[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1820, ``THE FEDERAL LANDS
AMPLIFIED SECURITY FOR THE
HOMELAND ACT'' OR ``FLASH ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-13
__________
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
59-734 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA, Raul M. Grijalva, AZ,
Tom McClintock, CA Joe Neguse, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Melanie Stansbury, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Maxine Dexter, OR
Lauren Boebert, CO Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Cliff Bentz, OR Emily Randall, WA
Jen Kiggans, VA Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Sarah Elfreth, MD
Mike Collins, GA Adam Gray, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Luz Rivas, CA
Mark Amodei, NV Nydia Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI Debbie Dingell, MI
Mike Ezell, MS Darren Soto, FL
Celest Maloy, Utah Julia Brownley, CA
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
MIKE KENNEDY, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Tom McClintock, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Russ Fulcher, ID Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Cliff Bentz, OR Jared Golden, ME
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Maxine Dexter, OR
Mark Amodei, NV Emily Randall, WA
Celeste Maloy, UT Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Mike Kennedy, UT
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
-----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 11, 2025.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 4
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 5
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Ciscomani, Hon. Juan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 8
Prepared Statement of.................................... 44
Statement of Witnesses:
Cleveland, Thaddeus C., Sheriff, Terrell County, Sanderson,
Texas...................................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 13
Perez, Paul, President, National Border Patrol Council,
Edinburg, TX............................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Krumenaker, Bob, Retired National Park Service
Superintendent, Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild
and Scenic River, Carlsbad, NM............................. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Lopez, Larry, Lieutenant, San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department, San Bernardino, CA............................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record
on H.R. 1820........................................... 44
Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez
Fired U.S. Forest Service worker at Coronado National
Forest speaks out...................................... 33
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler and Jason
[email protected], [email protected]; x6-
7736
Date: March 10, 2025
Subject: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the
``Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland Act'' or
``FLASH Act''.
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing
on H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security
for the Homeland Act'' or ``FLASH Act.'' The hearing will take place on
Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House
Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 10, 2025,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
During its four years in office, the Biden administration
subjected our country to a series of disastrous immigration
policies. These reckless measures flung open the southern
border, prompting record numbers of illegal crossings and
drug seizures.
Much of the predictable harm that followed these actions
occurred along the roughly 35 percent of the U.S.-Mexico
border that is administered by federal land management
agencies. Even during periods of strong enforcement,
federal border lands are targeted by criminals, drug
smugglers, and human traffickers because they are remote,
largely uninhabited, and less frequently patrolled.
Throughout the Biden border crisis, however, our nation's
national parks and public lands were left especially
vulnerable. As surges in illegal immigration were
accompanied by enormous trash piles, unauthorized trails,
countless wildfires, and illegal marijuana cultivation in
public areas, federal land managers did little to stop the
damage. Instead, the Biden administration was busy turning
national parks into migrant shelters.
With the return of President Trump and Republican
majorities in Congress, however, relief is finally at hand.
The ``FLASH Act'' offers comprehensive solutions that will
complement the Trump administration's executive actions to
ensure that our federal lands can now be protected from
environmental harm, opened to the public for safe
enjoyment, and made accessible to law enforcement officials
to provide improved border security.
These provisions will also serve as vital safeguards
against any future presidential administration that may
again seek to disregard the public interest and plunge the
nation into the chaos that results from an open-border
ideology.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I (Members of Congress):
The Honorable Juan Ciscomani, Member of Congress,
Arizona's 6th Congressional District
Panel II (Outside Experts):
The Honorable Thaddeus C. Cleveland, Sheriff, Terrell
County, Sanderson, Texas
Mr. Paul A. Perez, President, National Border Patrol
Council, Edinburg, Texas
Mr. Larry Lopez, Lieutenant, San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department, San Bernardino, California
Mr. Bob Krumenaker, Former Superintendent of Big Bend
National Park (Retired), Coalition to Protect America's
National Parks and the Association of National Park
Rangers, Carlsbad, New Mexico [Minority witness]
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 1820 (Rep. Ciscomani), the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security for
the Homeland Act'' or ``FLASH Act''
Overview of the Biden Administration's Border Crisis
The FLASH Act is the next step in the Committee on Natural
Resources' legislative work addressing the Biden administration's
border crisis. This legislation will restore the health of our national
parks and public lands and shield them from abuse under a future open-
borders administration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9734.004
For information on the Committee's previous legislative and
oversight hearings related to former President Biden's crisis at the
border, please see:
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands' legislative hearings on
federal border lands security bills on March 23, 2023 and
October 19, 2023.
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands' oversight field hearing
in Sierra Vista, Arizona, entitled ``Biden's Border Crisis:
The Consequences of Failing to Secure Federal Border
Lands.''
The Natural Resources Committee's hearing entitled
``Destroying America's Best Idea: Examining the Biden
Administration's Use of National Park Service Lands for
Migrant Camps.''
The Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigation's hearing
entitled ``Securing Our Border, Saving Our National
Parks.''
The Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southern
border created a confluence of security, environmental, and
humanitarian crises. Our country is still reeling from those upheavals,
with various metrics registering the troubling extent of the damage.
Under President Biden, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
reported approximately 10.8 million illegal-entry encounters across the
U.S.1 For comparison, that was more than triple the number
of encounters reported during the period roughly covering President
Trump's first term.2 Under President Biden, 8.7 million of
the encounters occurred along the southern border, illustrating the
extreme stress placed upon that region.3 Concerningly, 392
illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist were apprehended between
ports of entry along the southern border during this time.4
Given that an estimated two million ``got-aways'' evaded capture under
Biden's watch, it is very likely that far greater numbers of
potentially dangerous persons illegally entered the
country.5 Drug trafficking also surged alongside rising
border crossings. In July 2024, for instance, CBP reported the largest
fentanyl seizure in the agency's history, confiscating over four
million blue fentanyl pills.6 Unfortunately, this event was
not atypical; CBP seized approximately 21,100 pounds of fentanyl along
the southern border in fiscal year (FY) 2024.7 This is
enough fentanyl to kill approximately 4.1 billion people, or enough
fatal doses to kill the entire U.S. population 14 times
over.8 Against this backdrop of widespread harm, it is
unsurprising that President Trump declared a national emergency at the
southern border immediately upon returning to office.9
Some of the most dangerous areas along the southern border are the
estimated 693 miles of federal land, representing approximately 35
percent of the total 1,965 miles of the southern border.10
Federal land management agencies including the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) all manage lands along the southern border.11 Many of
these lands have restrictive land designations, including national
parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and national wildlife
refuges. Federal lands along the border are often targeted by
criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers because they are
remote, largely uninhabited, and less frequently
patrolled.12 Even in periods of strong enforcement, CBP
agents face difficulties patrolling federal border lands due to the
patchwork of ``environmental laws, regulations and memos'' drafted by
faraway supervisors and managers.13 According to Brandon
Judd, a former president of the National Border Patrol Council, these
regulations undermine CBP's ``ability to effectively and efficiently
secure our borders and put the lives of [CBP's] agents and the public
at greater risk.'' 14
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To help our federal border lands recover from this crisis and
gain the protections afforded by adequate enforcement, Representative
Ciscomani (R-AZ) introduced the ``Federal Lands Amplified Security for
the Homeland Act'', or ``FLASH Act'', on March 4, 2025.
H.R. 1820, the FLASH Act
Title I--Securing Federal Border Lands
The Pressing Need for Navigable Roads
One of the primary issues CBP officers face when operating on
federal lands is the lack of accessible, navigable roads. Accessible
roads, paired with physical barriers such as fences or walls in
strategic locations, are pivotal to securing our southern border. Fully
accessible and well-maintained roads help CBP agents ``interdict and
apprehend illegal entrants'' and support the construction and
maintenance of other tactical infrastructure.15 They also
enable CBP personnel to ``efficiently traverse their areas of
responsibility,'' thus improving the agency's overall operational
effectiveness and mobility.16 Poorly maintained roads, by
contrast, have been reported to have ``negatively affected agents'
ability to respond and resolve illicit activity.'' 17
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Despite its central importance, much of the road network in the
southern border region falls far below what is necessary for effective
border security. In fact, as of 2019, only 29 percent of the
approximately 4,900 miles of roads CBP uses for operational patrols
were owned by CBP or subject to CBP's rights to conduct maintenance and
repair.18 Worse still, only 146 miles of those roads were in
all-weather condition.19 CBP's lack of access to navigable
roads is especially pronounced on federal lands, which often comprise
rugged and sparsely populated terrain.20 In Arizona's
Coronado National Forest, for example, ``the inability to build proper
access roads along and near the [border] line, including secondary
roads, diminished agent mobility while patrolling and ultimately
prevented agents from being as effective as they could otherwise be.''
21
There is therefore an immediate need to build accessible patrol
roads along our southern border. While President Trump requested
significant funding for road maintenance during his first term,
President Biden largely neglected this situation.22 This
lack of action persisted despite a 2023 acknowledgment by the
Department of Homeland Security of ``an acute and immediate need to
construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of
the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United
States . . . '' 23 Back in office, President Trump has
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security ``to supplement available
personnel to secure the southern border.'' 24 The
construction of additional roads could greatly enhance the operational
effectiveness of this planned influx of enforcement personnel to the
region.
Title I of the FLASH Act seeks to offset the road shortages that
prevailed under the Biden administration. Effective border security
requires that roads and physical barriers be constructed along the full
length of federal border lands so that all illegal access points can be
monitored. Otherwise, illegal migrants will shift their entry patterns
to less-defended portions of the southern border, as has occurred in
the past.25 Adopting a comprehensive approach, Title I would
direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to install
navigable roads on all federal lands along the southern border. Title I
requires at least 584 miles of road, the most conservative estimate of
federal land along the border.26 This includes roughly 61
miles in California, 190 miles in Arizona, 81 miles in New Mexico, and
251 miles in Texas.27 Additionally, these roads must be
completed within five years. The roads will be accessible to the
Department of Defense (DOD), CBP, local law enforcement, emergency
response personnel, and others the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior deem necessary. Title I also requires those Secretaries to
work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to deploy fencing,
surveillance, and related technology along these roads. Taken together,
these provisions are crucial to secure our border, stop the smuggling
of narcotics and weapons into our country, and halt environmental
damage associated with illegal border crossers.
