents do not wish to
    have conflict, and naturally seek compromise and cooperation from their
    government.
        I hope to hear examples today of how Federal land managers and
    local citizens have worked to listen to each other, seek mutual
    understanding, and come up with collaborative on-the-ground solutions
    which netted the most positive outcome for all concerned.
        As a Committee, we should be promoting and fostering more of these
    cooperative and collaborative efforts, which will do far more to
    facilitate safety than spending even tens of millions of dollars to
    create hardened, secure fortresses.
        With that, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the witnesses for
    being here today and look forward to their testimony.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Now I would like to
    turn to our witness panel.
        Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
    minutes, but you may submit a longer statement for the record,
    if you choose.
        The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
    minute left, and red when time has expired.
        After the witnesses have testified, Members will be given
    the opportunity to ask questions.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dan Nichols, rancher and
    former Harney County Commissioner.
        Mr. Nichols, you have 5 minutes.

          STATEMENT OF DAN NICHOLS, RANCHER AND FORMER COUNTY
                     COMMISSIONER, DIAMOND, OREGON

        Mr. Nichols. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
    today. My name is Dan Nichols, and I am a self-employed rancher
    of 41 years, a BLM permittee, a past permittee on the Malheur
    National Wildlife Refuge, a five-term retired county
    commissioner, a High Desert Partnership board member, and a
    participant in three of the five ongoing collaborative
    initiatives in our community.
        The economy of Harney County is natural resource-based,
    with a reliance on the multiple-use concept of public lands
    administered by the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, and the
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Harney County lies in the
    southeast corner of Oregon, and is 75 percent federally and
    state owned. It has a land mass of 10,120 square miles, larger
    than six West Coast states, but only has a population of 7,380
    people, of which 5,200 are registered to vote.
        A quick look at an Oregon State map and one would
    incorrectly assume that the area is basically uninhabited. My
    comments to you today come from this perspective.
        Real Americans, especially in the largely federally owned
    and managed 11 western states, are not being listened to, much
    less heard. Opinions and desires of the populace residing well
    outside of rural communities are politically driving issues
    that result in legitimate grievances with Federal land
    management policies. Much of what is often described as anti-
    government is really coming from a place of feeling excluded,
    or being on the losing end of unbalanced natural resource
    management.
        In the course of doing their jobs, Federal employees become
    the local messengers of new policies and regulations, resulting
    in them becoming the recipients of the frustration and anger of
    the people that are not being listened to.
        Our community has issues of concern with Federal land
    management. We are not unique in that regard. What does make us
    unique is the manner in which issues of potential dissension
    and polarization are resolved. A culture of collaboration has
    been established in Harney County that enables a diversity of
    opinions to be respectfully and collectively considered. A
    positive attribute of the process has been working directly
    with the Federal employees in our community. Through that
    interaction, the community has gained an appreciation for them
    as professionals, individuals, and contributing members in our
    community.
        Collaboration also provides a venue for discussion of
    issues with the broader community beyond Harney County. For us,
    the term ``community'' includes those with an interest and a
    commitment to participate, including stakeholders from outside
    the local area who care about issues in ways that we may not
    always appreciate. It is necessary to have them at the table,
    as well.
        Because the collaborative process gives everyone an
    opportunity to speak and listen, we learn and better understand
    each other's views. It is a setting where real voices are heard
    and understood by those from areas that are the source of many
    of the problematic issues.
        Collectively, through collaborative efforts, Harney County
    residents have found the ability to meet our interests.
    Following are some examples: the Steens Mountain Cooperative
    Management and Protection Act of 2000, which was sponsored and
    written by Congressman Greg Walden; the recent Malheur National
    Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Plan; and the Harney County
    Wildfire Collaborative and Harney County Wetlands Initiative.
        The culture of collaboration has changed the ways we deal
    with complex and controversial issues in Harney County. Real
    benefits have been achieved for the local community, the
    Federal agencies, and the natural resources we all care about,
    urban and rural alike. We can all learn from the lessons of
    people that are successfully bridging divides.
        Our experience can provide the opportunity for Congress to
    develop a format for a much-needed larger discussion. I ask for
    your support of a larger collaborative to produce meaningful
    progress in addressing legitimate grievances and concerns of
    the American public.
        Collaboration is recognized as a successful approach to
    issue resolution in Harney County, the state of Oregon, and
    needs to be implemented on a national level, as well.
        Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may
    have.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Dan Nichols, Rancher and Former County
                                  Commissioner
        Our nation is divided. Divisions exist between urban and rural
    America and within Congress. Simplistic red state/blue state depictions
    of this division only serve to aggregate conflict, reinforce
    polarization and harden lines that prevent collaborative and
    constructive problem solving in our communities. These divisions
    manifest themselves on the ground in many ways, including conflicts
    over natural resource management and militant anti-government protests
    like the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We can and
    must do better.
        Being an individual with strong opinions I have come to appreciate
    that much can be gained by understanding and addressing the opinions of
    others. There are lessons to be learned from the armed occupation of
    the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, as well as Harney Counties
    experiences with the government's management of public lands resources.
    It is important to note that the majority of ranchers in Harney County
    did not support armed occupation of the Refuge. But at the same time,
    there are legitimate grievances with Federal land management policies.
    Without a forum in which to air and address these concerns--and a fair,
    collaborative process by which to resolve them--we continue to push
    more people toward the hostile, unacceptable approaches adopted by
    individuals such as the Bundys. Much of what is often described as
    being ``antigovernment'' is really coming from a place of feeling
    excluded or on the losing end of unbalanced natural resource
    management.
        There are many examples here in Harney County where the ranching
    and farming community has come together with multiple stakeholders--
    including the environmental community as well as state and Federal
    agencies--to find common ground without vilifying each other. In fact,
    the common ground comes from learning to better understand one another.
    Oregon was ground zero for the spotted owl wars and the resulting ESA
    listing that caused irreparable damage to local communities and divided
    citizens. But more recently, the people of Harney County drew from this
    negative experience and worked with government and a diversity of
    interests to develop a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
    that prevented the need for a similar outcome for Greater sage-grouse,
    which resulted in a 2015 decision to not list that bird.

        Collectively, through collaborative efforts, Harney County
    residents have found the ability to meet our interests, while
    addressing the interests of the larger community of stakeholders, in
    the following examples:

         The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
                Act of 2000

         The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
                Conservation Plan

         The Harney County Wildfire Collaborative

         Eastside Forest Collaboratives including the Harney County
                Restoration Collaborative

        This Subcommittee should not pass up the chance to learn from these
    lessons of people bridging divides. It is an opportunity for Congress
    to develop a format for a much needed ``larger discussion.'' I ask for
    your support of a larger collaborative that will produce meaningful
    progress in addressing legitimate grievances. This is recognized as a
    successful approach to issue and conflict resolution in Harney County,
    the state of Oregon and should be on a national level as well.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Mr. Nichols.
        The Chair now recognizes Professor Peter A. Walker,
    Professor of Geography at the University of Oregon.
        You have 5 minutes, sir.

      STATEMENT OF DR. PETER A. WALKER, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY,
                  UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, EUGENE, OREGON