This section of Title 1 reflects an updated version of draft
legislation from the 118th Congress sponsored by Chairman Bruce
Westerman (R-AR), entitled ``Ensuring Border Access and Protection on
Federal Land Act.'' Hearing information on the legislation, including
testimony, can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965
and the hearing memo can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf
Increasing CBP's Operational Capabilities on Public Lands
CBP's enforcement efforts along the southern border are also
hampered by restrictive land use designations and limitations that
federal land managers impose on CBP's access. Among land use
designations, wilderness areas pose especially serious challenges. For
example, since mechanized and motorized vehicles are prohibited within
wilderness areas, CBP agents must rely on horses to engage in or
continue their pursuits.28 This switch from vehicle to
horseback squanders valuable time and jeopardizes officer
safety.29 With approximately 1.1 million acres of land along
the southern border designated as wilderness, such challenges cannot be
avoided without altering the status quo.30 Even the Obama
administration acknowledged that wilderness areas and their associated
restrictions ``can be detrimental to the most effective accomplishment
of [CBP's] missions'' and can even serve as ``a hindrance to the
maintenance of officer safety.'' 31 This lack of
accessibility also hampers CBP rescue operations, which were conducted
5,420 times along the southern border in FY 2024.32 Without
the ability to use mechanized equipment, these rescue operations become
more dangerous, costly, and time-consuming.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Title I incorporates provisions from the ``Securing Our Borders
and Wilderness Act,'' a bill sponsored by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)
in the 118th Congress, to address the unique challenges posed by
wilderness areas.33 Title I amends the Wilderness Act of
1964 to ensure CBP can conduct specified activities within wilderness
areas to secure the southern border.34 These permitted
activities include building access structures, installations, and
roads; executing search and rescue operations; using motor vehicles,
motorboats, or motorized equipment; conducting foot and horseback
patrols; using aircraft (consistent with other applicable laws) ;
deploying tactical infrastructure and technology; and constructing and
maintaining physical roads and barriers. When performing these
activities, CBP is required to protect, to the extent possible, the
wilderness character of the area.
In addition to statutory land use designations, federal land
managers impose various restrictions on CBP activity. For example, when
CBP requested permission to move surveillance equipment, federal land
managers took ``more than 4 months to conduct the required historic
property assessment and grant permission, but by then illegal traffic
had shifted to other areas.'' 35 To counter this problem,
Title I prohibits the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) from restricting CBP actions within
100 miles of the southern border that involve search and rescue
operations, apprehensions, and preventing unlawful entries into the
United States.
Previously, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
federal land management agencies had signaled their mutual intent to
work together to ensure border security. Specifically, DHS, DOI, and
USDA entered into a March 2006 agreement entitled, ``Memorandum of
Understanding Among U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S.
Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture Regarding
Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal
Lands along the United States' Borders,'' (2006 MOU).36 The
2006 MOU provides specific guidance on cooperation related to border
security, committing the signatories ``to preventing illegal entry into
the United States, protecting Federal lands and natural and cultural
resources, and--where possible--preventing adverse impacts associated
with illegal entry.'' 37 As noted by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO), however, ``such cooperation has not always
occurred,'' as CBP officials report excessive delays in trying to
coordinate with federal land managers.38 Accordingly, Title
I directs DOI, USDA, and DHS to fulfill the commitments made in the
2006 MOU, or any succeeding memorandum of understanding. With greater
cooperation among federal agencies, better enforcement outcomes are
more likely to occur.
Empowering Border States to Protect Their Communities
The Biden administration also worsened the border crisis by
repeatedly obstructing state-led enforcement measures. Having borne the
brunt of mass-scale illegal migration, several states attempted to
erect their own barriers along the southern border. In 2022, for
example, Arizona, under then Governor Doug Ducey, ``set up hundreds of
double-stacked shipping containers'' along the state's border with
Mexico to stem the surge of illegal immigrants arriving amidst the
Biden administration's border crisis.39 Similarly, in 2022
and 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott placed shipping containers along
Texas's portion of the southern border and ``installed wrecking-ball-
sized buoys and razor wire along the Rio Grande'' to achieve the same
purpose.40 However, after legal challenges from the Biden
administration, the Supreme Court eventually ruled to allow CBP to
remove some of these barriers.41
Through Congressional action, states may be authorized to act
without upsetting the federal supremacy issues the Supreme Court was
determined to uphold. Title I, therefore, empowers states to secure the
southern border so they are never again rendered powerless in the face
of an open-border presidency. Reflecting solutions put forward in H.R.
534, sponsored by Representative David Rouzer (R-NC), Title I grants
border states the explicit authority to place temporary barriers on
federal land to prevent illegal immigration and protect their
communities.42 Title I accomplishes this by prohibiting DOI
and USDA from requiring southern border states to obtain a special use
authorization for placing movable, temporary structures on federal land
if the state notifies the federal land management agency not later than
45 days before placement. These structures may be put in place for one
year or less, but the states can apply for 90-day extensions from USDA
or DOI, subject to CBP overview.
Title II--Ending Environmental Destruction on Public Lands
Subtitle A--Trash Reduction And Suppressing Harm from Environmental
Degradation at the Border (TRASHED Border) Act
There are devastating environmental consequences of illegal
immigration. Illegal immigrants leave behind trash, including human
waste, medical products, abandoned vehicles, and plastic. Illegal trash
dumping along the border threatens wildlife, destroys habitat, and
attracts disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes and flies. Human
waste is a growing problem that contaminates the drinking water of
nearby residents. This trash puts an incredible strain on federal,
state, Tribal, local, and private land managers and owners. In FY 2021,
BLM district offices cleaned up 235 sites, collecting over 193 tons of
garbage.43 The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
estimates that more than 2,000 tons of trash are discarded annually
along Arizona's border.44
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Subtitle A of Title II reflects legislation sponsored by
Federal Lands Subcommittee Chairman Tom Tiffany (R-WI) in the 118th
Congress.45 The ``Trash Reduction And Suppressing Harm from
Environmental Degradation at the Border (TRASHED Border) Act''
addresses environmental damage on federal border lands caused by
illegal immigration. This includes areas where aliens are being housed
or camping on federal land and areas where there is damage to sensitive
natural and archaeological resources and destruction of wildlife
habitat. This subtitle would require federal land management agencies
to develop policies and protocols to prevent and mitigate environmental
damage from illegal immigrants. In addition, to bring greater
transparency, federal land management agencies must report the amount
of waste collected on southern border lands, sites housing migrants,
and sites used to cultivate illegal marijuana. Having greater
transparency will show the true extent of the environmental impacts
illegal immigration has on federal lands. To deter future harmful
activities, this subtitle increases the fines and penalties imposed on
those aliens without legal status who are engaged in illegal trash--or
fire-related activities on federal land.
Hearing information on Chairman Tiffany's legislation, including
testimony, can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965
and the hearing memo can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf
Subtitle B--Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants
(TOXIC) Act
Trash accumulation from illegal immigration is not limited solely
to federal border lands. Illegal cannabis cultivation, which produces
enormous quantities of waste, occurs on federal land throughout the
country. These illicit cultivation activities are often performed by
illegal immigrants or those connected to a drug cartel. USFS law
enforcement officials estimated the arrests they make for illegal
cannabis cultivation are ``almost all drug cartel-related.''
46 USFS also reported that 5,801 illegal cannabis
cultivation sites were detected on National Forest System lands over
the 2011-2022 period.47 While data is limited, USFS
estimated that they removed 381,510 pounds of trash, 479 miles of
plastic irrigation lines, and 228 containers of banned and illegal
pesticides from illegal cultivation sites over a roughly 20-year
period.48 USFS estimated illegal marijuana cultivation on
National Forest System lands earns cartels an estimated $56 to $91
million annually.49 The cost of cleaning up these sites has
been roughly $40,000 per site.50 At one illegal site, an
environmental assessment ``concluded that more than 14.25 million
gallons of water were illegally diverted.'' 51
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Subtitle B of Title II reflects an updated version of
legislation from the 118th Congress, the ``Targeting and Offsetting
Existing Illegal Contaminants (TOXIC) Act.'' 52 The TOXIC
Act would seek to address the environmental damage caused by toxic
chemicals associated with illegal marijuana cultivation and subject
those illegally cultivating and harvesting marijuana on federal lands
to stricter criminal penalties. Specifically, this bill creates a
Trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Response Initiative for the land
management agencies. The TOXIC Act also raises the criminal penalties
for using banned pesticides in illegal cannabis cultivation to a
maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, which would create
parity with the existing penalties for smuggling banned chemicals into
the country. During the legislative hearing on H.R. 1473, DOI advised
that similar authority for federal land under the management of DOI
would be beneficial.53 The updated language incorporated in
the FLASH Act includes DOI-managed land and reflects technical
assistance from USFS, DOI, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.54
Hearing information on the TOXIC Act from the last Congress,
including testimony, can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=412935
and the hearing memo can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_forestry_bills_03.23.23_final.pdf
Subtitle C--Ending Major Border Land Environmental Ruin From Wildfires
Additionally, wildfires sparked by cross-border violators' (CBVs)
campfires contribute to the destruction of natural resources and
wildlife habitat throughout federal border lands.55 In 2011,
GAO produced a report to analyze the wildfires along the southern
border in Arizona.56 At least 2,467 wildfires occurred in
the Arizona border region during a four-year span, resulting in over
$35 million in fire suppression costs.57 Fighting fire along
the border is more difficult due to safety concerns. Nighttime
operations and aerial firefighting methods are limited due to the
presence of CBVs.58 USFS can directly link illegal
cultivation of marijuana on federal lands as the primary culprit behind
wildfires that ultimately burned 265,00 acres.59 Illegal
cannabis sites in national forests exacerbate the dual threats of
catastrophic wildfire and severe drought. Recently, in 2020, an illegal
cannabis grower started the 125,000-acre Dolan Fire in the Los Padres
National Forest, which killed 11 endangered condors.60
Subtitle C of Title II codifies the Southern Border Fuels
Management Initiative, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to
prioritize fuels management on federal land along the southern border.