        Dr. Walker. My name is Peter Walker. I am a professor of
    Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of
    Oregon.
        I personally observed the 2016 armed occupation of the
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon.
    After the occupation, I conducted research in Harney County for
    more than 2 years, including over 100 in-depth interviews with
    individuals representing all parts of the community. My
    observations are recorded in my book, ``Sagebrush
    Collaboration: How Harney County Defeated the Takeover of the
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.''
        A lot can be learned from the Malheur Refuge occupation for
    preventing such incidents, and for safeguarding Federal
    employees and enabling them to work constructively in rural
    communities.
        The great majority in Harney County opposed the Malheur
    occupation, and rejected the militants' plan to launch an anti-
    Federal Government revolution from Harney County. I use the
    word ``militants'' because they used armed force and military-
    style tactics to achieve a radical political goal. The
    situation was explosive, and almost certainly, if the community
    had heeded the calls of the militants, lives would have been
    lost.
        Harney County rejected the militants' call to revolution,
    in large part because the community had invested for decades in
    building collaborative approaches to solving precisely the kind
    of resource management issues the militants said could only be
    resolved through armed force.
        In the past, there had been a lot of hostility between the
    community and Federal agencies. But by the end of the 1990s,
    Harney County was tired of fighting, and especially tired of
    litigation. The existing system was failing to produce outcomes
    that almost anyone wanted, and when people knew that
    regulations would be coming, they wanted to get ahead of the
    process and make sure local voices would be heard.
        Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, tribes, and Federal,
    state, and county workers intentionally built a culture of
    collaboration. The community bet that better solutions could be
    found by building relationships and really listening to each
    other, humanizing those with whom they might see things
    differently. For decades, over one-on-one phone calls and cups
    of coffee at kitchen tables, the community created their own
    ways to solve problems. When outside militants proposed violent
    confrontation, the community had a better way.
        Federal employees were central to this history. Ironically,
    the outside militants had no idea that Harney County was
    recognized nationally as something of a poster child for
    collaborative approaches, including building positive
    relationships with Federal workers. The militants believed by
    vilifying and harassing Federal employees, they would rally
    support for their cause. The militants' leader later said that
    he never met a Bureau of Land Management--or, by implication,
    any Federal--employee who is a ``good person.''
        By 2016, most people in Harney County just didn't see it
    that way. Through collaboration, Federal employees were
    contributing to better problem-solving, in large part by making
    themselves more integral parts of the community and, above all,
    by listening. No longer just uniforms and badges, Federal
    employees were friends and members of the community. And Harney
    County does not like members of the community being harassed.
        When the Malheur occupation ended, ranchers with allotments
    on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge held a dinner to honor
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who had borne much
    of the harassment from the outside militants, to reaffirm that
    the Federal workers are valued members of the community.
        As a nation, we are enormously fortunate that, by chance,
    the militants chose Harney County. The community literally told
    the militants to go home. We should see the relatively peaceful
    outcome of the Malheur occupation as hopeful evidence that
    conflicts between rural communities and Federal agencies can be
    minimized, and, in at least some cases, win-win solutions can
    be found that defy the divisive culture that afflicts our
    Nation today.
        But Harney County is much like many other places. The
    experience of collaboration in Harney County demonstrates
    principles that can be applied in other rural communities. That
    is my most important message. In Harney County, I saw that
    endless division and conflict do not need to define who we are
    as a nation, and how Federal employees work in our communities.
    There are better ways. America can do better, and Harney County
    proved it. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Peter A. Walker, Professor of Geography and
                  Environmental Studies, University of Oregon
        My name is Peter Walker, a professor of Geography and Environmental
    Studies at the University of Oregon. I personally observed the 2016
    armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney
    County, Oregon. After the occupation I conducted research in Harney
    County for more than 2 years, including over 100 in-depth interviews
    with individuals representing all parts of the community. My
    observations are recorded in my book, Sagebrush Collaboration: How
    Harney County Defeated the Takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife
    Refuge.
        A lot can be learned from the Malheur Refuge occupation for
    preventing such incidents, and for safeguarding Federal employees and
    enabling them to work constructively in rural communities.
        The great majority in Harney County opposed the Malheur occupation
    and rejected the militants' plan to launch an anti-Federal Government
    revolution from Harney County. (I use the word ``militants'' because
    they used armed force and military-style tactics to achieve a radical
    political goal.) The situation was explosive, and if the community had
    heeded the militants' call, the Malheur occupation almost certainly
    would have ended with many lives lost.
        Harney County rejected the militants' call to revolution in large
    part because the community had invested for decades in building
    collaborative approaches to solving precisely the kind of resource
    management issues the militants' said could only be resolved through
    armed force. In the past there had been a lot of hostility between the
    community and Federal agencies. But by the end of the 1990s, Harney
    County was tired of fighting--and especially tired of litigation. The
    existing system was failing to produce outcomes that almost anyone
    wanted; and when people knew regulations would be coming, they wanted
    to get ahead of the process and make sure local voices would be heard.
    Farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, tribes, and Federal, state and
    county workers intentionally built a culture of collaboration. The
    community bet that better solutions could be found by building
    relationships and really listening to each other--humanizing those with
    whom they might see things differently. For decades, over countless
    one-on-one phone calls and cups of coffee at kitchen tables, the
    community created their own ways to solve problems. When outside
    militants proposed violent confrontation, the community had a better
    way.
        Federal employees were central in this story. Ironically, the
    outside militants had no idea Harney County was recognized nationally
    as something of a poster child for collaborative approaches, including
    building positive relationships with Federal workers. The militants
    believed vilifying and harassing Federal employees would rally local
    support for their cause. The militants' leader later said he never met
    a Bureau of Land Management (or, by implication, any Federal) employee
    who is a ``good person.'' By 2016, most people in Harney County just
    did not see it that way. Through collaboration, Federal employees were
    contributing to better problem-solving in large part by making
    themselves more integral parts of the community, and by listening. No
    longer just uniforms and badges, Federal employees were friends and
    members of the community. And Harney County does not like members of
    the community being harassed. When the Malheur occupation ended,
    ranchers with allotments on the Malheur Refuge held a dinner to honor
    the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service employees who had borne much of the
    harassment from outside militants, to reaffirm that the Federal workers
    are valued members of the community.
        As a nation we are enormously fortunate that by chance the
    militants chose Harney County. The community literally told the
    militants to ``Go home.'' We should see the relatively peaceful outcome
    of the Malheur occupation as hopeful evidence that conflicts between
    rural communities and Federal agencies can be minimized, and in at
    least some cases win-win solutions can be found that defy the divisive
    culture that afflicts our nation today. But Harney County is much like
    many other places; the experience of collaboration in Harney County
    demonstrates principles that can be applied in other rural communities.
        That is my most important message: in Harney County I saw that
    endless division and conflict do not have to define who we are as a
    nation and how Federal employees work in our communities. There are
    other ways. America can do better. And Harney County proved it. Thank
    you.
                                   background
        This testimony addresses the armed occupation of the Malheur
    National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, by armed anti-
    government militants in January and February 2016. On January 2, 2016,
    somewhere between 10 and 20 armed individuals seized the wildlife
    refuge and called on social media for ``thousands'' more to come, with
    their arms. At the peak, only an estimated 50 individuals occupied the
    refuge, though several hundred supporters from outside the area stayed
    in motels and other facilities in nearby Burns, Hines, and other
    locations. Although the occupiers claimed that their actions were a
    ``peaceful protest,'' they also stated their readiness to die, and that
    they would respond with armed force if law enforcement attempted to
    intervene. For 24 days, law enforcement took no direct action against
    the occupiers (the wildlife refuge is in a remote area where the
    occupation represented little or no threat to human life). On January
    26, 2016, most of the main leaders of the occupation were arrested
    while attempting to travel in two private vehicles from the wildlife
    refuge to the town of John Day, Oregon, in nearby Grant County. One
    militant, after attempting to flee a traffic stop and being stopped at
    a roadblock, was shot and killed by Oregon State Police after failing
    to comply with police orders and then reaching for a handgun. All but
    four of the remaining occupiers fled the wildlife refuge in the
    following hours, with the last holdouts surrendering on February 11,
    2016.
        The militants publicly stated that the purpose of their takeover
    was to secure the release of two local ranchers from imprisonment for
    arson on Federal land, and to ``give back'' the refuge land to the
    ``rightful owners,'' who they identified as ``ranchers, loggers, and
    miners'' (notably excluding the local Burns Paiute Tribe, who have the
    only historically irrefutable claim to being the original ``owners'' of
    the land that makes up the refuge). The takeover attracted worldwide
    media attention. Outside the media spotlight, however, the militants
    acknowledged a more ambitious goal: to make Harney County the first
    ``federal-free'' county in the American West, serving as an example for
    other communities that they hoped would follow Harney County's lead.
    The militants based their political ideology on a religiously inspired
    interpretation of the United States Constitution, in which the Federal
    Government is seen to have little or no jurisdiction in states outside
    Washington, DC. In the militants' view, the highest authority in the
    land is the county sheriff--whose authority supersedes even the
    President of the United States. This interpretation is similar to the
    anti-Federal posse comitatus movement of the 1970s, as well as the
    modern ``sovereign citizen'' movement, although the leaders of the
    occupation attributed their inspiration to Biblical interpretation. The
    armed seizure of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, along with the
    2014 armed standoff against Federal employees and law enforcement at
    Bunkerville, Nevada (led by the same Nevada-based family) represented a
    major, armed escalation of the anti-Federal public lands ``sagebrush
    rebellion'' of the 1970s and 1980s.
        The militants' plan to overthrow the Federal Government hinged on
    persuading local ranchers to symbolically repudiate their Federal
    grazing contracts, followed by a declaration that the ranchers are the
    true owners of the land. The militants promised that seized Federal
    lands would be ``defended'' by armed ``Patriots'' (referred to locally
    as ``the militia''). The occupiers arranged a ceremony, held on January
    23, 2016, at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, at
    which the occupiers pleaded for local ranchers to publicly renounce
    their Federal grazing contracts and to declare their grazing allotments
    to be their own private land. However, no Harney County ranchers
    participated in the event (only one rancher, from New Mexico, did so).
        In the nearby communities of Burns and Hines (the main population
    centers of Harney County) militia aligned with the armed occupiers at
    the Malheur Refuge engaged in a campaign of harassment of Federal
    employees and local law enforcement officers who refused to cooperate
    with the occupiers. The occupiers also attempted to establish a new de
    facto county government in the form a ``committee of safety,'' which
    the militants formed with a small group of local supporters. The goal
    was to seize control of local government and to intimidate Federal
    workers.
        The community of Harney County overwhelmingly rejected the
    militants' goals and in particular their armed methods. No public
    opinion surveys were conducted at the time, but in my observations it
    was clear that the majority of the community opposed the militants. On
    January 19, 2016, for example, the armed occupiers arrived unannounced
    at a community meeting in the Burns High School gym. It was the only
    occasion during the occupation when militants met with a cross-section
    of the community. The county judge stood and told the militants to ``Go
    home,'' and the great majority in the room then stood and chanted ``Go
    home, go home, go home.''
        The impression that the majority in the community opposed the
    militants was supported later that year in a series of local elections
    in which local ``pro-militia'' and ``anti-militia'' candidates filled
    the election roster. ``Anti-militia'' candidates for county
    commissioner won a total of about 80 percent of the primary vote, and
    the ``anti-militia'' winner of the general election won with more than
    95 percent support. In June 2016, a recall against the county judge,
    seen widely as a referendum on the militia occupation, failed--with
    more than 70 percent opposing the removal of the anti-militia county
    judge. Therefore it can be said with confidence that 70-80 percent of
    the community was ``anti-militia.'' However, the elections were widely
    interpreted as referendums on the anti-government ideology represented
    by the militants, not their armed methods. When I asked local people
    how much of the community they believed supported the anti-government
    ideology and the militants' armed methods, the estimates of support
    ranged from 3-10 percent. In addition, much of the local support for
    the outside militants appeared tied to efforts to release the pair of
    local ranchers in Federal prison for arson; when those ranchers
    received a presidential pardon in July 2018, local support for the
    outside militants appeared to all but disappear.
        It is important to note that while the media at the time often
    described the militants as ranchers, in fact only one of the outside
    militant leaders, and only two active local supporters, could even
    plausibly be described as working ranchers. The overwhelming majority
    of outside militants and local supporters had no direct interactions
    with Federal resource management agencies. The occupation of the
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was primarily an ideologically-based
    anti-Federal Government political movement, not a movement of ranchers,
    loggers, or other resource users. Among the outside militants,
    including members of the self-declared ``Patriot'' movement, there was
    strong representation of broader racist and xenophobic political groups
    that had for decades specifically adopted the position of promoting a
    ``second American revolution.'' While the main leaders of the Malheur
    Refuge occupation did not come from this broader political movement,
    the ``Patriot'' groups that supported the occupation appeared to be
    attracted by the armed, revolutionary aspects of the ``hard stand'' at
    the Malheur Refuge.
                  impacts on malheur national wildlife refuge
        Although the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge has today mostly
    recovered from the disruptions associated with the militant takeover in
    January and February 2016, the disruption at the time was significant
    and continues to some extent to the present. In addition to the
    immediate interruption of operations during the occupation (from
    January 2, 2016 to February 11, 2016), the occupiers left behind
    extensive physical damage (including disturbance of Native American
    cultural artifacts), and the refuge itself became the site of an
    extended criminal investigation. Other Federal agency offices,
    including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
    offices in nearby Burns were also closed for extended periods due to
    concerns for employee safety. Staff were able to return to work at the
    MNWR headquarters using temporary structures by the end of February
    2016; but with extensive vandalism to important files and physical
    damage to buildings, the refuge headquarters remained closed to the
    public for more than a year, fully reopening in March 2017.
        The impacts of the militant occupation of the MNWR also included
    the very substantial disruption of the lives of refuge staff and loss
    of long-term institutional knowledge. At the time of the occupation,
    most staff were evacuated out of Harney County because of safety
    concerns. The result was that staff had to leave their personal and
    professional lives behind while hostile occupiers searched through
    their private and professional information left behind at the refuge.
    Staff felt violated, and some perceived their physical safety to be in
    danger. Well after the occupation the traumatic effects remained deeply
    felt by some employees. Of the 16 full-time employees at the refuge at
    the time of the occupation, 4 resigned from their positions at least in
    part because of the trauma they experienced. In the near term the
    impacts on the operation of the refuge were significant, as the
    departing employees possessed highly specialized knowledge accrued over
    decades of service. In some cases, because of organizational changes
    within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, vacated positions were not re-
    filled with on-site staff.
        Despite the very substantial disruption and losses of expertise,
    the MNWR displayed remarkable resilience, in part because of its status
    as one of the gems in the National Wildlife Refuge system. After the
    occupation, questions arose as to whether qualified professionals would
    be willing to take positions at the Malheur Refuge so soon after the
    traumatic events of the 2016 takeover. Quickly, however, the vacated
    positions were filled with qualified professionals. Some of the new
    employees expressly stated that they were attracted by the excellent
    reputation of the Malheur Refuge as a ``success story'' and its
    innovative efforts to work constructively with the community through
    collaborative processes such as the Malheur Comprehensive Conservation
    Plan, coordinated by the local non-profit High Desert Partnership.
                 collaboration and the high desert partnership
        The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and the community of Harney
    County displayed remarkable resilience despite the extraordinary
    disturbances associated with the militant occupation in January and
    February 2016. In large part this resilience can be attributed to an
    investment the community and the refuge had made over the previous two
    decades in developing collaborative ways to promote deep engagement of
    all stakeholders in decision-making for natural resource management.
    Exhausted by legal fighting and resource management failures, in the
    late 1990s and early 2000s a small group of individuals including local
    ranchers, Federal and county employees, conservation groups and others
    set out to find a different way forward.
        Much of this effort to promote deeply engaged stakeholder
    collaboration was organized by a remarkable locally-based non-profit
    organization called the High Desert Partnership. Formally established
    in 2005, the HDP focuses on building relationships among members of the
    community who represent different perspectives but are not firmly
    invested in specific outcomes.
        By building these relationships, the HDP strives to find
    innovative, win-win solutions to social-ecological problems in a manner
    that avoids adversarial interactions. As a private non-profit, the HDP
    is relatively free to pursue paths not directly mandated or constrained
    by government rules.
        The decision to create the HDP was motivated by conflict-ridden,
    failed interactions in the past. Local rancher Gary Marshall and
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge manager Chad Karges knew the refuge
    would be required to begin developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    (CCP) by 2010, and they set out to study collaborative methods and
    relationship-building to be ready for the CCP process. They invited
    participation from outside stakeholders including conservation groups.
    Marshall and Karges knocked on doors and shook hands throughout the
    local community to build the relationships and trust needed to persuade
    a community more accustomed to conflict with the Malheur Refuge to give
    the new non-adversarial, collaborative approach a try. The High Desert
    Partnership does not do projects; it builds relationships and
    facilitates conversations with the intent to find collaborative win-win
    solutions to problems that might otherwise result in conflict and
    litigation. The group does not advocate particular outcomes; it
    supports dialogue in pursuit of positive outcomes for the ecology,
    economy, and community.
        The signature accomplishment of the HDP's approach was its
    establishment of a diverse working group of about 30 stakeholders to
    craft the 2013 Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which detailed
    the goals and methods for managing the refuge for the following 15
    years. After 3 years of dialogue, the working group produced a 779-page
    document that became what the HDP describes as the nation's first
    collaboratively created comprehensive conservation plan. Given the
    contentious relations between the Malheur Refuge and the local
    community in the past, the fact that local ranchers and farmers, the
    Burns Paiute Tribe, and county government, as well as conservationists
    and agency officials, all endorsed the plan was an astonishing
    achievement. Possibly the most powerful evidence of success is the fact
    that the Malheur CCP was the first plan of its scale in Harney County
    for many years that was not sued. Then-refuge manager Chad Karges
    observed, ``No one thought it could be done.'' After the plan was
    approved, the CCP working group continued meeting to collaboratively
    decide on necessary adaptions in the plan's implementation.
        The High Desert Partnership has become more than just an
    institution, it has become part of the life and culture in Harney
    County--a proactive, non-adversarial, relationship-based approach
    sometimes described locally simply as ``the Harney County way.'' The
    HDP itself has expanded to support a range of initiatives including but
    not limited to natural resource management--focusing on management of
    wetlands and forests, but also a wildfire collaborative as well as
    initiatives to support local youth and business entrepreneurship. The
    ``Harney County way'' has also spread to many other local community-
    based initiatives beyond the HDP, including habitat management for sage
    grouse and a major local groundwater planning initiative.
                       recommendations for federal policy
        The existence of collaborative organizations in Harney County was
    crucial in enabling local residents to reject rhetoric by outside
    militants that the Federal Government--embodied in local Federal
    employees--represents ``tyranny'' and ``abuse.'' The primary goal of
    local collaborative organizations in Harney County has been to build
    relationships, communication, and trust between stakeholders. Through
    their participation in collaboratives, Federal employees were able to
    build goodwill and trust within the local community. Collaboratives
    provide a neutral, safe environment where residents can come to know
    Federal employees as individual people doing the best they can,
    sometimes under difficult circumstances. Mutual trust, respect, and
    even friendships are often a direct result. When Federal employees
    become humanized in this way, anti-government rhetoric--including
    efforts to threaten and harass Federal workers--is unlikely to find a
    receptive audience. As one rancher observed to me, ``Collaboration is
    what inoculated us from the [militant] disease.''
        This is a crucial observation. Almost everyone I spoke with in
    Harney County after the 2016 Malheur Refuge occupation agreed on one
    thing: if the occupiers had attempted the same kind of standoff against
    Federal agencies and staff in a different community that had not
    invested in building collaborative relationships, the outcome would
    likely have been far worse--including the very real possibility of a
    bloodbath that clearly some of the occupiers wanted. Such an event that
    would have likely inspired further anti-government violence for decades
    to come.
        If collaboration is one important way to build better relationships
    between Federal agencies and local communities, an important question
    is how such initiatives can be promoted at a wider scale. The
    experience of collaboration at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
    represents a very important opportunity. At a time when this country
    has seen unprecedented polarization, the community in Harney County
    came together to find common ground on this historically conflicted
    landscape. The success of this project matters because at a time when
    Americans are often cynical about reaching across political,
    intellectual, social, environmental and economic divides, Harney County
    as well as outside stakeholders intentionally chose to take a different
    path and have maintained that resolve in the face of unprecedented
    challenges.
        In some ways the development of such approaches depends
    fundamentally on local initiative and individual personalities. Almost
    by definition these are things that the Federal Government cannot
    provide. This does not mean there is no constructive role for Federal
    Government in promoting such approaches. Federal Government can play an
    important role in encouraging the growth of such initiatives by
    reducing barriers within Federal agencies that may inhibit the
    development of local collaboratives, and by supporting initiatives with
    high potential or proven records of encouraging effective collaborative
    resource management.
                    federal policy to support collaboration
    Reducing Institutional Barriers
        In the example of the 2013 Malheur Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
    the initiative that led to the creation of a successful collaboratively
    created management plan required deviation from usual Federal agency
    policy by allowing Federal managers at the local level to draft a plan
    through a stakeholder process that encouraged input from all interested
    parties from the very beginning of the planning process. This method of
    engaging the public departs from standard procedures in which agency
    staff draft a plan and put it out for public input near the end of the
    process. The collaborative approach initially met substantial
    skepticism from Federal managers above the local level, who were
    concerned about delegating to the local level too much control over the
    planning process. In the case of the Malheur Refuge, local managers had
    to go to considerable effort and even put their professional careers at
    risk to persuade higher-level managers that the locally-based
    collaborative approach could produce a sound plan in compliance with
    all Federal standards. Drawing inspiration and confidence from the
    positive outcome at the Malheur Refuge and other successful
    collaborations, Federal Government can facilitate local collaboration
    by reducing policy barriers and enabling local managers to engage in
    promising collaborative initiatives without unduly jeopardizing their
    careers.
        In addition, Federal policy can be modified to support the very
    important challenge of sustaining collaborative initiatives once they
    are established. Harney County's High Desert Partnership, for example,
    faces the challenge of recruiting future managers at the Malheur
    National Wildlife Refuge who understand and are committed to the
    collaborative approach. Ensuring that refuge leadership (as well as
    agency leadership at USFWS and the Department of the Interior) remains
    supportive of the collaborative efforts will be crucial. As transitions
    occur, special care will be needed to ensure that new personnel are
    truly steeped in collaboration and committed to continuing the work
    that is underway. This is an important and rare skill, and new
    leadership should have extensive demonstrable experience working within
    this type of framework.
        Federal policy can also encourage collaboration by reducing career
    advancement policies that in effect encourage frequent relocation.
    Successful collaboration requires building relationships of trust in
    Federal employees. Relationships of trust tend to develop over extended
    periods of time, as Federal employees become recognized as members of a
    community. Many of the Federal employees I spoke with in Harney County
    complained that advancing their careers within the Federal agencies
    often requires relocation. Personnel turnover is inevitable in large
    agencies, and successful collaboratives can and do cope with changes in
    Federal agency staff. However, such changes can slow down or alter the
    momentum of collaborative efforts, and the Federal Government should
    re-consider personnel policies that may force agency staff to choose
    between advancing their careers and developing the kind of longer-term
    ties to local communities that enhance their capacities to engage in
    effective local collaborations.
        In addition, I was told by local Federal employees that agencies
    could do more to encourage staff to engage in community activities,
    including collaboration. Some employees expressed concern that employee
    engagement with local community life is not fully encouraged by agency
    management. While engagement in community life during non-working hours
    is obviously up to the individual employee, Federal agencies should
    consider efforts to communicate to staff that within appropriate
    guidelines such local engagement is allowed and encouraged.
    Greater Flexibility in Funding
        Higher levels of government discretionary funds and flexibility in
    funding requirements could be of great value in helping collaborative
    organizations to operate sustainably and effectively. One challenge for
    collaborative organizations is that by definition they cannot be funded
    by membership fees--all stakeholders must be equally welcome and able
    to participate in the collaborative process, no matter their financial
    status. In practice this means that participation must be free for all
    those who wish to participate. This creates obvious financial
    challenges that can at least in part be addressed by Federal policy.
        In Harney County, the non-profit High Desert Partnership provides a
    good example of the complex funding challenges. The HDP does not
    directly engage in problem-solving projects but instead helps to
    facilitate the conversations and relationship-building that are
    essential for a wide range of other more project-oriented initiatives
    (from wildfire and wetlands management to youth development). This
    model, while proven successful in terms of positive local results,
    poses funding challenges because many grant-making institutions, both
    public and private, tend to steer their funding streams toward specific
    problem-solving rather than collaborative capacity-building. In
    addition, because the mission of the HDP is to be a neutral party,
    there is great sensitivity to appearing to be financially beholden to
    any specific outside interests, especially those that might be
    perceived as having particular political agendas.
        Presently the HDP is funded through a complex and shifting mix of
    state and Federal support, grants from private foundations, and private
    donations. Private funding, whether through foundations or individual
    donations, is an important part of the mix but tends to be
    unpredictable, posing substantial challenges to building and
    maintaining organizational capacity. State and Federal funding poses
    its own challenges including reporting requirements and constraints on
    the flexibility of how funds can be spent. While fully recognizing the
    importance of accountability and compliance with existing government
    policy (for example, Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements),
    collaborative organizations by definition function differently and do
    not necessarily conform to conventional practices, creating problems of
    ``fit'' between agency funding requirements and the flexibility needed
    to make the collaborative model effective. It is important to note that
    collaboration is very different from some other forms of community
    involvement, such as Resource Advisory Councils. Whereas the RACs serve
    as sounding boards for existing or proposed policies put forward by
    agencies, collaborative organizations such as the HDP build management
    plans directly from the local community. HDP staff observed to me that
    at times they are questioned as to why they should receive funding when
    other mechanisms for public input such as the RACs are already in
    place. These are both valuable approaches, but they are very different
    and they should be seen as complementary rather than redundant.
        In addition to facilitating funds to support collaborative
    processes, the Federal Government should consider greater investment in
    on-the-ground implementation. Many collaborative organizations are
    getting close to large scale implementation of projects. Too often
    Federal agency leadership appears satisfied with collaboration as an
    end unto itself, but ultimately the value of collaboration must be
    measured by its ability to deliver substantive improvement on the
    ground. There exists substantial public skepticism about these
    collaboratives because they can be seen as diversions that consume a
    lot of time and energy but fail to deliver outcomes. The ability to
    maintain collaboration in Harney County and to inspire other similar
    efforts ultimately will depend on the ability to demonstrate that
    collaboration delivers results on the ground that exceed what would
    have been accomplished under more tradition conflict driven pathways.
    Changing Perceptions of Federal Employees
        The militants who occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in
    2016 failed in large part because they assumed that the deep hostility
    they held toward Federal Government and Federal employees was shared by
    the majority of people in Harney County. Thanks partly to Harney
    County's long-standing effort to build a culture of collaboration, that
    assumption proved largely false. Although there are certainly tensions
    between some Federal employees and local residents, I was told over and
    over that Harney County experienced a sea change from the attitudes
    prevalent in the 1970s-1990s, when animosity between Federal employees
    and the community ran deep. Today, Federal employees are more commonly
    seen as neighbors and friends. And in many cases, Federal employees are
    themselves members of local families.
        Friction does, however, still exist, and more can be done to break
    down unnecessary barriers. Federal Government can help break barriers
    between Federal employees and local communities with modest policy
    shifts. For example, I was told that there are simple things that can
    be done such as allowing Federal employees to work more often without
    uniforms. Uniforms create psychological separation, and contribute to
    seeing agency employees as tools of government power rather than as
    people. One rancher observed that when his daughter, who was born and
    raised in the community, began working for the Bureau of Land
    Management and put on an agency uniform, she found friends she had
    known all her life treated her completely differently, as if she was
    not part of the community, not a friend who cares--not even as a person
    at all.
        The history of uniformed Federal resource agents dates to the
    earliest period of Federal forest management, when forests were
    literally patrolled by soldiers. Today, when tensions between Federal
    Government and some communities are already too high, it may be time to
    re-examine anachronistic policies that invoke notions of a war between
    government and its people. Such notions are all too easy to exploit by
    those who seek to kindle an actual war between the Federal Government
    and the people.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Professor Walker.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell, Director
    of the Natural Resources and Environment Team at the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office.
        You have 5 minutes, Ms. Fennell.

     STATEMENT OF ANNE-MARIE FENNELL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
     AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Fennell. Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss our report on how the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
    Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
    Service protect their employees and secure their facilities
    across nearly 700 million acres of lands that they manage. My
    statement today summarizes our findings.
        For the four Federal land management agencies, I will
    discuss: (1) what is known about the number of threats and
    assaults against their employees; (2) approaches agencies take
    to protect their employees; and (3) the extent to which the
    agencies met Federal facility security requirements.
        First, available Federal law enforcement data show a range
    of threats and assaults against the four Federal land
    management agency employees in Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017.
    The severity of these incidents range from phone threats to the
    stabbing of an employee outside of a Federal building. The
    number of incidents varied by agency. For the 5-year period,
    there were 88 incidents for BLM, 66 for Fish and Wildlife
    Service, 177 for Forest Service, and 29 for Park Service. FBI
    data for this time period showed the FBI initiated under 100
    domestic terrorism investigations into potential threats to
    these four agencies.
        The majority of these investigations involved BLM, as well
    as individuals motivated by anti-government ideologies. For
    instance, the FBI investigated a case where a BLM officer
    received over 500 harassing phone calls and several death
    threats. Once the officer's personal information was posted on
    Twitter.
        However, the number of actual threats and assaults is
    unclear, because not all incidents are captured in the agency's
    databases for various reasons. For example, some incidents are
    investigated by local and state law enforcement, and may not be
    included in Federal databases. In addition, land management
    agency employees do not always report all threats. Some said
    that, in certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats
    as a normal part of their job.
        Second, Federal land management agencies use various
    approaches to protect their employees, such as building
    relationships with local, state, and Federal law enforcement
    entities. For instance, the Las Vegas police kept a patrol car
    outside a field unit in Nevada during a high-profile court
    case. Agency officials noted factors that can affect their
    ability to protect employees, such as those in remote
    locations. Also, the number of field law enforcement officers
    at the four agencies has declined from Fiscal Years 2013 to
    2018, with Forest Service experiencing the largest decrease of
    22 percent.
        Third, the four land management agencies have not completed
    all facility security assessments required by Federal standards
    developed by the Interagency Security Committee, or ISC. Agency
    officials cited various reasons for not doing so, including a
    lack of resources, training, and expertise. Not complying with
    the ISC requirements to complete these assessments could leave
    agencies exposed to risk to protecting their employees and
    facilities. While Fish and Wildlife Service has a plan to
    complete its assessments, BLM, the Forest Service, and Park
    Service do not.
        The ISC standard also requires that agencies conduct
    assessments using a methodology that meets certain key
    requirements. The Forest Service meets and the Park Service
    partially meets these key requirements. BLM and Fish and
    Wildlife Service have not yet established methodologies.
    Without compliant methodologies, agencies may not identify all
    the risks their facilities face, or the countermeasures to
    mitigate those risks.
        We made six recommendations calling for agencies to develop
    a plan to conduct assessments and methodologies to comply with
    ISC requirements. The agencies agreed, and noted a number of
    steps they were going to take to implement the recommendations.

        Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Curtis, and members of
    the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I am
    pleased to respond to questions.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fennell follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Anne-Marie Fennell, Director, Natural Resources
             and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
        Chairwoman Haaland, Republican Leader Young, and members of the
    Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our recent
    review of how four Federal land management agencies--the Forest Service
    in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (Park
    Service) in the Department of the Interior--protect their employees and
    secure their facilities. In 2014, a report by the Department of
    Homeland Security predicted that the rate of violent domestic extremist
    incidents motivated by anti-government ideology would increase in the
    coming years, with a focus on government facilities and personnel,
    among other targets.\1\ Recently, there have been several high-profile
    incidents on Federal lands involving individuals motivated by anti-
    government ideologies, according to agency officials, including an
    armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in rural
    Oregon in 2016. The refuge was occupied for nearly 6 weeks by armed
    individuals and damages to the land and facilities at the refuge, plus
    the local, state, and FWS law enforcement responses, cost over $9
    million, according to local and Federal officials.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence
    Analysis, Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to
    Government Officials and Law Enforcement, IA-0201-14 (July 22, 2014).

        The four Federal land management agencies have law enforcement
    divisions that protect their employees and secure their facilities
    across nearly 700 million acres of Federal lands.\2\ To do so, agencies
    employ uniformed law enforcement officers who patrol Federal lands,
    respond to illegal activities, conduct routine investigations, and
    record information about incidents in their agency's law enforcement
    data system.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ While all four agencies' law enforcement officers also have
    responsibilities for ensuring visitor safety, for the purposes of this
    testimony statement, we focus on their responsibilities for protecting
    employees and securing facilities.
        \3\ Each agency has its own terminology to refer to its uniformed
    field law enforcement personnel. For example, BLM's uniformed field law
    enforcement officers are known as rangers, while FWS' field law
    enforcement officers are known as Federal Wildlife Officers. For the
    purposes of this testimony statement, we use the term law enforcement
    officer across the four land management agencies. Each agency also has
    investigative special agents who conduct investigations of serious
    crimes but are not responsible for responding to threats and assaults
    against employees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Depending on the agency, its law enforcement officers may also
    provide expert advice in assessing the security of their agency's
    facilities. Specifically, the four agencies are required to follow
    Federal facility security standards developed by the Interagency
    Security Committee (ISC).\4\ One such standard--the ISC Standard--
    defines the criteria and processes executive agencies and departments
    are to follow when assessing risks to their facilities through facility
    security assessments and provides key requirements that the assessment
    methodologies must include.\5\ Based on the results of the assessments,
    the ISC Standard further guides agencies and departments in determining
    which protective measures (referred to as countermeasures)--such as
    identification badges, blast-resistant windows, and security gates--to
    implement. In previous work, we found that some Federal agencies had
    not fully followed the ISC Standard, leaving agencies' facilities and
    employees exposed to risk.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The ISC is chaired by Department of Homeland Security. Its
    mandate is to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security in and
    protection of buildings and facilities in the United States occupied by
    federal employees for nonmilitary activities. As of June 2019, 60
    federal departments and agencies were members of the ISC. The ISC was
    established by executive order following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred
    P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Executive Order 12977, 60
    Fed. Reg. 54411 (Oct. 24, 1995), as amended by Executive Order 13286,
    68 Fed. Reg. 10624 (Mar. 5, 2003). Executive Order 12977 refers to
    buildings and facilities in the United States occupied by federal
    employees for nonmilitary activities as ``federal facilities.''
        \5\ Interagency Security Committee, The Risk Management Process for
    Federal Facilities: An Interagency Security Committee Standard
    (Washington, DC: November 2016). As of June 2019, the November 2016
    version of the ISC Standard was the most current.
        \6\ See, for example, GAO, Federal Facility Security: Additional
    Actions Needed to Help Agencies Comply with Risk Assessment Methodology
    Standards, GAO-14-86 (Washington, DC: Mar. 5, 2014), and GAO, Federal
    Facility Security: Selected Agencies Should Improve Methods for
    Assessing and Monitoring Risk, GAO-18-72 (Washington, DC: Oct. 26,
    2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My statement today summarizes the findings of our September 2019
    report on Federal land management agencies' efforts to protect their
    employees and secure their facilities.\7\ Specifically, for the four
    Federal land management agencies, I will discuss (1) what is known
    about the number of threats and assaults against their employees, (2)
    the approaches the agencies used to protect their employees from
    threats and assaults and factors affecting their ability to do so, and
    (3) the extent to which the agencies met Federal facility security
    assessment requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ GAO, Federal Land Management Agencies: Additional Actions
    Needed to Address Facility Security Assessment Requirements, GAO-19-643
    (Washington, DC: September 25, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To develop the findings we outlined in the report on which this
    testimony statement is based, we analyzed data on the number of
    incidents of threats and assaults against land management agency
    employees from the four agencies' law enforcement databases for fiscal
    years 2013 through 2017--the most recent data available at the time of
    our review. We also obtained data for this time period from the FBI on
    investigations into potential domestic terror threats to land
    management agencies.
        Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with
    officials during site visits to a nongeneralizable sample of 11 of the
    35 regional or state offices and 14 field units across the four Federal
    land management agencies. Finally, we assessed whether the agencies had
    conducted required facility security assessments on their occupied
    facilities and examined the extent to which their facility security
    risk assessment methodologies complied with two key requirements in the
    ISC Standard.\8\ Additional information on our scope and methodology is
    available in our September 2019 report.\9\ The work upon which this
    testimony statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ The ISC Standard outlines four key requirements for facility
    security assessment methodologies. Specifically, methodologies are to
    (1) consider all 33 of the undesirable events identified in the
    Standard; (2) evaluate the three factors of risk--threat,
    vulnerability, and consequence--for each undesirable event; (3) produce
    similar or identical results when applied by various security
    professionals; and (4) provide sufficient justification for deviations
    from the ISC-defined security baseline. We selected the first two key
    requirements for our analysis because we could objectively verify
    agencies' compliance by reviewing and analyzing agency documentation
    and interviewing agency officials.
        \9\ GAO-19-643.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Available Data Show a Range of Threats and Assaults against Land

    Management Agency Employees, but Not All Incidents are Captured in the
                                      Data

        Available Federal law enforcement data show a range of threats and
    assaults against the four Federal land management agencies' employees
    in fiscal years 2013 through 2017.\10\,\11\ The severity of
    these incidents ranged from threats conveyed over the telephone to
    attempted murder and included an incident in which an employee was
    stabbed outside a Federal building. The number of incidents of threats
    and assaults varied by agency. For example, for fiscal years 2013
    through 2017:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ For the purposes of this testimony statement, employee refers
    to land management agency employees, volunteers, and contractors,
    unless otherwise noted.
        \11\ The land management agencies' data systems were not
    specifically designed for reporting threats and assaults against
    employees and do not include the suspect's motivation for a crime--such
    as anti-government extremist ideologies. Additionally, to varying
    degrees, agency officials reviewed their respective data and removed
    incident data that appeared not to constitute actual threats or
    assaults to employees. For these reasons, and because we determined
    that not all incidents are captured in the data, we did not analyze the
    data for annual trends.

         BLM data included 88 incidents of threats and assaults
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                against BLM employees;

         FWS data included 66 incidents of threats and assaults
                against FWS employees;

         Forest Service data included 177 incidents of threats and
                assaults against Forest Service employees; and

         Park Service data included 29 incidents of threats and
                assaults against Park Service employees.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Park Service data included employees only and did not include
    volunteers or contractors.

        Further, FBI data for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 show that the
    FBI initiated under 100 domestic terrorism investigations into
    potential threats to Federal land management
    agencies.\13\,\14\ Our analysis of the FBI data showed that
    the majority of the domestic terrorism investigations involved BLM.
    Additionally, the majority involved individuals motivated by anti-
    government ideologies. For example, the FBI investigated one case in
    which a BLM law enforcement officer received more than 500 harassing
    phone calls and several death threats after a subject posted personal
    information about the officer on the social media platform Twitter.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ The exact number of domestic terrorism investigations
    initiated by the FBI into threats and assaults to land management
    agencies is law enforcement sensitive information. The FBI receives
    information from a variety of sources, including from confidential
    human sources; public tips; and state, local, tribal, and federal
    partners. Land management agency officials told us they refer only the
    most serious incidents to the FBI--such as the armed occupation of
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. According to FBI officials, an
    investigation into a domestic terrorism threat may only be initiated if
    there is information indicating potential violent criminal activity
    committed in furtherance of ideology.
        \14\ According to FBI officials, the FBI does not collect
    intelligence or conduct investigations based solely on constitutionally
    protected activity--such as individuals exercising their right to free
    speech. Further, every subject of a domestic terrorism investigation
    must have individual predication (i.e., mere association with another
    subject is not sufficient for predication).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, the number of actual threats and assaults against Federal
    land management employees is unclear and may be higher than what is
    represented in available data, because not all incidents of threats and
    assaults against land management agency employees are captured in the
    agencies' databases. There are several reasons why this may be the
    case. Specifically, some incidents of threats and assaults are
    investigated by local or state law enforcement and may be recorded in
    their data systems rather than in the land management agencies'
    systems. Additionally, officials from two agencies we interviewed said
    that when a single incident involved multiple offenses, the less
    serious offenses are unlikely to be recorded in the data system and,
    therefore, the entirety of what occurred may not be captured.
        Further, land management agency employees do not always report all
    incidents of threats. For example, some field unit employees said that
    in certain circumstances, they consider receiving threats as a normal
    part of their job. Some officials also described being threatened while
    off duty, such as being harassed in local stores or being monitored at
    their home, and they said that in some cases they did not report the
    incident because it was a common occurrence. However, even in more
    high-profile incidents, agency officials told us that employees may not
    always report threats to agency law enforcement. For example, agency
    officials we interviewed cited specific incidents around the time of
    the 2016 armed occupation of FWS' Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that
    they did not necessarily report to their agency's law enforcement.
    These incidents included individuals holding anti-government beliefs
    who followed a teenage girl wearing a BLM shirt around the local
    grocery store and threatened to burn her house down, and agency
    employees who had shots fired over their heads while working in the
    field. According to officials at two agencies, many employees were
    traumatized by the Malheur occupation and some did not return to work,
    including some who transferred to other agency field units.