This Initiative was started under President Trump's first term to
``increase safety and visibility for our border patrol agents, improve
national security, and increase landscape resilience through vegetation
management'' along the U.S.-Mexico border.'' 61 This
important Initiative allowed DOI to install 30 miles of fuel breaks in
FY 2019 and treat nearly 80,000 acres of land to reduce hazardous
fuels.62 Among its litany of border-related failures,
however, the Biden administration allowed this crucial program to go
dormant. By codifying this Initiative in federal statute, this subtitle
of the FLASH Act will prevent such a lapse from recurring, improve
operational efficiencies along the border, and reduce the risk of
future catastrophic wildfires. Further, this subtitle would direct GAO
to update, within two years of enactment, its November 2011 report
entitled ``Federal Agencies Could Better Utilize Law Enforcement
Resources in Support of Wildland Fire Management Activities.''
63 Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) introduced this
subtitle as standalone legislation, the ``Ending Major Borderland
Environmental Ruin from Wildfires (EMBER) Act,'' during the 118th
Congress.64
Title III--Protecting Our Communities from Failure to Secure the Border
The widespread effects of President Biden's border crisis turned
every American community into a border community. His administration's
unprecedented decision to lease National Park System land to New York
City (NYC) to relieve pressure on their migrant housing crisis was a
dangerous and failed experiment. After signing a lease with NYC in the
summer of 2023, the Biden administration established a migrant
encampment at Floyd Bennett Field (FBF), part of the Gateway National
Recreation Area in NYC. House Committee on Natural Resources
Republicans repeatedly conducted oversight on this abuse of power,
including the misuse and denial of access to America's federal lands.
Virtually every major concern the Committee raised ultimately came to
fruition. The migrant crisis in NYC and the existence of the encampment
at FBF led to increased crime targeting local NYC community
residents.65 Numerous reports of criminality in and around
the FBF migrant camp included allegations of domestic violence,
assault, shoplifting, prostitution, and panhandling scams.66
Before the FBF Lease expired on September 14, 2024, NPS renewed the
lease for another year.67 Shortly thereafter, the City of
New York announced it would be terminating its lease with the site and
ending the migrant encampment on March 10, 2025.68
Biden administration officials responsible for deliberately
transforming FBF into a migrant camp sought to evade congressional
oversight and accountability. The Committee launched a thorough
investigation into the FBF lease, which involved requests for document
productions, briefings, and interviews with several federal agencies,
including NPS, DHS, Council on Environmental Quality, and White House
officials. On August 9, 2024, Chairman Westerman issued a subpoena to
DHS for documents related to the lease agreement.69 The
Committee plans to continue working with the Trump administration to
finally get answers to outstanding questions from the previous
administration and bring accountability to this ill-conceived lease.
In addition to restricting public access to national park lands,
the FBF lease sets a terrible precedent by transforming America's best
idea--our national parks--into inaccessible migrant encampments. To
ensure this blatant misuse of public lands never recurs, Title III of
the FLASH Act reflects legislation sponsored by Representative Nicole
Malliotakis (R-NY) in the 118th Congress, which passed the House of
Representatives with a bipartisan vote of 224-203 on November 30,
2024.70 Title III would prohibit federal funding from being
used to house illegal immigrants on federal land for reasons unrelated
to DHS and DOD border enforcement operations. It would also cancel the
renewed FBF lease to ensure this harmful precedent cannot be used as a
justification by future administrations to turn national parks into
migrant shelters.
Hearing information on Representative Nicole Malliotakis's
legislation from the last Congress, including testimony, can be found
here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414965
and the hearing memo can be found here:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_4_border_bills_10.19.23.pdf
V. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
FLASH Act Section-by-Section
V. COST
A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
is not yet available. CBO previously scored Title III of the
legislation and determined the ``net effect on direct spending would be
negligible.'' 71
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The administration's position is unknown at this time.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 1820
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1820, TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION CURRENTLY IMPACTING FEDERAL LANDS ALONG
THE SOUTHERN BORDER, ENHANCE BORDER SECURITY THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION
OF NAVIGABLE ROADS ON FEDERAL LANDS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER, PROVIDE
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS TO IMPROVE
THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, ALLOW STATES TO
PLACE TEMPORARY BARRIERS ON FEDERAL LAND TO SECURE THE SOUTHERN BORDER,
REDUCE THE MASSIVE TRASH ACCUMULATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
ALONG THE SOUTHERRI BORDER, REDUCE THE CULTIVATION OF ILLEGAL CANNABIS
ON FEDERAL LANDS, MITIGATE WILDLAND FIRES CAUSED BY ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION, AND PROHIBIT MIGRANT HOUSING ON FEDERAL LANDS, ``THE
FEDERAL LANDS AMPLIFIED SECURITY FOR THE HOMELAND ACT'' OR ``FLASH
ACT''
----------
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher,
Stauber, Bentz, Maloy, Kennedy; Neguse, Leger Fernandez, and
Dexter.
Also present: Representatives Westerman, Hageman,
Ciscomani, and Huffman.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider H.R. 1820
sponsored by Representative Ciscomani, the Federal Lands
Amplified Security for the Homeland Act, or the FLASH Act. This
bill represents comprehensive solutions to secure our Federal
border lands and protect them from environmental damage.
I ask unanimous consent that the following members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, and the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Tiffany. First of all, I want to begin by commending
Representative Ciscomani for both the timeliness and the
importance of the legislation he has brought before us today.
As has been widely reported, the Biden-Harris Administration
has compiled the most incompetent and disgraceful record
imaginable when it comes to the protection of our southern
border. Although President Biden is no longer in office, the
country is still reeling from his damaging and disgraceful open
border policies.
Under the former President's watch, immigration authorities
recorded more than 8.7 million encounters with illegal
immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico. This
unprecedented surge overwhelmed America's response capabilities
and created a confluence of security, environmental, and
humanitarian crises.
Thankfully, President Trump is taking strong and decisive
action to end this crisis. But Congress must also do its part.
We must create robust safeguards to ensure that this kind of
reckless damage can never again be inflicted by an
irresponsible president.
Recognizing this duty, my colleague from Arizona,
Representative Ciscomani, has presented the thoughtful
legislative package before us today. His bill empowers Border
Patrol and local law enforcement to protect those areas that
were left especially exposed and vulnerable by the Biden
administration, our southern Federal border lands.
Approximately 35 percent of the southern border is
federally owned, so the conditions that prevail in those areas
have a significant influence on overall border security. And
the large-scale illegal migration that has occurred in those
regions has also destroyed fragile ecosystems.
The facts are unambiguous. State governments, and we must
rely on state estimates since Federal agencies refused to
gather meaningful data, have calculated that each illegal
migrant leaves behind an estimated six to eight pounds of trash
during their journey across the border. With more than 2.1
million encounters with illegal entrants last year, it is
likely that illegal immigrants left a minimum of 12 million
pounds of trash in 2024 alone. Worse still, this environmental
degradation is happening in our most sensitive landscapes,
national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas.
Last February, I witnessed some of this ecological
devastation firsthand, when this Subcommittee held a field
oversight hearing on the border in Sierra Vista, Arizona. I
visited the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in the
Coronado National Forest. While there, I was dismayed to see
trash-strewn landscapes, illegal campfires, and decaying food
piles.
If we truly care about conserving our Federal lands and
leaving them in better state for future generations, we cannot
ignore this crisis. And by the way, you can see a picture of
that right behind me here.
It is with this realization that prompted me to sponsor the
TRASHED Border Act last Congress. That bill requires Federal
land managers to develop policies and protocols for addressing
the massive trash accumulations that have piled up along the
southern border. It also requires those agencies to provide
current data on the amount of waste collected on Federal lands
along the southern border. Finally, that legislation would
increase penalties and fines for illegal immigrants who
desecrate our public lands. Key provisions of that bill are
incorporated in today's legislative package.
The border crisis's impact on public lands was not limited
solely to environmental damage. Under the Biden administration,
Federal border lands became increasingly dangerous. Even in
strong enforcement years, Federal border lands are often
targeted by criminals, drug smugglers, and human traffickers
because they are remote, largely uninhabited, and less
frequently patrolled. Under President Biden's shameful neglect,
certain sectors resembled all-out war zones.
Federal border lands have also become a haven for organized
crime. Drug smugglers and human traffickers have directed
illegal border crossers toward sparsely populated portions of
the border to enter the U.S. with a lower chance of detection.
Border Patrol agents have reported being fired upon in rugged
terrain when attempting to arrest suspected illegal migrants.
Given the unprecedented numbers of known gang members and
suspected terrorists who have crossed the border, this
mismanagement has made America's public lands alarmingly
unsafe. The issue is even more pronounced in wilderness areas,
which comprise over a million acres along the southern border.
In these areas, Federal land managers impose severe limitations
on Border Patrol's accessibility. For example, since mechanized
and motorized vehicles are prohibited within wilderness areas,
Border Patrol agents must rely on horses to pursue fleeing
suspects in cars or off-highway vehicles. These nonsensical
restrictions hamper operational effectiveness and needlessly
jeopardize officer safety.
Despite their dismal track record, I still hope that my
Democrat colleagues will join us in protecting our Federal
border lands and the safety of all who find themselves there.
Everything in today's featured legislation deserves strong
bipartisan support.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and
I look forward to the insights that each of you will bring to
this important discussion.
With that, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Neguse.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to read just two brief excerpts from two different
articles in the last 2 weeks. One is from the Star Tribune:
Superior National Forest Staff Deficit Worsens. An agency
employee in Minnesota, who requested anonymity out of fear of
retribution, said the cuts and fallout have SNF, Superior
National Forest, staff in crisis mode. Other forest colleagues
are worried that they will lose their jobs, and some career
employees feel pressured to resign or risk losing benefits, the
worker added. We were already hanging on by a thread, the
person added. Now, Musk, Trump, and DOGE are thinning us even
further. This is huge for the Boundary Waters recreation and
timber and fire management.
Another article headline: ` There is Literally No One': The
fallout coming to Lake Tahoe after Forest Service gutted. This
is from the San Francisco Gate newspaper.
Mr. Chairman, across the country, Forest Service employees,
Department of the Interior employees, civil servants at the
Bureau of Land Management are losing their jobs, they are being
purged from the Federal Government, in many of your districts,
as is the case in mine. Timber management, wildfire management,
wildfire mitigation, watershed protection, all of it put at
risk. And while I have a great respect for my colleague from
Arizona and we work closely together on a number of different
matters, I have to be candid that I am disappointed that this
Subcommittee has not even entertained the idea of convening on
any of the matters that I just described.