     Land Management Agencies Use Various Approaches to Protect Employees,
             but Several Factors May Affect Their Ability to Do So

        Federal land management agencies use various approaches to protect
    their employees from threats and assaults, including deploying agency
    law enforcement officers to protect employees and resources and
    building relationships with external law enforcement entities and the
    public. Specifically, when necessary, agencies deploy additional law
    enforcement officers to assist their local officers. For example,
    during the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge,
    FWS officials reported deploying FWS law enforcement officers from
    around the country to field units in western states to provide
    additional security for FWS employees.
        Agency officials we interviewed also told us that they build
    relationships with local, state, and other Federal agency law
    enforcement entities to help protect employees and resources in the
    field and to assist with coordinating law enforcement responses. Such
    relationships are important because not all field units have a law
    enforcement officer, and those that do often rely on local law
    enforcement for assistance in responding to incidents of threats or
    assaults against agency employees. For example, officials we
    interviewed at a field unit in Nevada stated that during a high-profile
    court case involving the agency, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
    Department kept a patrol car outside the field unit for several days to
    help ensure field unit employees' safety. Finally, officials at several
    field units we visited stated that their law enforcement officers are
    focused on educating, rather than policing, visitors.
        Agency officials we interviewed cited several factors that can
    affect their ability to protect employees. Specifically, agency
    officials noted that employees are required to interact with the public
    as part of their official duties and may wear uniforms, which makes
    them easily recognizable and can put them at risk of being threatened
    or assaulted. (See Figure 1.) Additionally, agency officials stated
    that it can be difficult to protect employees because, as part of their
    field work, employees may be dispersed across hundreds of miles of
    Federal lands and may be located hours or days away from the nearest
    agency law enforcement officer. For example, as of fiscal year 2018,
    BLM had 194 field law enforcement officers to cover the 245 million
    acres of land managed by BLM.

       Figure 1: Examples of Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park
                           Service Employee Uniforms
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8270.001

        .epsSources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (left photo); National
    Park Service (right photo).
        Further, the number of agency field law enforcement officers at all
    four land management agencies declined from fiscal year 2013 through
    fiscal year 2018. For example, BLM experienced a decrease of 9 percent,
    while the Forest Service experienced a decrease of 22 percent, the
    largest decrease among the four agencies. Finally, agency officials we
    interviewed said that the risk to employee safety posed by individuals
    holding anti-government sentiments can be unpredictable and that
    incidents of threats and assaults against employees by such individuals
    are generally sporadic.

        Land Management Agencies Have Not Met Certain Facility Security
                            Assessment Requirements

        The four Federal land management agencies have completed some but
    not all of the facility security assessments on their occupied Federal
    facilities as required by the ISC Standard. Agency officials cited
    various reasons for not doing so, including lack of resources,
    training, and expertise. Not complying with the ISC Standard's
    requirement to complete facility security assessments on all occupied
    facilities could leave Federal agencies exposed to risks in protecting
    their employees and facilities. While FWS has a plan to complete its
    assessments, BLM, the Forest Service, and the Park Service do not.
    Specifically:

         FWS. FWS has conducted five facility security assessments
                on its approximately 465 occupied facilities. According to
                FWS headquarters officials, FWS employees have limited
                physical security expertise to conduct facility security
                assessments; therefore, the agency has developed a plan to
                meet the ISC Standard's requirement using contractors.

         BLM. BLM has conducted 21 facility security assessments on
                its approximately 280 occupied facilities, but officials do
                not know when they will complete the remaining assessments
                and do not have a plan to do so.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ According to BLM and Interior officials, Interior's Office of
    Law Enforcement and Security completed 16 of the 21 facility security
    assessments on behalf of BLM. The other five were completed by BLM
    state office officials in Colorado whom Interior officials had trained
    to conduct facility security assessments.

         Forest Service. The Forest Service has conducted at least
                135 facility security assessments on its approximately
                1,135 occupied facilities, but officials do not know when
                they will complete the remaining assessments and do not
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                have a plan for doing so.

         Park Service. The Park Service has conducted at least 148
                facility security assessments on its approximately 1,505
                occupied facilities, but officials do not know when they
                will complete the remaining assessments and do not have a
                plan to do so.

        The ISC Standard requires that agencies conduct assessments using a
    methodology that meets, among other things, two key requirements: (1)
    consider all of the undesirable events (e.g., arson and vandalism)
    identified in the ISC Standard as possible risks to facilities, and (2)
    assess the threat, vulnerability, and consequence for each of these
    events. The Forest Service's methodology meets these two requirements
    and utilizes an ISC-compliant facility security assessment methodology
    developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Park Service's
    methodology partially meets the requirements because it does not
    include a step to assess the consequences of specific undesirable
    events, as required by the ISC Standard. BLM and FWS have not yet
    established methodologies for conducting facility security assessments,
    although officials we interviewed from each agency stated that they
    intend to develop an ISC-compliant methodology. Specifically, BLM
    officials told us that they plan to hire a security manager who will
    develop an assessment methodology but did not know when the manager
    would be hired. FWS officials we interviewed provided a high-level
    description of what they expected to be included in their new
    methodology. However, FWS's description did not indicate that the
    agency would evaluate the consequences of specific undesirable events,
    as required by the ISC Standard. Without developing a plan for
    conducting all of the remaining facility security assessments and using
    a methodology that complies with ISC requirements, agencies may not
    identify the risks their facilities face or identify the
    countermeasures they could implement to mitigate those risks.
        Based on these findings, we made a total of six recommendations to
    the four land management agencies, including that:

         BLM, the Forest Service, and the Park Service each develop
                a plan to conduct all required facility security
                assessments agency-wide;

         The Park Service update its facility security assessment
                methodology to address the consequences of specific
                undesirable events in order to comply with requirements in
                the ISC Standard; and

         BLM and the Forest Service each develop facility security
                assessment methodologies that comply with requirements in
                the ISC Standard.

        The four land management agencies generally concurred with our
    recommendations and provided examples of actions they plan to take to
    address our recommendations, including revising policies and developing
    new tools, training, and data system modules.

        Chairwoman Haaland, Republican Leader Young, and members of the
    Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
    to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much, Ms. Fennell.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Katie Tubb, Senior Policy
    Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
        Ms. Tubb, you have 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF KATIE TUBB, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE HERITAGE
                       FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Tubb. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you
    today, and for the interest in examining Federal lands issues.
        Decision making on Federal lands has been contentious for
    many years--decades, if not longer. In some respects, that is
    not surprising, given that there is potential for conflict when
    Federal lands consume large parts of the West. This has major
    implications for states and individuals, and their ability to
    foster a promising place to live with economic diversity,
    property, and other tax revenue for services like education and
    public safety, physical space, and access to lands for a
    variety of cultural, recreational, and economic activities.
        Further, management on these lands is diverse and spread
    across multiple agencies and bureaus, governed by a complex of
    overlapping and often conflicting laws, missions, and
    regulations, which different administrations have implemented
    in drastically different ways.
        A litigation culture all but invited by broad, unclear, and
    outdated laws has led to perverse incentives. And when people
    feel that they are not being listened to, or the levers of
    power are out of reach, tensions spill over. Undoubtedly, civil
    servants are also in a difficult place navigating these laws.
        When it comes to conflict, Federal, district, and unit
    offices should ensure their staff are adequately equipped for
    their own safety. Just as important, staff should be trained to
    handle and diffuse conflict toward solutions. However, to go
    overboard is to miss the point, and Federal actions can
    wittingly or unwittingly create unnecessary tension. Federal
    actions, again, real or perceived, to slow-walk leases and
    permits, being unwilling to seek compromise, failing to be
    present and available to the community, or escalating the
    severity of charges can create or exacerbate conflict.
        Ultimately, I believe Congress needs to do a wholesale
    review of the Federal estate and the laws governing it.
    However, even in this broken system, there are examples of
    collaboration amongst conflicting interests that have yielded
    good results.
        I think those boil down to some basic principles of
    cooperative federalism, the first being that solutions are
    site- and situation-specific. Specific decisions reflect the
    unique circumstances, histories, and priorities of communities
    and land users. Americans can and do successfully pursue varied
    and competing interests with creative, nuanced compromises.
    This requires relying on people who directly benefit or are
    harmed by those decisions.
        Second, solutions rely and respect the role of private
    property owners. Rather than being irrelevant or a barrier to
    public land management solutions, private property owners can
    be great assets and, in fact, ownership is a powerful incentive
    for stewardship.
        Third, solutions empower states and communities. And while
    there are many degrees of and ways to accomplish this,
    empowering states and communities to drive decision making has
    proved effective. States and communities already share the cost
    of maintaining Federal lands, whether by the liability of no
    management, the lost opportunity of poor management, or the
    infrastructure needed to support management.
        My written testimony offers examples of how each of these
    have resolved conflict, among those the Utah Grazing
    Improvement Program; the White Mountain Apache Tribe Successful
    Forest Management Program; the Forest Service's use of its Good
    Neighbor Authority; Wyoming's exception under the Antiquities
    Act; and the Federal Lands Freedom Act proposed in the 115th
    Congress.
        I would like to draw just one example, that being the 1984
    compromise for Forest Service and BLM lands in northern
    Arizona. Within the broader, protracted national debate over
    wilderness area designations, a coalition of interests came
    together to seek resolution in a more timely fashion. I think
    it is very interesting who formed this coalition. It was a mix
    of energy companies and groups like the National Parks
    Conservation Association, Sierra Club, National Wildlife
    Federation, Local Chambers of Commerce, the Grazing Advisory
    Board, and a variety of local, state, and Federal politicians.
    The discussions resulted in an all but universally satisfying
    compromise with the Arizona Wilderness Act. The compromise
    created nine wilderness areas, including the BLM's first. It
    also allowed for uranium mining and timber production within
    painstakingly negotiated boundaries.
        The point is, coming to solutions is hard work and
    complicated work. The way forward through collaboration is
    rarely clear cut and easy with an obvious outcome. But I think
    the more Congress can encourage, agencies pursue, and states
    and private individuals initiate collaborative approaches, the
    better chances we have of reaching solutions through conflict.
    Thank you very much.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Tubb follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Katie Tubb, The Heritage Foundation
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and for
    your interest in examining Federal lands issues. Decision making on
    Federal lands has been contentious for decades, if not longer. The
    Hammond and Bundy cases are unfortunate, more recent examples of
    conflict that escalated to the loss of one man's life and put many
    others in danger.
        In some respects, it is not surprising that there is such potential
    for conflict. While not exclusively a Western issue, Federal management
    covers vast tracts of the West. This has major implications for states
    and individuals, and their ability to foster a promising place to live
    with economic diversity; property and other tax revenue for services
    like education and public safety; physical space; and access to lands
    for a variety of cultural, recreational, and economic activities.
        Further, management of these massive and diverse lands is
    disjointed, being spread across multiple departments and bureaus
    governed by a complex of overlapping and often conflicting laws,
    missions, and regulations as well as historical uses and arrangements
    predating certain Federal laws. Different administrations have
    interpreted and implemented the same laws guiding management in
    drastically different ways to either encourage access to Federal lands
    or heavily restrict their use. Special interest groups leverage these
    complexities to pressure elected leaders and bureaucrats to enact
    policies that benefit powerful constituencies. A litigation culture all
    but invited by broad, unclear, or outdated laws has led to perverse
    incentives. Non-action by Federal agencies is rewarded not because
    bureaucrats are generally bad or incompetent, but because Federal
    employees soon learn that taking no action is safe. Delay, study,
    hearings, and re-hearings are ``acceptable'' activities. Deciding
    something may create a job-threatening political firestorm.\1\ At worst
    decisions are never reached, and at best agencies expend extensive
    resources not on management but rather to bullet proof decisions with
    reams of analysis for the inevitable legal challenge. When people feel
    they are not being listened to or the levers of power are out of reach,
    tensions spill over.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Jack Spencer, ed., Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles
    of the American Conservation Ethic, The Heritage Foundation, July 27,
    2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/environmental-
    conservation#EightPrinciples.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So, it is unsurprising that people are passionate about Federal
    lands. Conflict comes in many shapes and sizes. There of course were
    the cases of the Hammonds and Bundys which made national headline news.
    But there are dozens of other cases that, though they do not make
    national news, are no less impactful to the local communities and
    individuals. Controversial national monument designations in Utah and
    off the coasts of Massachusetts, or just last week, the issue of
    roadless area designations in Alaska, are ready examples of conflict
    over Federal lands, all the way down to the use of cabins in Ottawa
    National Forest in Michigan and eminent domain issues in Smokey
    Mountain National Park.
        When it comes to conflict, individual district and unit offices of
    the Federal land agencies should not be irresponsible and ensure their
    staff are adequately equipped for their own safety. Just as important,
    staff should be trained to handle and diffuse conflict toward
    solutions, if possible. However, to go overboard is to miss the point
    and Federal actions can wittingly or unwittingly create unnecessary
    tension. While it is popularly easy to caricature and parade the faults
    committed by private landowners in the Bundy and Hammond cases, Federal
    land managers and bureaucrats were not faultless, either. That incident
    aside, Federal actions to slow walking leases and permits, being
    unwilling to seek compromise or inflexibility to seek agreeable
    alternatives, failing to be present and available to the community, and
    escalating the severity of charges can create or exacerbate conflict.
    Management of Federal lands is a two-way street at least.
        That said, I would like to use the remainder of my testimony to
    focus on ways conflict on Federal lands has been or could be resolved.
    Ultimately, I believe Congress needs to take a wholesale review of the
    Federal estate and the morass of conflicting and overlapping laws
    governing it. However, even in this broken system there are examples of
    collaboration amongst conflicting interests that have yielded good
    results. Those successes boil down to some basic principles of
    cooperative federalism.
    1. Solutions Are Site and Situation Specific
        Rather than centralized policies, site and situation specific
    decisions reflect the unique circumstances, histories, and priorities
    of communities and land users. Americans can and do successfully pursue
    varied and sometimes competing interests on Federal lands. Coming to
    creative compromises requires relying on people who will directly
    benefit from wise management decisions or be marginalized by poor ones.
        Coming to such solutions is hard, complicated work. Take for
    example the process to reach a compromise for land use plans on Forest
    Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in northern
    Arizona. Within the protracted national debate, study, and re-analysis
    of wilderness area designations, a coalition of interests came together
    to try to resolve land-use issues in a more timely fashion for an area
    in northern Arizona known as the Arizona Strip.