I understand this is a priority for my Republican
colleagues. I understand this bill that you have proposed that
directs, I guess, my sense is it essentially tells the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior that they cannot
impede any efforts of DHS. Of course, it seems like that could
be achieved by a phone call. Right? I mean, you could call
Secretary Burgum at the Department of the Interior and say to
him, hey, it would be helpful if you did not impede any of the
efforts of Secretary Noem at the Department of Homeland
Security. I am not really understanding why it requires a
Federal law and the expenditure of our time here today when in
every single one of your districts, Forest Service employees
are being fired as we speak. Does not make sense to me.
The priorities of this Committee, as is the case with the
priorities of the Majority, are out of step with the facts on
the ground. And, you know, Chairman, you know me to not be, I
think at least, a particularly partisan person. We have worked
together for years on this particular Subcommittee considering
bipartisan legislation. It is the most productive subcommittee,
at least it was, in the U.S. Congress. Hundreds of bills by
members on both sides of the aisle that are largely supported
on a unanimous basis.
So it pains me to lay bare my fears in this regard. But I
have to do that, because when I go back home to my district at
the end of the week, I can promise you they are not going to
ask me about this bill. What they are going to ask me about are
the wildfire mitigation projects in the national forests that I
have the privilege of representing that are now in jeopardy
because the Trump administration has decided to gut the Federal
workforce. And they will ask why, as the Ranking Member of the
Federal Lands Subcommittee, we have not taken that up. And I
will tell them, well, it is because this week Republicans
decided that rather than telling Secretary Burgum to work with
the Department of Homeland Security, they passed a Federal law
to force him to do it. That is your prerogative, you choose the
agenda here. But make no mistake, I do not think the American
people are going to be supportive.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. And I do
truly enjoy working with you here and look forward to
continuing to do that.
And I will recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Mr. Westerman, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for holding
this hearing today. I also want to thank Representative
Ciscomani for compiling this crucial legislation.
The Committee traveled to Representative Ciscomani's
district last year to see firsthand the environmental
destruction happening on southern Federal border lands. We went
to the border with Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels. Sheriff
Dannels told us something I would like everyone to remember as
we listen to today's hearing. ``We do not have a border
security problem in this country; we have an organized crime
problem,'' is what the sheriff told us at that field hearing.
Nowhere is this issue more pronounced than on Federal
lands. People often do not realize just how much of our
southern border is comprised of Federal land. In Arizona, for
example, 80 percent of the border is federally owned.
On this Committee, we have often highlighted the serious
problems that result from excessive Federal landownership. But
these issues take on an even greater significance along the
southern border, where America's safety and sovereignty are on
the line.
Whenever I meet with CBP officials, they reiterate how
difficult it is to patrol the Federal portions of the border.
These agents, who are just trying to do their jobs, frequently
lack accessible roads to conduct effective controls and must
contend with the head-scratching absence of physical barriers
that are proven to reduce illegal immigration. In some areas,
restrictive land use designations, such as wilderness areas,
mean agents must stop active pursuit of dangerous criminals
because they cannot use mechanized or motorized equipment.
Instead, they have to wait for horses to arrive while dangerous
illegal immigrants get further and further away. This just is
not common sense.
These restrictions come with considerable cost. When we
fail to secure our Federal lands, we fail to secure our border.
This lesson was revealed in painful clarity during the recent
chaos of the Biden administration when more than eight million
illegal entry attempts occurred along the southern border. This
surge in illegal crossings pushed law enforcement to the brink
and imperiled the well-being of large swaths of our public
lands.
Drug and human traffickers seek out remote areas to access
the country and evade detection. Illegal immigrants cut trails
through sensitive wildlife habitat, start wildfires, and leave
behind an estimated six to eight pounds of trash per person.
Illegal immigration also deters members of the public from
visiting these areas, effectively nullifying their right to
safe access. The effects of illegal immigration extend far
beyond the southern border. In California, dangerous cartels
grow illegal marijuana on Federal forest lands and use the
proceeds to fund gang wars, human trafficking, and other
illicit activities. In New York, an overwhelming crush of
migrants prompted the Biden administration to turn National
Park Service land into an illegal immigrant tent city against
the sustained outrage of local residents.
Action is long overdue, and the FLASH Act will tackle some
of the most urgent issues facing Federal border lands. It will
demand better coordination between Federal land managers and
Border Patrol agents to improve enforcement in remote areas.
The legislation requires Federal agencies to meaningfully
address trash accumulations, marijuana cultivation, and other
environmental hazards on our public landscapes. The bill also
guarantees appalling abuses of national park lands, like what
happened at Floyd Bennett Field, will never happen again.
Finally, the FLASH Act includes my legislation that would
build new roads along the southern border to increase the
operational effectiveness of Border Patrol operations. I first
learned about the lack of accessible roads from Border Patrol
agents on a tour in the Coronado National Forest, and it
overwhelmingly remains the No. 1 security concern I hear about
on our Federal lands.
Taken together, these statutory authorities will complement
the work President Trump is doing to secure our border and keep
our nation safer and more prosperous for generations to come.
Again, I am grateful for Representative Ciscomani's leadership
on the issue, and I especially appreciate all the witnesses who
have traveled to be here.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you Chairman Westerman.
I now turn to the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.
Huffman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a real crisis unfolding on our public lands that
we really should be talking about today, but we are not. In
just 2 months, President Trump and an unelected billionaire
crony of his, Elon Musk, have upended every Federal agency,
recklessly laying off thousands of public servants, blocking
critical funding for grants and critical projects, closing and
attempting to sell key office buildings throughout the country.
And the result is chaos and dysfunction across the government.
The damage to our public lands is significant. Stop work
orders are stalling or canceling wildfire mitigation projects.
We may lose an entire season of wildfire preparation. Partner
organizations are halting maintenance work that ensures safe
public access to our public lands. Scientific research that
informs how we manage habitat, how we adapt to climate change,
which is a real thing, is being shelved. And now, we are just 3
days away from a Federal Government shutdown.
And despite all of this, Republicans on this Committee have
shown no interest in actual real oversight. They even refuse to
question the so-called Department of Government Efficiency or
any of its reckless, half-baked schemes that are coming out of
this administration. And in fact, to make it worse, they are
getting ready to vote on what they call a C.R., which is
actually a partisan, full-year funding bill, that surrenders
all Article 1 authority to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, provides
a rubber stamp for them to do even more of these reckless,
destructive actions without any concern from our friends across
the aisle.
Meanwhile, the data continues to disappear from Mr. Musk's
error-filled, quote, ``wall of receipts,'' which is really a
wall of errors. Each new revelation exposes this initiative as
arbitrary, haphazard, destructive. And from the other side, we
hear deafening silence.
The Federal Government is not a startup business. This is
not a place to go fast and break things. And if you think that
is a good idea, you are going to own the stuff that they break.
When it fails, real people get hurt. And yet there is this
strange infatuation with this Silicon Valley style experiment.
They are breaking things. And anyone who is complicit in that
owns the consequences.
To be clear, Democrats do support rooting out waste, fraud,
and abuse. We would love to work with you on bipartisan
approaches to this. We welcome serious discussions on that
front. That is not what is happening today. The Trump
administration's goal is not efficiency, it is destruction. And
the American people did not vote to destroy government or to
crash the economy.
As bad as it already is, it is about to get worse. They
have signaled an intention just last week to add an additional
7,000 layoffs from the Forest Service. We can debate policy
differences all day, but the reality is that these agencies
cannot function without staff. The writing is on the wall.
Trump and Musk are not trying to streamline government, they
are trying to dismantle it, and they are hurting all of our
constituents.
Instead of convening a hearing on that, which is the real
crisis facing public lands, we have a flashy messaging bill
before us. This is obviously a misdirection. No one seriously
believes the FLASH Act will somehow safeguard our public lands.
And to the extent they need safeguarding, the Ranking Member is
exactly right, they can make one phone call to the Department
of the Interior and get everything that they would hope to
achieve through this bill. This bill does nothing to address
the real threats facing our land management agencies. It does
nothing about chronic underfunding, about staffing shortages or
forced attrition that are hollowing these agencies out. That is
the real crisis. Our public lands are being turned into a
sacrifice zone for Elon Musk and Donald Trump to cook up some
cuts to provide billionaire tax cuts.
So I could say a lot about the legislation before us. But
the bottom line is this Committee is not Judiciary; this
Committee is not Homeland Security. We are torturing the
jurisdictional limits of this Committee so that we can have a
conversation about Republicans' favorite subject. And because
our jurisdiction is public lands, right now the greatest
threats to our land is not at the border. It is what we should
be talking about, but we are not, Elon Musk and the White House
doing all the damage they are with a chain saw.
I hope we can get back to some serious oversight. I hope we
can stop torturing the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. And I
yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
We will now move on to our first panel, which consists of
the Member who is sponsoring today's legislation.
I now recognize Representative Ciscomani for 5 minutes on
H.R. 1820. The floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and
thank you, Ranking Member Neguse, and the Subcommittee members
for coming together today for this important hearing on my
legislation, H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security
for Homeland Act, or FLASH Act for short.
I first introduced this legislation following the field
hearing this Committee did in my district in Sierra Vista,
Arizona, last year. So thank you to the Chairman for coming
down for that, and my Republican colleagues that made the trip
with enough interest to see what was going on on the ground.
During this hearing, we heard from local stakeholders and
ranchers about the border crisis that has impacted border
communities and beyond during the Biden-Harris Administration.
I was proud to reintroduce it again this Congress, as the
problem still persists.
So to my good friend of a Ranking Member, when the question
is asked why do this bill and not just a phone call, because
passing legislation and bills is our job, my friend. This is
what we do. And we have to prevent any future administration
like the Biden-Harris Administration to be able to shelter in
this disastrous situation once again.
Now, maybe not every constituent out there is hearing or
talking about this issue. But my constituents are telling me
this every single day. And if you wonder why, you just have to
look at that picture. If that was in anyone's backyard 24/7,
you would be hearing from your constituents as well. So, yes, I
hear from my constituents this almost on daily basis, and I see
it as well, as the vast majority of my district is a rural part
of the district, much of it border. And that is what is seen
there every single day. So this is important for this part of
the country, for sure, and for the entire nation, I would
argue.
So my bill would strengthen border security by providing
for the construction of navigable roads along the border on
Federal lands, allow states to place temporary barriers on
Federal lands, and directs Federal managers to develop a
strategy to address hazardous trash piles which harm the
environment. This is about the environment.
Federal lands comprise an estimated 693 miles, or 35
percent of the southern border, many of which are in Arizona.
This bill proposes comprehensive solutions for public safety
issues and environmental destruction impacting Federal lands
along the border. In Tucson Sector, much of which I represent,
we saw over the past 4 years trash piles and camps popping up
where smugglers had no regard, just like that one right there
on the image, for the land or the environment. And this bill
would solve that problem by requiring land managers to reduce
the trash.
Moreover, in areas where it is very hard for agents to
navigate, this would allow our agents to have roads even on
Federal lands. This is a game changer for many areas. Even when
our CBP agents and officers are fully empowered to do their
enforcement duties, as they are now, we must change our laws to
ensure that burdensome regulations do not stand in the way of
agents and public safety. Federal lands need to be protected
from environmental degradation and our borders need to be
secured. Those go hand in hand.
The fact is, we can do both. And I believe this bill is a
huge step in that direction. I hope that we can have a
conversation about how do we continue to protect our border and
protect our environment all at once.
Thank you for your consideration of this critical
legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I want to thank you for
your testimony.
We are going to go on to our second panel now. Thank you
for your patience and thank you for making the trip here to our
nation's capital.
I want to remind the witnesses that, under Committee Rules,
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
First, I would like to introduce the Honorable Thaddeus
Cleveland, Sheriff of Terrell County, Texas. Sheriff Cleveland,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THADDEUS C. CLEVELAND, SHERIFF, TERRELL COUNTY,
TEXAS
Sheriff Cleveland. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman
Tiffany, for having me today, and other distinguished members
of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to
come here and show support of our border and how Federal lands
and the U.S. border and border security intersect.
Other than my time here in Washington, D.C., serving at
U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters, and my time in the United
States Air Force, I have lived a lifetime on the U.S.-Mexico
border, both as a resident, as well as a U.S. Border Patrol
agent. I spent the last 11 years of my Border Patrol career in
Terrell County, Sanderson, Texas, my home town, where I grew up
and graduated high school. And where I would still be a Border
Patrol agent. But unfortunately, God had different plans. Our
sheriff passed away and I had the opportunity to take care of
the community that took care of me and become the sheriff.
When we talk about Terrell County, we are the tenth largest
county in the state of Texas. We have 54 miles of river with
Mexico. And it is about 2,300 square miles in total. Next to us
is Brewster County, where we have the nation's fourteenth
largest national park, Big Bend National Park. And through our
portion of Texas, we have what is called the Wild and Scenic
Rio Grande River, that also is part of the National Park
Service.
The activity we have in Terrell County is very similar to
what you have seen over the last 4 years under the President
Biden administration, the increases that we have seen. We have
nowhere near the amount of activity that you see on television
with Eagle Pass, El Paso, Lukeville, Arizona, or San Diego,
California. And we have a different type of activity. We do not
have people coming to our portion of the border to surrender
and seek some sort of political relief or political asylum.
What we have are people that still want to cross the border
illegally, they want to cross the border undetected. When we
encounter them in the brush, they still run. When we encounter
them on the highway, they lead us in the high-speed pursuits
that you see often televised.
You may ask why am I telling you a little bit about the
activity we have in Terrell County. And it is because of the
portion that I mentioned, the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River.
We have several locations where people utilize to cross. One
specifically that I like to talk about is called Paso Colorado,
and it is an area that only people crossing the border
illegally get into this portion of the river. American citizens
do not go into this portion of the river. It is very hard to
get to. It is on private property. But this portion of the
river is about 170 miles northwest of Eagle Pass, Texas. And we
all recall Eagle Pass, Texas, talking about Governor Abbott's
buoys that he deployed in the river that the Administration
said were harming the environment. Well, I can tell you, those
buoys, I have been to them, I have touched them, and they are
not harming the environment there in the Rio Grande River.
Go back to the area that I spoke of, Paso Colorado, where
illegal aliens cross in my county. I can show you what are
called Salina mussels as well as the Mexican Fawnsfoot mussel
and show you the remains of those that have died. And the only
thing again that crosses that portion of the river enters the
river at that portion are people that are crossing our border
illegally. Whether it is human waste, trash left behind, or
even what they carry in what we call their mochilas, their
backpacks, the chemicals, whether it is pain pills or it is
salves for their feet, whatever they carry that is leaked into
the river, that is what is having an impact on our environment
in that area.
I must also comment I spent 10 years of my Border Patrol
career out in Congressman Ciscomani's district in Sierra Vista,
and I spent some time over in Nogales, Arizona, which was my
first duty station. And I can tell you firsthand, I have seen
the amounts of trash not only in my county but that part of
Arizona, the parts that the pictures there depict, and I can
tell you that there could be much more collaboration being done
along the border between departments within the Federal
Government.
And when we talk about wildfires, when we talk about the
necessity of roadways for Border Patrol to use, there is not a
better way to create a firebreak than if we do it in a
proactive, mitigating manner, rather than waiting for a
wildfire to break out, which I experienced in Nogales, Arizona,
back in one of our deep canyons that is on part of the Coronado
National Forest, where the fire broke out and Forest Service
had to go in and just create these firebreaks.
If we would go in and plan, between Border Patrol, the
Department of the Interior, and have a way to mitigate
crossings but also work together on the deployment of
technologies, I can tell you we would all benefit from it.
In closing, I would just like to say that, of course, what
we saw in the last 4 years is unlike what we have ever seen
before. And our country will continue to pay for that for
decades to come. And we will also pay for decades to come the
abuses that happened on our Federal lands, as well as our
private landowners. They are just as important, equally as
important.
So I would like to just again, if we do not solve this now,
we are going to pay for it for years to come.
And I support the FLASH Act. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Sheriff Cleveland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thaddeus C. Cleveland, Sheriff,
Terrell County, Texas
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the
discussion on the protection of federal lands along the United States
and Mexico border. I am honored to represent the citizens of Terrell
County and describe to you my experiences as a Texas Border Sheriff and
United States Border Patrol Agent.
Other than my time in the United States Air Force and in
Washington, D.C., while assigned to U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters,
I've spent my entire life as both a resident and a U.S. Border Patrol
Agent along the U.S./Mexico border. The last 11 years of my 26-year
Border Patrol career were spent as the Patrol Agent in Charge of the
Sanderson Border Patrol Station, which is also my hometown and where I
am Sheriff.
Terrell County is located in the rugged, unforgiving, vast Big Bend
Region of Texas and shares 54 miles of international border with
Mexico. Terrell County is the 10th largest county in the State of Texas
and encompasses almost 2,400 square miles. The Border Patrol Station
there is responsible for 91 miles of border, this being the third
largest portion of border by a Border Patrol Station along the entire
U.S./Mexico border.
The Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River is 196 miles in length and
runs the entire distance of Terrell County's southern boundary with
Mexico. Big Bend National Park is located in Brewster County, which
neighbors Terrell County to the west and is the 14th largest National
Park in the United States.
Terrell County, does not have a crime problem, what we have is a
Border Security problem. During the Presidency of Joe Biden, Terrell
County like much of the Southwest Border, experienced a significant
increase in illegal alien apprehensions; however, what occurred in
Eagle Pass, Del Rio, El Paso, Lukeville and San Diego with masses of
people crossing the border, did not happen in Terrell County. We
experience illegal aliens who do not want to be apprehended nor give-
up. When we encounter illegal aliens in the desert, they run. When we
encounter illegal aliens smuggling loads on the highways, they lead us
in high-speed pursuits before bailing out and absconding. High-speed
pursuits occur with almost every illegal alien smuggling load we
encounter and it places both my team and American citizens, which I'm
responsible for, in harm's way.
The next set of statistics I am going to share with you are the
Sanderson Border Patrol Station fiscal year apprehension and gotaway
percentages compared to fiscal year 2020. In fiscal year 2021 there was
a 289% increase in illegal alien arrests and a 323% increase in
gotaways. In fiscal year 2022, there was a 417% increase in illegal
alien arrests and a 467% increase in gotaways. Fiscal year 2023, there
was a decrease in apprehensions and gotaways, but it was still higher
than the historical numbers with 189% increase in illegal alien arrests
and 203% gotaways. Last fiscal year, we experienced activity in line
with historical trends.
Citizens of Terrell County paid the price daily for the out-of-
control Southwest Border. We do not have the financial, medical or
emergency resources as many of the other larger communities affected by
the activity along the border. Yet, the negative and detrimental
results are the same. Valuable and costly emergency and medical
resources are too often diverted to border security. In my county,
landowners have to repair waterlines, fences and structures destroyed
by illegal aliens crossing their properties, as well as the significant
trash, human biohazard waste and erosion. Emergency medical services
and law enforcement services have at times been unavailable due to
responding to illegal aliens that are crossing the border.
There has been a total of 43 known deaths of illegal aliens
attempting to cross my portion of the border over the last the four (4)
years. Prior to the last four years, there was approximately one death
a year of someone attempting to cross illegally. All but four of those
deaths were from exposure due to the hot summer months as well as the
cold winter fronts that come through Terrell County. Two others died in
a vehicle pursuit, which resulted from a head-on collision.
Due to the amount of illegal alien smuggling activity coupled with
the amount of vehicle pursuits we experienced since I took over as
Sheriff, I wrote a letter to Governor Abbott of the State of Texas and
requested additional resources to assist my office. Governor Abbott and
I discussed the situation, and within a week, the additional resources
I requested were deployed to Terrell County. With assistance from the
Operation Lone Star personnel and the U.S. Border Patrol, together we
seized over 100 vehicles from illegal alien smugglers during the months
of November and December 2022. Since then, we have observed a shift in
tactics by smugglers and are not having the same level of activity in
Terrell County.