        It is perhaps worth noting that the Federal Government's inability
    to move forward in Arizona caused tension, apparently among all
    parties. According to Representative Mo Udall (D-UT):

            ``Since 1979 Arizonans who used the forests for livelihood, for
            recreation, for scientific purposes, and for much more, have
            labored under the uncertainties of interim management.. . .
            This has hurt people in Arizona, causing frustration and
            confusion. Miners are not sure where to invest their
            exploration in development dollars. Ranchers wonder about the
            future management of their grazing allotments. Conservationists
            fear the loss of critical, sensitive lands in the fragile
            Arizona environment.

            The Forest Service goes about its job without any clear
            direction from the Congress. Lawsuits in other states threaten
            court-imposed land management regimes that would benefit no
            one. The current administration launches a senseless, costly
            and resource-wasting process called RAREII [Roadless Area
            Review and Evaluation II] to paw over the inventory again.''
            \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System,''
    Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, Committee on Interior
    and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 1983,
    http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/Adjudications/documents/
    SRP_Initial_Disclosure/SRP08318%20-%20SRP08765.pdf (accessed October
    21, 2019).

        Consequently, an attempt at more timely resolution was initiated by
    a group of private companies and environmental interests. Months of
    extensive discussion began between Energy Fuels Corporation, Western
    Nuclear Corps, the Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation
    Association, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Grazing
    Advisory Board, local chambers of commerce, and, ultimately, the BLM,
    USFS, and Arizona's Federal delegation. Discussion resulted in an all
    but universally satisfying compromise with the Arizona Wilderness
    Act.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, H.R. 4707, 98th Congress, 2nd
    Sess.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The compromise created nine wilderness areas, including the BLM's
    first designated wilderness areas. It also allowed for uranium mining
    and timber production within painstakingly negotiated boundaries. It
    represents the concept of multi-use lands enshrined in the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act \4\ and is itself, in the words of BLM's
    Director Robert Burford, a ``unique piece of legislation'' of hard-won
    consensus among competing interests. The National Parks Conservation
    Association described the Act as an ``exciting adventure in the
    democratic process'' which it was pleased with in substance and process
    and supported ``with great enthusiasm.'' \5\ The legislation had the
    support of both Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Udall,
    long-time chairman of the House Interior Committee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Federal Lands Management and Policy Act of 1976, Sec. 102, 94th
    Congress: ``[I]t is the policy of the United States that . . . public
    lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the nation's need for
    domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public
    lands.''
        \5\ ``Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System,''
    Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, Committee on Interior
    and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 1983,
    http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/SurfaceWater/Adjudications/documents/
    SRP_Initial_Disclosure/SRP08318%20-%20SRP08765.pdf (accessed October
    21, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subsequent Federal land management plans by the BLM and USFS
    reflected this compromise. Unfortunately, the Obama administration
    unilaterally rescinded this arrangement in 2009 and formally withdrew
    over 1 million acres from mining activities for 20 years in a 2012
    public land order by the Secretary of Interior.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 11 (January 18, 2012), pp. 2563-
    2566.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While not always perfect, local expertise leads to successful
    environmental policy that is more responsive and better suited to
    unique landscapes. Time and again, states and communities have been
    able to come to creative, nuanced compromises that reflect their unique
    circumstances, priorities, and histories.
    2. Solutions Respect the Role of Private Property Owners
        Rather than barriers to public land management solutions, private
    property owners can be great assets. In fact, ownership is a powerful
    incentive for stewardship. Property rights turn environmental resources
    into assets rather than liabilities, and markets lead to more creative
    and desirable solutions. Unfortunately, Federal approaches can
    disincentivize collaboration and partnerships with private property
    owners. Conflict often arises when property owners are seen as
    opponents or irrelevant to a solution. Current regulatory and
    management approaches often devalue private property, and Federal
    management often fails to utilize market based solutions that could
    make land and resources more profitable to the benefit of Federal
    lands.

        Take, for example, Utah's voluntary Grazing Improvement Program
    (GIP) set up in partnership with the state, Federal Government, and
    private property owners. Grazing is a deep part of Utah's heritage and
    an important part of the local economy. However, the sheer volume of
    Federal lands is itself a source of tension for Utahans. Sixty-three
    percent of Utah is owned by the Federal Government, and, consequently,
    Federal land management plans and designations acutely impact the
    livelihoods of residents. According to the Utah Farm Bureau:

            ``There are 45 million acres of rangeland suitable for
            livestock grazing in Utah. Of that, 33 million acres or 75
            percent is controlled by the BLM and Forest Service. The
            Director of the BLM manages more land in Utah than the Governor
            elected by the people of Utah. Our future in Southern Utah, in
            most of Utah and across the American West is being dictated by
            a distant, disconnected central government. And that distance
            is not just based on geography.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Utah Farm Bureau, ``Monument Review, MS-1530,'' Statement of
    the Utah Farm Bureau to Secretary Ryan Zinke, U.S. Department of
    Interior, undated, https://www.utahfarmbureau.org/Article/File/
    get?path=Files%2Farticle-109549%2FBears%20Ears%201.pdf (accessed
    October 21, 2019).

        For decades, government responses to environmental degradation on
    rangelands have revolved around reducing access to land and reducing
    permissible herd sizes.\8\ This naturally exacerbated frustration and
    economic hardship for ranchers, but further did not solve rangeland and
    watershed damage. As described by Utah's Department of Agriculture and
    Food, there was a ``disconnect between the regulatory regime and good
    grazing practices.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, ``Change in Utah
    Federally Permitted AUMs 1940-2005,'' https://ag.utah.gov/wp-content/
    uploads/2019/05/History-of-AUM-Reductions.pdf (accessed October 21,
    2019). See also Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, ``GIP
    History,'' May 21, 2019, https://ag.utah.gov/farmers/conservation-
    division/utah-grazing-improvement-program/gip-history/ (accessed
    October 21, 2019).
        \9\ Doug Warnock, ``Utah's Grazing Improvement Program Develops Key
    Principles,'' Capital Press, December 29, 2016, https://
    www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/livestock/utah-s-grazing-improvement-
    program-develops-key-principles/article_f7fb1059-45ab-50a0-9e94-
    4bebc3a7c102. html (accessed October 21, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Passed in Utah's legislature in 2006, the GIP aims to bring
    together ranching, environmental, and state and Federal Government
    interests together to apparent good effect for both ranchers and the
    environment.\10\ The GIP established local and state advisory boards to
    engage at the local, state, and Federal levels to develop and propose
    consensus recommendations for Federal lands management decisions, and
    implement rangeland projects. This involves groups like the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, BLM, state agriculture and natural resource
    departments, Utah Farm Bureau, Nature Conservancy, Utah Cattlemen's
    Association, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Wool Growers Association, Trout
    Unlimited, local landowners, and state universities.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Ashley Longmore and Troy Forrest, ``The History and Overview
    of Utah's Grazing Improvement Program,'' Rangelands, Vol. 38 No. 5
    (October 2016), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
    S0190052816300554?via%3Dihub (accessed October 21, 2019).
        \11\ Michele Straube and Lorien Belton, ``Collaborative Group on
    Sustainable Grazing for U.S. Forest Service Lands in Southern Utah:
    Final Report and Consensus Recommendations,'' December 2012, https://
    ag.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sustainable-Grazing-for-
    Southern-Utah-Forests.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019). For a BLM
    example, see Bureau of Land Management, ``BLM Seeks Public Comment on
    the Bison Fence Environment,'' U.S. Department of Interior, August 16,
    2018, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-seeks-public-comment-bison-
    fence-environmental-assessment (accessed October 21, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Importantly, the program is proving effective from both ranching
    and environmental perspectives. Rather than overemphasizing herd size,
    Utah's approach emphasizes actively managing herds, distribution, and
    rotation to keep cattle from overusing lands and streams. Installing
    water systems, fences, and new plants have reduced soil erosion,
    improved streams and water quality, decreased the spread of invasive
    plants and species, and reduced dry underbrush that is fuel for
    wildfires. This has further benefited ranchers with healthier, more
    productive rangeland for herds.
        Under a system of property rights and rule of law, they have power
    incentive to maintain and enhance their environment.
    3. Solutions Empower States and Communities
        Perhaps a variation on the themes of the first two points,
    empowering states and communities to drive decision making has proved
    effective. While there are many degrees of and ways to accomplish this,
    one good example is the experience of the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
        Management of forests on tribal lands contrasts starkly with
    neighboring Federal lands, to great environmental and economic benefit
    for the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The White Mountain Apache Tribe
    manages their own forests, mimicking the natural burn and growth cycle
    by clearing logs and brush that could become fuel for fires. Doing so
    also provides jobs for the tribe, which boasts its own logging
    industry.
        While they work with the Department of the Interior and Forest
    Service to develop land-management plans, critically, the tribal
    council is in the driver's seat. According to Robert Lacapa, former
    forest manager with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the White Mountain
    Apache Tribe: ``Our constituency is on the reservation, and we have
    about 16,000 tribal members. Nobody from New York. Nobody from
    California. Our primary interest group is right here.'' \12\ This
    protection allows the Tribe to complete more forest treatments more
    quickly according to the interests of the tribe. It has paid off--the
    damage and intensity of forest fires on tribal lands has been markedly
    less than on neighboring Federal lands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Valerie Richardson, ``Apaches Stave Off Wildfires with Timber
    Industry, Active Forest Management,'' Washington Times, September 2,
    2018, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/2/apache-
    forest_management-fights-wildfires/ (accessed October 21, 2019).