You may be asking yourself, why is this information important to
your committee? It's important because the first steps illegal aliens
take entering the United States into my county is through the Wild and
Scenic Rio Grande River. My county is approximately 175 miles upriver
from Eagle Pass, Texas, a location where a string of buoys deployed by
Governor Abbott was described as destroying the habitat for two rare
species of freshwater mussels. I've been to those buoys, I've put my
hands on them, and I can tell you they are not destroying the habitat.
I can take you to an area in my county, one of the most remote
locations on the U.S./Mexico border and show you remains of the Salina
Mucket and Fawnsfoot freshwater mussels, the Biden Administration said
were being destroyed. These mussels can be found along the edge of the
Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River in a location where only illegal
aliens wade or float across the border. The illegal aliens have a
greater impact on the ecosystem than the buoys utilized by the State of
Texas.
During my time as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, I worked
approximately 10 years in both Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties in
Southern Arizona. These areas are rich in natural resources on federal
lands within and around the Coronado National Forest. I have walked
many trails tracking illegal aliens and drug smugglers in the Pajarita
Wilderness, Miller Peak Wilderness, San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area and Chiricahua Wilderness. In Texas, where I raised
and finished my Border Patrol career, I have conducted river patrols by
canoe along 83 miles of the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River. Thoughts
of these areas still bring back great memories and interest. I am
personally attached to these areas, but if we don't secure our borders,
we stand the chance to not just lose these areas, but we stand a chance
to continue to lose innocent American lives.
I know from experience and it is well documented that illegal alien
crossings and smuggling bring trash, human waste, trails, illegal roads
and wildfires to private lands as well as federal lands. Many federal
lands are remote and difficult to get to and provide the perfect haven
for illicit activity. Utilizing technology and partnerships can be
increased to mitigate and minimize impacts to federal lands.
What is needed to secure our border is the right combination of
manpower, technology, and infrastructure. If you take my county for
instance and almost 517 miles of border between Terrell to Hudspeth
Counties, there isn't a need for a border wall. In much of this area,
we have a God made barrier, but what we do need is manpower, technology
and infrastructure projects such as roads. There isn't a one size fits
all solution when it comes to the various regions along the U.S./Mexico
border.
Collaboration on infrastructure and technology deployments on
federal lands will strengthen the preservation of our natural
resources. An example of infrastructure needed may be negotiating a new
road with a landowner that would allot Border Patrol access to the Wild
and Scenic Rio Grande River or it may be working with the U.S. Forest
Service to create a preplaced firebreak or brush removal of invasive
and non-native in a remote border region within the Coronado National
Forest. Coordinated efforts for technology deployments would also
lessen the impact on federal lands. Increased access to federal lands
increases border security and the mission of the U.S. Border Patrol as
well as the mission of the Department of the Interior, allowing them to
protect America, and increase the protection of federal lands along the
border.
The U.S. Border Patrol's mission was once illegal immigration, but
after September 11, 2001, that mission was no longer our mission. Our
mission became protecting the homeland by keeping bad people and bad
things from crossing America's borders.
In closing, the chaos we experienced along the Southwest Border
over the last four years was preventable. The border was open, overrun,
and the criminal organizations took full advantage of our political
gridlock. Americans were impacted, those crossing our border illegally
were impacted, communities were impacted, and lastly, federal lands
were impacted.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Thaddeus Cleveland
Questions Submitted by Representative Hageman
Sheriff Cleveland, the Tohono O'odham Nation reservation covers a
large stretch of land along the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona,
and it's been well-documented that the cartel regularly uses this land
as a corridor for smuggling people, drugs, and weapons into the
country. In fact, the Nation's tribal elder acknowledged in 2019 that
``it's no secret that a lot of our tribal members are involved in the
smuggling of migrants and drugs'' through the reservation, which spans
62 miles of the international border (ABC News).
Question 1. Based on your experience in southern Arizona and West
Texas, how significant a role does the lack of federal enforcement or
tribal cooperation in areas like the Tohono O'odham reservation play in
enabling cartel activity?
Answer. I left southern Arizona approximately 25 years ago;
however, I believe coordinated and collaborative efforts between the
Tohono O'odham Nation and U.S. Border Patrol have increased
significantly since then. Working together on tribal lands is a key
part of Border Security in southern Arizona.
Question 2. What lessons should Congress take from these gaps in
enforcement when considering federal land policy reforms under the
FLASH Act?
Answer. I'd recommend bringing all stake holders to include the
Tohono O'odham Nation into legislative efforts such as the FLASH Act
and any other legislation impacting tribal lands. I'd also recommend
engaging the U.S. Border Patrol to inquire about their perspective on
the relationship between the Tohono O'odham Nation and current border
security enforcement efforts on tribal lands.
Question 3. Should the FLASH Act or related legislation address
tribal coordination and accountability, particularly when tribal lands
are being exploited for transnational criminal operations?
Answer. Yes, I believe this would be prudent.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Sheriff Cleveland.
I now would like to introduce Mr. Paul Perez, President of
the National Border Patrol Council. Mr. Perez, you have 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL PEREZ, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL BORDER
PATROL COUNCIL
Mr. Perez. Thank you, sir. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for
adding me to testify this morning in support of Congressman
Ciscomani's FLASH Act.
My name is Paul Perez. I am the President of the National
Border Patrol Council. The council is the union that represents
over 16,000 frontline Border Patrol agents protecting our
country.
After serving in the U.S. military, I joined the Border
Patrol in 1997 and, for the last 28 years, have been an active
duty Border Patrol agent assigned to the Kingsville Station in
the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which is in south Texas.
Border Patrol agents need three things to patrol our
border, manpower, access, and situational awareness. Although
the first on this list, manpower, is outside of your
jurisdiction, I would like to spend a moment educating you on
the challenges we are facing.
We currently have 19,500 Border Patrol agents on duty to
protect our border. Of this number, more than 2,500 are
eligible to retire today. These agents could literally put in
their retirement papers and be gone tomorrow. Another 4,000
agents will be eligible to retire in the next 4 years. In
total, we are looking at nearly one third of our manpower
potentially leaving in the next 4 years.
Why this matters is because, under the last Administration,
we had approximately two million illegal aliens observed on
Border Patrol surveillance platforms walk right into this
country without being arrested. We saw them but we literally
did not have enough agents to arrest them. That is what happens
when you do not have enough manpower to meet the mission.
President Trump recognizes this challenge. He has proposed
increasing Border Patrol agent pay and offering retention
bonuses to keep the agents we already have. In addition, he has
proposed recruitment bonuses to add an additional 10,000 agents
above our current staffing level. I hope that you all will
support these initiatives as they are brought forward in
reconciliation and through the Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations
process.
The second thing that you need to secure the border is
access. And that is why the FLASH Act is so important. Let me
give you examples. When we detect drug cartel members or a
group of illegal aliens crossing our border, we will dispatch
agents to intercept them. Ideally, we will have agents close by
and in sufficient numbers to apprehend the group without
incident. However, if it takes a long time to physically get
agents on the scene, we have a problem.
In some cases, we have agents in a foot chase, often at
night, across difficult terrain, with a motivated adversary
that has a 30 to 45-minute head start. To be candid, that is
not the situation we want to be in. The longer it takes to get
on scene, the higher the likelihood the cartel smugglers and
illegal immigrants will evade capture.
Where I am stationed in south Texas, much of the land north
of the border is privately held. We have partnerships with
local farmers and ranchers to access their land and, in some
cases, install temporary surveillance assets that increase our
situational awareness. I cannot tell you how important these
partnerships are to securing our border. These farmers and
ranchers do not just allow us to access their land, but they
are another set of eyes and ears and will call us if they see
anything suspicious.
Approximately one third of our border with Mexico abuts
U.S. Federal lands, nearly 600 miles. It is ironic that Border
Patrol has, in some instances, better access to private land
than we do with Federal land held by the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture. Our ability to access Federal land
now is largely at the discretion of individual Federal land
managers. To be clear, many of the Federal land managers are
terrific partners and support our mission. However, there are
others who are more reticent to cooperate with Border Patrol.
The FLASH Act addresses this very issue and provides for
the construction and maintenance of nearly 600 miles of roads
across these Federal lands. These roads will be all constructed
within 10 miles of the border and will allow us the access we
need to apprehend cartel smugglers and illegal immigrants.
Finally, the third thing you need to patrol the border is
situational awareness, and the FLASH Act has the potential to
increase that in two important ways. First, there are over one
million acres of designated wilderness along our area. The
FLASH Act guarantees Border Patrol access to these areas and
specifically allows us to install tactical infrastructure such
as radio repeater towers and surveillance equipment.
Second, it allows our border states to install temporary
infrastructure on Federal lands to support border security. In
Texas where I am stationed, Operation Lone Star has been wildly
effective and dramatically drove down the rate of illegal
immigration.
I want to thank your Committee again for their
consideration of the FLASH Act and I looked forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Perez, President of the National
Border Patrol Council
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for asking me to testify this morning
in support of Congressman Ciscomani's FLASH Act.
My name is Paul Perez, and I am the President of the National
Border Patrol Council. The Council is the union that represents over
16,000 frontline Border Patrol agents protecting our country. After
serving in the U.S. military, I joined the Border Patrol in 1997 and I
am an active-duty Border Patrol Agent assigned to the Kingsville
Station in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, located in South Texas.
Border Patrol agents need three things to patrol our border--
manpower, access, and situational awareness. Although the first on this
list, manpower, is outside of your jurisdiction, I would like to spend
a moment educating you on the challenges we are facing.
We currently have 19,500 Border Patrol Agents on duty to protect
our border. Of this number, more than 2,500 are eligible to retire--
today. These agents could literally put in their retirement papers and
be gone tomorrow. Another 4,000 agents will be eligible to retire in
the next 4 years.
In total, we are looking at nearly one third of our manpower
potentially leaving in the next 4 years.
Why this matters is because under the last administration we had
approximately 2 million illegal aliens observed on Border Patrol
surveillance platforms walk right into this country without being
arrested. We saw them, but we literally did not have enough agents to
arrest them. That is what happens when you do not have enough manpower
to meet the mission.
President Trump recognizes this challenge. He has proposed
increasing Border Patrol agent pay and offering retention bonuses to
keep the agents we already have. In addition, he has proposed
recruitment bonuses to add an additional 10,000 agents above our
current staffing level. I hope that all of you will support these
initiatives as they are brought forward in reconciliation and through
the FY 2026 appropriations process.
The second thing that you need to secure our border is access and
that is why the FLASH Act is so important. Let me give you an example.
When we detect drug cartel members or a group of illegal aliens
crossing our border, we will dispatch agents to intercept them.
Ideally, we will have agents close by and in sufficient numbers to
apprehend the group without incident.
However, if it takes a long time to physically get agents on the
scene, we have a problem. In some cases, we have agents in a foot
chase, often at night, across difficult terrain with a motivated
adversary that has a 30-45-minute head start. To be candid, that is not
the situation we want to be in. The longer it takes us to get on scene,
the higher the likelihood the cartel smugglers and illegal immigrants
will evade capture.
Where I am stationed in South Texas, much of the land north of the
border is privately held. We have partnerships with local farmers and
ranchers to access their land and in some cases install temporary
surveillance assets that increase our situational awareness. I cannot
tell you how important these partnerships are to securing our border.
These farmers and ranchers don't just allow us to access their land,
but they are another set of eyes and ears and will call us if they see
anything suspicious.
Approximately one third of our border with Mexico abuts U.S.
federal lands--nearly 600 miles. It's ironic that Border Patrol has, in
some instances, better access to private land than we do with federal
land held by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Our ability
to access federal land now is largely at the discretion of individual
federal land managers. To be clear, many of the federal land managers
are terrific partners and support our mission. However, there are
others who are more reticent to cooperate with Border Patrol.
The FLASH Act addresses this very issue and provides for the
construction and maintenance of nearly 600 miles of roads across these
federal lands. These roads will all be constructed within 10 miles of
the border and will allow us the access we need to apprehend cartel
smugglers and illegal immigrants.
Finally, the third thing you need to patrol the border is
situational awareness, and the FLASH Act has the potential to increase
that in two important ways. First, there are over one million acres of
designated wildness areas along our border. The FLASH Act guarantees
Border Patrol access to these areas and specifically allows us to
install tactical infrastructure such as radio repeater towers and
surveillance equipment.
Second, it allows for border states to install temporary
infrastructure on federal lands to support border security. In Texas,
where I am stationed, Operation Lone Star has been wildly effective and
dramatically drove down the rate of illegal immigration.
I want to thank your committee again for their consideration of the
FLASH Act and I look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Perez.
I would now like to introduce Mr. Bob Krumenaker, a retired
superintendent of Big Bend National Park. Mr. Krumenaker, you
have 5 minutes.
Did I say your name correctly?
Mr. Krumenaker. You were very close. Krumenaker.
Mr. Tiffany. Krumenaker.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF BOB KRUMENAKER, RETIRED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
SUPERINTENDENT, BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK AND RIO GRANDE WILD AND
SCENIC RIVER
Mr. Krumenaker. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany
and distinguished members of this panel. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. And Chairman Tiffany, it is good to see
you again. You may recall when I testified before the Wisconsin
legislature in favor of a bill you sponsored to amend the
hunting regulations in the Apostle Isles National Lakeshore
when I was the superintendent there.
My name is Bob Krumenaker. I worked for the National Park
Service for over 41 years as a biologist and a park
superintendent in national parks all over the country. I
retired in 2023 after almost 5 years as the superintendent of
Big Bend National Park and the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic
River. I am here representing myself, as well as the Coalition
to Protect America's National Parks and the Association of
National Park Rangers. These nonpartisan organizations have
over 4,000 members. Coalition members collectively bring over
50,000 years of National Park Service management experience.
And the association is committed to the protection of the
national parks system and to the persons who shoulder that
responsibility.
Big Bend National Park includes almost 800,000 acres of
federally owned public land. The 118 miles of the Rio Grande
that bound the park on the south comprise the longest
contiguous stretch of land under one management authority along
that border. While the United States owns no land or water in
the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River downstream of the national
park, the Park Service has some management authority on the
Wild and Scenic River for an additional 127 miles. I therefore
had considerable stewardship responsibility for about 12.5
percent of the border, a total of 245 miles.
During my tenure as the superintendent, I supervised law
enforcement operations conducted by commissioned National Park
Rangers. And while their authority did not include enforcement
of immigration laws, we worked very closely with the U.S.
Border Patrol, which had a base of operations in the park. NPS
and Border Patrol staff at every level cooperated to protect
multiple national interests at Big Bend, conservation,
including the protection of wilderness character, public
enjoyment, visitor and employee safety, and security of the
nation's borders. These missions are not incompatible when
there is a mutual respect for the other agency's important
role.
Aside from their small substation, the Border Patrol has no
other tactical infrastructure in Big Bend National Park. The
deep canyons and flash floods of the Rio Grande and its
tributaries make a physical border barrier infeasible. And most
people in the area share that view regardless of where they
stand on other issues.
In my experience, the 2006 memorandum of understanding
between Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Interior regarding
cooperative national security on Federal lands works and works
well. The MOU specifies that it is not intended to prevent the
Border Patrol from exercising emergency authorities to access
lands, including motorized offroad pursuit of suspected cross-
border violators. That said, the MOU clearly requires that the
Border Patrol respect wilderness constraints, except in cases
of emergency. And even then, they need to report back to the
Land Management Agency what happened and why.
The MOU also requires that the Land Management Agency
respond expeditiously to the Border Patrol request for
infrastructure or operations that would normally be prohibited
and not use wilderness as an excuse to automatically say no.
Most importantly, MOU directs the Border Patrol and the
Land Management Agency to work together at the lowest possible
level to resolve differences. It further directs the agencies
respect and, to the degree possible, honor each other's
mission.
This worked at Big Bend. Park rangers and Border Patrol
agents coordinated operations on an almost daily basis. We
conducted shared trainings so we understood the other's
mission, operations, and needs. We collaboratively resolved the
issues that inevitably arose. And when we had conflicts, we did
joint after action reviews to learn from the experience and
make sure we did better the next time.
In my professional judgment, Title I of the FLASH Act,
while attempting to resolve legitimate border security
challenges on Federal lands takes a blunt approach that is
neither needed nor cost effective. It has the potential to
irreparably harm some of this nation's most spectacular and
most loved landscapes. It would gut the protections of the
Wilderness Act in Federal border lands, legislating a solution
that simply is not needed.
Coupled with the drastic reductions being made to Federal
budgets and the staffing of the land management agencies, the
bill's unspecified but undoubtedly high cost for construction
and maintenance of high-standard border roads is both
infeasible and inefficient.
Thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to
answering any questions members may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krumenaker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Krumenaker, Retired National Park Service
Superintendent, Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande Wild & Scenic
River
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today. Chairman Tiffany, it's good to see you again; you may recall
when I testified before the Wisconsin legislature in favor of a bill
you sponsored to amend the hunting regulations for the Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore, when I was the superintendent there.
My name is Bob Krumenaker. I worked for the National Park Service
(NPS) for over 41 years as a biologist and a park superintendent in
national park units all over the country, retiring in 2023 after almost
5 years as the Superintendent of Big Bend National Park and Rio Grande
Wild & Scenic River. I am proud of my public service. Upon accepting
every assignment, I signed an oath \1\ to support the U.S. Constitution
and faithfully discharge the duties of the offices I held, which I
never violated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am here representing myself, as well as the Coalition to Protect
America's National Parks and the Association of National Park Rangers.
These non-partisan organizations have over 4000 members, including
current NPS employees, NPS retirees, and volunteers. Coalition members
collectively bring over 50,000 years of national park experience. The
Association is committed to the protection of the natural, cultural,
and recreational resources of the National Park System, and to the
persons who shoulder that responsibility.
It is my professional judgment that Title I of the FLASH Act, while
attempting to resolve legitimate border security challenges on covered
Federal lands, takes a blunt approach that is neither needed nor cost-
effective. It has the potential to irreparably harm some of this
nation's most spectacular and loved landscapes.
BACKGROUND
Big Bend National Park is larger than the state of Rhode Island,
and includes almost 800,000 acres of federally-owned public land. This
is the second largest contiguous block of publicly-accessible federal
land along the U.S.-Mexican border.\2\ The 118 miles of the Rio Grande
that bound the park on the south comprise the longest contiguous
stretch of federally-owned land under one management authority along
that border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The largest is Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in
Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the United States owns no land or water in the Rio Grande
Wild & Scenic River downstream of Big Bend National Park, there are an
additional 127 miles of river and shoreline where the National Park
Service manages recreation and to some degree, natural and cultural
resources. Between the national park and the wild & scenic river, I
therefore had some stewardship responsibility for about 12.5% of the
border, a total of 245 miles.
583,000 acres of Big Bend National Park were recommended by both
Republican and Democratic administrations in the 1970s for wilderness
designation. Congress has never acted on that recommendation, but these
lands still retain their wilderness character almost 50 years later.
The mountains, desert, and riparian corridor of Big Bend make up the
largest block of undeveloped open space in Texas, and provide habitat
for mountain lions, black bears, and many endemic species. Interest in
seeing the park's wilderness-eligible lands formally designated as
wilderness is strong, and supported by a wide and growing coalition.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See www.keepbigbendwild.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend welcomes over 500,000 visitors a year, people seeking
respite and recreation in one of the most rugged, wildest, and
biodiverse regions of the American southwest. The park's limited
development footprint and the undeveloped wilderness that surround it
provide opportunity for both windshield touring on paved roads and wild
river excursions, as well as solitary backcountry experiences. It is
truly one of America's ``Crown Jewels.''
The combined impact of NPS and visitor spending contributes over
$56 million annually to the regional economy and support over 650 jobs
for hardworking Americans.\4\ As the state of Texas purchased the land
and donated it to the federal government to establish the national
park, Big Bend is often referred to as `` Texas' Gift to the Nation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Flyr, M., and L. Koontz. 2024. 2023 national park visitor
spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states,
and the nation. Science Report NPS/SR--2024/174. National Park Service,
Fort Collins, Colorado. https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/
707832
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2021 survey conducted by the Big Bend Conservancy, the park's
non-profit philanthropic partner, 85% of respondents did not want to
see any more roads or other development inside park boundaries.