        Reflecting on the stark contrast between tribal and federally
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    managed lands, Lacapa stated:

            ``Unfortunately for the Forest Service, they can get somebody
            back East or back West that can put a stop to any of their
            [National Environmental Policy Act requirements]. The public
            has really limited their effectiveness in using prescribed
            burns and harvesting as tools. And that's really bad for us.
            It's not just about what we can do here locally [on the
            reservation], but on a landscape basis.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Ibid.

        The simple truth is, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has powerful
    incentives to be good stewards of their environment as part of their
    livelihoods, economic opportunity, culture, recreation, and other uses
    of the land around them. Their community directly benefits from good
    management decisions and is hurt by poor ones. Fortunately, their
    unique situation allows them to plan as a community and utilize local
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    expertise and priorities.

        There are other small-scale examples worth considering to empower
    states and communities.

         Under its Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service has
                contracted with 32 states to complete management work on
                national forests.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Jason Hayes, ``Conflict to Cooperation: Collaborative
    Management of Federal Lands in Michigan,'' Property and Environment
    Research Center and the Mackinac Center, October 30, 2018, https://
    www.perc.org/2018/10/30/conflict-to-cooperation-collaborative-
    management-of-federal-lands-in-michigan/ (accessed October 21, 2019).
    See also U.S. Forest Service, ``Good Neighbor Authority,'' U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/farm-
    bill/gna (accessed October 21, 2019).

         The EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission have partnered
                with many states, which under formal agreements may assume
                certain regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Atomic Energy Act, respectively.

         The Antiquities Act grants the state of Wyoming an
                exemption from unilateral presidential action by requiring
                congressional approval for any monument designation.

         The South Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 made
                68,000 acres of Federal land near Las Vegas available for
                purchase and generated proceeds for Nevada's General
                Education Fund, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and
                Federal conservation and maintenance projects.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Bureau of Land Management, ``Southern Nevada Public Land
    Management Act (SNPLMA),'' U.S. Department of Interior, https://
    www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/SNPLMA_
    New%20About%20Page.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019).

         The Federal Lands Freedom Act proposed by Senator James
                Inhofe (R-OK) in the 115th Congress, though not passed,
                would have allowed states to submit their own regulatory
                programs for energy permitting and development on Federal
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                lands in lieu of Federal requirements.

        There does not seem to be a sustained drive in Congress to expand
    the role of states on Federal land-management decisions. However,
    states can utilize local creativity and accountability without the
    added baggage of national political battles and Federal regulatory
    processes. States already share the cost of the maintenance of Federal
    lands, whether by the liability of no management, the lost opportunity
    of poor management, or the infrastructure needed to support development
    of resources.
        The way forward through collaboration is rarely clear cut and easy
    with an obvious outcome. If it were, we would not be having discussions
    like this today. Shifting more control from Washington to those with
    direct knowledge of the land in question and a clear stake in the
    outcome of decisions would be a step in the right direction. But the
    more Congress can encourage, agencies pursue, and states and private
    individuals initiate collaborative approaches, the better the chances
    of reaching solutions through conflict--solutions that offer better,
    nuanced, and creative approaches to benefit people and the environment.

                                     ______

        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Ms. Tubb. Thank you for that
    valuable testimony. The Chair will now recognize Members for
    their questions. Under Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be
    recognized for 5 minutes. I will start with Mr. Tonko.
        You have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Haaland, and thank you for
    bringing this hearing together. And thank you to our witnesses
    for your input.
        The unfair and negative treatment of Federal employees
    harms our Nation. It threatens the loss of institutional
    knowledge, and undermines the performance of the agency in
    service of the American people. Elected officials and others in
    positions of power and public trust should not be able to use
    these employees as political pawns. Even the way we talk about
    them can have a personally dangerous and professionally
    devastating consequence on these individuals, to say nothing of
    undermining the serious and important work that they do.
        No one, no matter where they work, should feel like they
    are being held hostage in their own home, or have shots fired
    over their heads while working. Surely, we can manage at least
    this minimum standard of humanity for our own Federal
    employees.
        In this divisive time, our words matter more than ever.
    Public land managers are already being harassed and sometimes
    attacked, and we have a duty to rise above this toxic political
    climate in our words and in our actions.
        My first questions are to Ms. Fennell. Your report says
    Federal land management experts experience threats and
    intimidation, including being monitored at home and harassed at
    the grocery store as part of their daily lives. It is so common
    that some don't even report it to their colleagues any more.
    That sounds like a more dangerous reaction than a difference of
    opinion about land management.
        Could you tell us more, please, about some of the
    experiences that have been reported?
        Ms. Fennell. Some employees have not reported various
    incidents because they informed us that, under certain
    circumstances, they may consider that just a part of their
    regular job duties. Some, however, indicated that it depends on
    the particular circumstances, so what may appear to be a threat
    for one employee may not be perceived as that for another.
    There is judgment that is involved, in terms of whether they
    come forward, in terms of reporting potential threats.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And in your testimony you briefly
    mentioned that many employees were traumatized by the Malheur
    takeover, with some never returning to work, or transferred to
    other agency field units. Can you briefly elaborate on the
    impact that threats and literal assaults on Federal employees
    have had on retention and institutional knowledge at our
    Federal land management agencies?
        Ms. Fennell. Well, some of the employees informed us that
    that was indeed the situation from the Malheur experience, that
    they were traumatized by the event and chose to ask for a
    transfer, or not return immediately to work. That was an
    illustrative example of the situation that occurred there.
        But we did not hear consistent examples throughout, in
    terms of how many transfers there had been requested. So, we
    don't have specific information to respond to that question.
        Mr. Tonko. Do you expect that you will get additional
    information?
        Ms. Fennell. It was not part of our particular scope for
    our review, but that is something that we can follow up with
    the agencies and get back to your staff.
        Mr. Tonko. OK, that is great. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Nichols, how has Harney County changed since the
    takeover? And what are some of the social consequences you have
    seen resulting from this kind of violence perpetrated in the
    name of taking back the land?
        Mr. Nichols. Harney County was elated it was over with.
    Things haven't changed dramatically within the community, other
    than there is division to some degree where there wasn't before
    over several things.
        But, basically, the community got back on its feet,
    rolling, and doing what we have always done, and that is
    working together and trying to survive all of the things that
    we have to survive in our community. It has been a very
    positive reaction to the whole situation, and we are moving
    ahead, moving forward.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Professor Walker, you spent a great
    deal of time interviewing local residents since the Malheur
    takeover. What kind of long-term social damage did this inflict
    upon them?
        Dr. Walker. As Commissioner Nichols said, I think,
    generally, the community has bounced back. It is still a
    community that works very well together.
        I think there has been a lot of long-term damage to
    specific individual relationships. There are people who still
    tell me that they won't patronize businesses that belong to
    people who they perceive to be on the other side of the issue.
    I think there is a general sense of wariness, of suspicion
    about others in the community that there was not before the
    Malheur occupation.
        On the other side, I would actually say that, in my
    observation, if anything, the damage to some of those
    relationships, some individual relationships, has actually been
    countered by a reinforcement of a commitment to working
    together through the collaborative model.
        I attended the very first--to my knowledge, the very
    first--collaborative meeting in an initiative of the High
    Desert Partnership known as the Harney County Restoration
    Collaborative, the Forest Collaborative, in March 2016, right
    after the occupation ended. And the facilitator of that group
    told me that the attendance at that particular meeting was
    higher than he had ever seen before.
        So, it is a mixed bag. There is some damage, but there has
    also been a reaffirmed commitment to the collaborative model.
        Mr. Tonko. I thank you. I have well exceeded my time, and I
    apologize, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. The Chair recognizes
    Ranking Member Curtis.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Walker, on page 24 of the GAO report it reads, ``Agency
    field officials said that building relationships with the
    public, both visitors and local citizens, can help keep their
    employees safe by cultivating trust and reducing potential
    tension.'' After hearing your testimony it sounds like that
    could have been written based on a case study in your area.
    Would you agree with that?
        Dr. Walker. I am sorry, can you say that again?
        Mr. Curtis. The report says that the best way to keep the
    Federal employees safe is to build relationships of trust. And
    it sounds to me like----
        Dr. Walker. Yes, I would generally agree with that. I think
    that, really, you should be asking Mr. Nichols.
        Mr. Curtis. OK. Mr. Nichols, please?
        Dr. Walker. Mr. Nichols ranches in that community, but my
    quick understanding is that relationships in that community
    prior to the establishment of the collaborative culture that
    Commissioner Nichols refers to was quite bad. And since then
    that trust has been built in ways that really served the
    community well under pressure. Yes.
        Mr. Nichols. I would agree.
        Mr. Curtis. Yes. And maybe to both of you, as the world
    looks back on your community and this incident--this seems to
    me like a rhetorical question, but maybe it is not. Would you
    both rather be remembered for the relationship-building with
    the Federal employees or this one incident?
        Mr. Nichols. The relationship with the employees or what,
    sir?
        Mr. Curtis. My point is, and my fear is, that the topic of
    this hearing is focusing on all that is bad. And what I am
    hearing from your community is there is a lot that is good.
        And the question is, I am assuming you would rather be
    remembered for the relationship building that you all have done
    and not this one incident.
        Mr. Nichols. Yes, sir. Like I referred to earlier, the
    Bundy occupation is over and done. We have moved on. Yes, there
    are differences of opinion about things. There always is, there
    always will be. But there isn't the hostility and the
    aggression toward one another or anyone else that was evident
    during that time.
        Basically, it was total anarchy in our community for a
    month, 6 weeks. That is not a good place to be, not a good
    place at all.
        Mr. Curtis. It is my sense that it is also not a reflection
    on who you are as a community.
        Mr. Nichols. No.
        Mr. Curtis. Much more on the relationship-building side.
        Mr. Nichols. It is.
        Mr. Curtis. I think all of you have spoken today about the
    importance of building relationships to solve problems without
    creating more divisiveness.
        I was very fortunate to be part of an Emery County public
    lands package that was signed into law this year. And that, to
    me, was a perfect example of how locals are working together
    with the Federal agencies to find harmony and peace in these
    difficult public land conflicts.
        My county worked daily with local BLM officials. And
    because of that they came to better decisions. And when I go
    down in that county I hear great things about the local
    representation from BLM down there, and I feel like it was a
    win-win.
        Ms. Tubb, I am curious. The title of today's hearing
    alleges a widespread culture of anti-government attacks and
    abuse. Let me just read that again, ``a widespread culture of
    anti-government attacks and abuse.''
        First of all, do you agree with this characterization of
    the epidemic level threat of an anti-government activist?
        Ms. Tubb. No, I don't. And I think it is not characteristic
    to label all conflict as anti-government. As I think we have
    said across the panel, these are passionate issues because they
    affect people's lives. That doesn't mean they are anti-
    government.
        Mr. Curtis. Yes. Thank you. Your testimony, you argue that
    it is important for Federal land management agencies not to
    create unnecessary tension. What are some ways agencies can
    diffuse tension and encourage better relationships?
        Ms. Tubb. I think it is absolutely the relationship
    building and seeking compromise. Granted, I think land managers
    have a very difficult position to play because of the
    underlying law and regulation. Nevertheless, I think there are
    enough tools in there to create a give-and-take amongst land
    managers and the people affected by their decisions.
        Mr. Curtis. We have heard--and I want to endorse that we
    need to keep our Federal employees safe, and I wouldn't want
    anybody to think that I felt otherwise, but I would like to
    take advantage of this opportunity to share my concern that it
    doesn't always feel like this is a common concern for all
    Federal employees. And in law enforcement, even local law
    enforcement, I would hate to compare the statistics that we
    have heard today for Federal law enforcement threats versus
    local law enforcement. And I believe the number of lives lost
    in local law enforcement would far exceed this.
        So, I would like to just end my time with a plea for care
    and concern for all Federal employees, all law enforcement. We
    have not even talked about those down at the border. I have
    been down there, I know they are receiving threats on a
    consistent basis, and I want to make sure that we keep all of
    them in mind as we work to make their environment safer.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield my time.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. The Chair recognizes
    Mr. Lowenthal for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, as I say, thank
    you to all the panelists. I want to start with Ms. Fennell.
        In your testimony, you stated, as I read, that at the close
    of Fiscal Year 2018, the number of field law enforcement
    officers at each of the four land management agencies has
    declined since Fiscal Year 2013, and that decline makes it more
    difficult to protect employees. Can you first elaborate on the
    impact that these declines have had on employee safety?
        Ms. Fennell. It is one of a number of factors that have
    impacted the Federal Land Management Agency's efforts to
    protect Federal employees. The law enforcement officer decline
    ranged from 7 percent for the Park Service to 22 percent for
    the Forest Service from 2013 to 2018. The officers have a vast
    amount of land in which to survey, as well, so the number of
    law enforcement officers per millions of acres of the land is a
    fairly small ratio.
        There are various efforts that are underway to try to
    address that particular issue we heard about from the Federal
    land management agencies, including the spirit of sharing law
    enforcement officers to address various events that may be
    occurring, just as one way to address the decline in the
    numbers of law enforcement officers in the field.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Can you help me understand why there was the
    decline in law--was it just fiscal? Why was there a decline in
    law enforcement from 2013? It was not a time of great
    reductions in the U.S. economy. In fact, we were beginning the
    recovery by then.
        Ms. Fennell. It was not the focus of our line of
    questioning, because we were looking at the various factors
    that can impact their ability to protect employees. However,
    what law enforcement officers had indicated is that there had
    been budget and resource constraints contributing to the
    decline.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Nichols, you know that President Trump
    pardoned the Hammond family in 2018. You know that.
        Mr. Nichols. I know that.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes. I am just asking you. Can you tell me
    how that family is perceived in Harney County?
        Mr. Nichols. Well, sir, you are asking me my perception? My
    perception is there are two different ways of looking at them.
    They are outstanding people, and they are good community
    members. But, apparently, something was out of sync with the
    Department of Justice, and that course of action took place.
    Other than that, I don't believe it is my place to be answering
    that type of a question.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I was just asking what the community felt
    about this, or perceived of it, not about--was it much of a
    reaction?
        You indicated your reaction, in that you thought they were
    excellent people. I am just wondering whether there was much
    community reaction when this took place.
        Mr. Nichols. OK. The community reaction--the community is
    made up of people that are different in their opinions. It went
    a variety of different ways.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I am going to yield back. Thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. The Chair recognizes
    Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Ms.
    Fennell, in preparing the report, how often did land managers
    describe the public misconceptions about land use law, or what
    Federal agencies really do, as you were doing your report?
        Ms. Fennell. In terms of the Federal land management
    agencies and their efforts to protect their employees, they
    noted a number of different factors that can impact their
    ability to protect their employees, including the need to
    ensure that they have opportunities to inform the public and
    visitors about the land that they are managing, and any
    particular incidents that might arise.
        So, it was part of an opportunity for dialogue with the
    public who would be visiting their lands that that topic would
    arise.
        Mr. Grijalva. And a little bit of a followup, Professor
    Walker. You are a scholar on land use and political history
    behind land use laws. Could you explain a bit more about the
    misrepresentations of the Constitution that the anti-public
    land, anti-government activists rely on and, more pointedly,
    how courts have ruled on this issue throughout our history?
        Dr. Walker. I am sorry, sir, I couldn't quite follow the
    question.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. The misrepresentations of the
    Constitution that a lot of the anti-government, anti-public
    land activists on this issue rely on, and how the courts have
    ruled on unconstitutional issues regarding public land, in
    particular.
        Dr. Walker. How did the misrepresentation of the
    Constitution----
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
        Dr. Walker. I actually think that is a very important
    question. The militants of the Malheur Refuge have a very
    idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution, to put it
    mildly. Their interpretation is that the Federal Government has
    no jurisdiction over land or, really, over almost any other
    issues outside of Washington, DC.
        And my belief is that that has given a lot of sense of
    legitimacy to a broader anti-government movement out there. And
    it is expressed in particular through social media, where
    people seem to express opinions that anti-government
    activities, political activities, up to and including violence,
    is justified because the government has overstepped its
    constitutional authority.
        That constitutional interpretation is not supported by any
    legal scholars or historians or the U.S. Supreme Court. But
    when the militants spread that kind of mythology, it gives
    legitimacy to the anti-government movements, including violent
    ones.
        Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the Chair
    holding this hearing, because it is about the health and safety
    of the agency employees, the land management, and I think it
    is--let's not minimize what happened in Oregon. And it happens
    in Arizona, that these folks, public servants, do come under a
    great deal of not only political, but personal attacks,
    threats, harassment, and that their well-being should be a
    priority. And this hearing is a step in that direction.
        You know how things get misrepresented, let's take one
    example that was mentioned. The Arizona Wilderness Act was
    important to the state of Arizona. The important thing to note
    here, it was a wilderness bill and not a resource conservation
    bill. So, to equate it with anything else that is going on, I
    think, is a mistake. The Act did not consider threats to clean
    water. It did not consider how to protect the Colorado River
    watershed. It did not consider the impacts of uranium mining,
    which is key to the future discussion.
        The majority of the lands considered in the Grand Canyon
    mineral withdrawal under Obama were never even reviewed during
    the drafting of the wilderness bill. And staffers who helped
    draft the Wilderness Act have testified on record that
    conflating their bill with the withdrawal is simply incorrect.
    Yet, somehow we hear these arguments making this false
    comparison between the Arizona Wilderness Act and the mineral
    withdrawal.
        I don't see how any of this, that line of thinking,
    justifies extremist attacks on Federal employees. It is
    insulting to, I think, Federal land managers who get harassed
    in the supermarket, followed home, in their cars, get graffiti
    painted on their houses, get attacked at work, to be told that
    the Arizona Wilderness Act is just too much for reasonable
    people to handle.
        I think we can make bipartisan progress on this, but we are
    here because anti-government rhetoric de-humanizes government
    employees, period. And those employees are being threatened and
    harassed because they are doing their jobs, and we need to
    discuss how we improve their living and working conditions as
    we speak, and what protections we extend to them.
        We are not here, I don't think, with any misinformation. I
    think the GAO report is pretty clear.
        And I think we have an obligation to do something about it,
    Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I would recognize
    myself for 5 minutes.
        Professor Walker, you spent time with the Bundy militia at
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016. Did the views they
    shared with you sound anything like what you have heard
    elsewhere?
        In your opinion, was the militia expressing commonly held
    sentiments about how the American people want their public
    lands managed?
        Dr. Walker. Commonly held opinions in Harney County, or
    generally?
        Ms. Haaland. Really, anywhere that you have been.
        Dr. Walker. Yes.
        Ms. Haaland. Yes.
        Dr. Walker. The short answer is no. This is a very small
    community of anti-government activists. That particular group
    that is centered on the Bundy family is really a very small
    group of individuals.
        But what I am concerned about is that they give a sense of
    legitimacy to wider-spread anti-government groups.
        What happened at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was
    that the Bundys came to the wildlife refuge, and they began
    from a particular ideological perspective having to do with
    religious interpretations of the Constitution. But what they
    were advocating for was, essentially, an overthrow of the
    Federal Government, a replacement of the existing Federal
    Government.
        I asked the leader of the group directly whether he was
    really advocating for an overthrow or a replacement of the
    existing Federal Government. And he said yes. They made that
    message very clear.
        And other groups who have also advocated for the
    replacement of the existing Federal Government heard that
    message, and they heard the message that the Federal Government
    is broken, it is broken beyond repair, it needs to be replaced,
    and it is the duty of patriots through armed force to re-
    establish constitutional government.
        My concern is that some of those groups outside--you know,
    this is nationwide. Some of those groups have latched on to the
    Bundy family as giving a feeling, an impression, an image of
    legitimacy to their movement. Their movement, to a large
    degree, has a history tied to racism, xenophobia, anti-
    immigrant policy, and those sorts of ideologies. And the Bundy
    family has given a sort of more appealing public face to those
    movements. And in that sense I think that, even though their
    size as a group is very small, they have given legitimacy to
    wider-spread movements. That is my concern.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Nichols, in your testimony you stated that Harney
    County is almost like a poster child for collaborative
    approaches. I was wondering if you could briefly explain how
    Harney County residents worked with Federal land managers to
    collectively solve problems, rather than arguing, getting
    frustrated, and taking it out on Federal land managers.
        Do you have any suggestions of ways this Committee can
    encourage the use of approaches like this more widely?
        Mr. Nichols. Yes, I do. We have proved over and over in
    several different cases that sitting down and talking things
    through with everyone that has a vested interest in an issue is
    beneficial to the cause, beneficial to the result, the
    community, and especially the Federal land agencies involved.
        Over the course of years, things have changed dramatically
    in Harney County. We never were ``anti-government,'' but there
    have been and there still are things that need to be discussed
    and looked at. And that goes everywhere.
        Like I said, all across America. During the occupation, I
    got calls, literally, from Maine to California. And no matter
    how small the Federal land mass was in a state, there were
    still issues with it. That is not to say it is all bad, it
    isn't something that can't be overcome, but, again, the people
    need to be listened to and that is quite a broad question.
        You people are listening today. We appreciate that. But the
    time needs to be spent like we do in a collaborative process.
    It takes a long, long time to get to truly know the other
    people, their ideas, and their values. And what we have come to
    learn is everybody's values are about the same thing. It is
    just how you come to the end results that are different.
        And I can't express enough how we need to start
    communicating people to people, not an idea nor an agenda nor
    an organizational affiliation, but people to people. And until
    that happens--we all want protection of our Federal employees.
    That is paramount to them doing their job.
        But that is not looking at the cause of the problem. The
    cause of the problem is something going on in our society.
    Protection is necessary, but, quite honestly, we shouldn't have
    to be protecting our Federal employees. That should be
    something ingrained in the people themselves. It is a societal
    problem. It is a lack of communication.
        And, again, things aren't as horrific in the western United
    States as some of the things I have heard today are. There are
    places, undoubtedly.
        My son works for the Federal Government. He has for 16, 17
    years. Where he works right now, he loves it. And the people
    that they are serving love the services that they provide. It
    is basically a recreational type of a service within a forest
    in central Oregon. Where the rub comes in, quite often, as in
    the land masses, is that people are trying to make a living.
    They are paying taxes, they are raising children. Generational.
    They are taking care of the land. And there is always a threat
    of something coming down the pike and disturbing that. And,
    again, it isn't an anti-government, it is a fact of frustration
    and wondering what the future holds.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
    insight. It has been very helpful today.
        Do you have any other questions?
        I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
    Members for their questions.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    these in writing.
        Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
    submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
    hearing, and the hearing record will be open for 10 business
    days for these responses.
        Again, we are very appreciative that you all took the time
    to come here. Thank you so very much.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Haaland

      --  PowerPoint Presentation on Examples of Anti-Public Lands
                Extremism Rhetoric

                                     [all]