During my tenure as the national park superintendent, I supervised
law enforcement operations conducted by commissioned National Park
Rangers. While their authority did not include enforcement of
immigration or customs laws, we had close working relationships with
both the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), which staffed a field station
inside the national park; and U.S. Customs, with which we had shared
responsibility for the only port of entry in any U.S. national park
area. Both, as you know, are units of Customs & Border Protection,
their parent agency.
NPS and USBP staff at every level cooperated on a daily basis to
protect multiple national interests at Big Bend--which include
conservation (including protection of wilderness character), public
enjoyment, visitor and employee safety, and security of the nation's
borders. The missions are not incompatible when there is mutual respect
for the other agency's important role to the American people.
The USBP agents stationed in Big Bend patrol the 122 miles of paved
roads and 217 miles of unpaved roads in the park. Park Rangers do as
well but the vast area precludes intensive monitoring by law
enforcement staff of either agency. Most illegal border activity is
detected, however, as both agencies conduct aerial patrols, and there
is substantial electronic surveillance of the border in the park. When
migrants are encountered, both agencies work as a team to facilitate
the Border Patrol processing them and removing them from the park.
If a migrant does make it through the park without being
apprehended, they're almost always detected and taken into custody
along one of the major highways north of the national park.
Aside from the small Border Patrol substation, they have no other
tactical infrastructure in the national park. The deep canyons that
line most of the border in this area, and the flash floods on
tributaries of the Rio Grande, make any physical border barrier
infeasible. Most people in the area share that view, regardless of
where they stand on other issues.
In my experience, the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding \5\ between
Homeland Security, Agriculture and Interior Regarding Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along
the United States' Borders works well. The MOU specifies that it is not
``intended to prevent'' USBP from exercising emergency authorities to
access lands including motorized off-road pursuit of suspected cross-
border violators at any time, including in wilderness and wilderness
study areas, based on the professional judgment of USBP personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/NWPS/
documents/Border%20Patrol%20 MOU.pdf,hereafter ``the MOU''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MOU requires that the Border Patrol respect wilderness
constraints, except in cases of emergency, and even then they need to
report back to the land management agency what happened and why. The
MOU also requires that the land management agency respond expeditiously
to USBP requests for infrastructure or operations that would normally
be prohibited, and not use wilderness as an excuse to automatically say
no.
Most importantly, the MOU directs that the Border Patrol and the
land management agency work together at the lowest level possible to
resolve differences. It further directs that the agencies respect, and
to the maximum degree possible, honor each other's mission.
This worked at Big Bend. Interagency communication and coordination
was ongoing and constant. Park Rangers and USBP Agents coordinated
operations on an almost-daily basis. We conducted shared training so we
understood the other's mission, operations, and needs, and fleshed out
where there may be conflicts to try to prevent them before they
occurred. When we were asked to consider rescue beacons or radio
installations in remote areas, we listened and asked questions to make
sure we all had the same understanding of the real purpose behind the
request as well as what other alternatives were being considered. We
worked together and we collaboratively resolved the issues that arose.
And when we had conflicts, we did joint after-action reviews to ensure
everybody learned from experience so that we didn't repeat any mistakes
that were made.
ANALYSIS
Title I of the FLASH Act provides an overly simplistic, one-size-
fits-all approach that is neither needed nor cost-effective at Big Bend
and would potentially do lasting damage to one of this nation's most
spectacular and loved landscapes. I cannot speak with authority about
other sectors of the border, but I would urge the committee to consider
a different approach. I am particularly concerned with sections
101,102, and 104.
Section 101 requires at least 584 miles of roads capable of being
traveled by ``standard vehicles'' already exist, or be newly
``installed'' on Federal lands along the border. The Border Patrol, in
my experience, utilizes 4 wheel drive trucks and high clearance SUVs in
remote areas and the rough, unpaved, backcountry roads of Big Bend
National Park meet their needs, to the best of my knowledge. NPS and
the USBP even have an agreement whereby USBP annually transfers money
to the park to assist the NPS in maintaining those roads, but not to
the unnecessary standard that appears to be mandated in the bill. Where
there are no roads within 10 miles of the border, I never once heard
any Border Patrol agent or supervisor express that need.
The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act \6\ mandates that the
National Park Service manage national parks and their resources ``in
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' It's hard to imagine that
constructing new roads in some of the wildest areas of Big Bend would
not violate this bedrock law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 54 US Code 100101(a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Research Service estimates that there are 584
miles of what this bill calls ``covered federal lands'' along the
southern border. Section 101(c)(3) of the FLASH Act mandates ``at
least'' 584 miles of road. Without explicitly saying so, the bill
appears to require a road suitable for ``standard vehicles'' within 10
miles of every mile of borderland owned by covered federal agencies.
Perhaps Big Bend National Park is not intended to be included? If
that's the case, I urge language in the bill stating as much. But I
will submit that new roads are not necessarily the answer in all other
federal borderlands; there needs to be site-specific analyses in these
complex landscapes. Customs & Border Protection already has the
authority to request this type of development where needed to fulfill
their mission, and the MOU requires that the land management promptly
review it, and approve it if the analysis supports it.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ MOU, section III.B.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic surveillance and other proven technological solutions
(such as the tethered blimp deployed on US 90 near Marfa, TX) should be
considered prior to construction of new roads through wild country
where those roads, notwithstanding their impact on the landscape, will
be difficult and expensive to maintain.
Section 101(b) requires the land management agency to build the
roads; and (d)(2) requires the land management agency to maintain them.
I can say with conviction that there has never been enough money
allocated to the agency budgets to maintain the current inventory of
roads in national parks (and presumably other federal lands); and with
the administration's intent to significantly reduce federal budgets,
this looks like it would be a significant unfunded mandate. To put this
in real terms, Big Bend National Park alone had a Deferred Maintenance
and Repair backlog of $192 million \8\ in FY23, the largest component
of which was road maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/deferred-
maintenance.htm--search for Big Bend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101(d)(1)(B) requires the land management agency to allow
unfettered access for local law enforcement officials carrying their
official duties; and Section 103 authorizes the temporary placement of
infrastructure on all covered Federal lands by the states without the
opportunity for review by the land management agency \9\ or the need
for a federal permit. Some border areas, including most of Big Bend
National Park, have exclusive federal jurisdiction. Neither the local
law enforcement nor the state have either legal jurisdiction or
authority to enforce laws on these federal lands. I am concerned that
this section creates ambiguities regarding both jurisdiction and
authority for the federal land manager, and the presumption of approval
by the land management agency, regardless of the potential impact or
compatibility with other agency responsibilities, is troubling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Section 103 does require that the state submit notice of its
intent to the Secretary of the land managementagency 45 days in
advance, but gives the Secretary no authority to disapprove or request
modification of the proposal if it is deemed necessary by the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101(f) requires compliance with NEPA and all other
applicable laws and regulations, but it appears to be a foregone
conclusion that many miles of new, high--standard roads are mandated by
this bill. I have written environmental documents and recommended or
approved many others in my career. While NEPA does not mandate the most
environmentally sensitive outcome, it does require a fair, objective
analysis and full disclosure of impacts. Federal land managers would
find it virtually impossible to fully comply with the intent of NEPA,
and their analysis, most likely, would have to be perfunctory at best.
Section 102 would amend the Wilderness Act, frankly, by
eviscerating it. Subsection (A) would allow the Border Patrol to
construct and maintain a variety of permanent installations, land
aircraft, and use motor vehicles and other motorized equipment without
so much as an analysis of their necessity or consultation with the land
management agency. While these activities are normally prohibited by
the terms of section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, that same section
allows for exceptions provided they can be shown to be ``necessary to
meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the
purpose of [the] Act.''
The Minimum Requirement Analysis, very importantly, fosters
collaboration between the proposing entity (in this case the Border
Patrol) and the land manager. My experience, again, suggests this
works. USBP proposed the deployment of several tactical radio
installations in Big Bend's recommended wilderness. NPS recognized that
improving radio communications--provided the proposed technology would
do what they hoped it would--would reduce migrant impacts on the
national park, and would improve officer safety. I felt comfortable
characterizing this as a ``minimum requirement'' for administration of
the area. But my staff and I also viewed it as entirely appropriate to
seek review of the proposed locations and technology by our agency's
electronic communications experts, who raised important questions about
the efficacy of the proposed equipment to accomplish the USBP's stated
goals for the system. Questions the Border Patrol could not answer.
Would it have been better to override the input of the NPS and
allow the Border Patrol to install radio systems on remote mountaintops
that analysis suggests would not work as intended? Would it have been
better for the Border Patrol to install towers much taller than their
own experts deemed essential, marring the distant Big Bend views so
valued by the American people, rather than work with them to redesign
their equipment configurations so they had minimum footprint and visual
impact without compromising effectiveness?
I submit the system works as intended; perhaps both agencies simply
need a prod to take it seriously and, of course, to work cooperatively
and expeditiously to resolve legitimate questions. This is exactly what
the 2006 MOU requires. The system would work even better if the land
management agencies were fully staffed.
Subsection (B) directs that the Commissioner of the U.S. Border
Patrol assure that any installation newly authorized under subsection
(A) be carried out ``in a manner that, to the extent possible, protects
the wilderness character of the area.'' With no required oversight or
coordination with the land management agency that actually has
expertise in wilderness character, I cannot see how this would be
effective.
Section 104 prohibits the Secretary of the land management agency
from impeding activities of the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the
Border to execute Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. In my experience,
there is no problem that requires a legislative solution. We welcomed
the Border Patrol doing SAR in the national park, and they were a force
multiplier for my own staff. Any legislative language mandating access
should restrict such SAR activities to those associated with Border
Security or the safety of their own personnel, require timely
consultation and coordination with the land management agency, and that
the methods employed be guided by the 2006 MOU.
CONCLUSION
Title I of the proposed FLASH Act, in my professional opinion and
that of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks and the
Association of National Park Rangers, takes a blunt, one-size-fits-all
approach to border security that has the potential to irreparably
degrade some of the most iconic, wild, and adored landscapes of the
American Southwest borderlands. It would unnecessarily gut the
protections of the Wilderness Act in federal borderlands. There's no
evidence that this approach would provide additional border security.
Coupled with the drastic reductions being made to federal budgets and
the staffing of the land management agencies, the bill's unspecified
but undoubtedly high cost for construction and maintenance of high-
standard border roads is both infeasible and inefficient.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my remarks.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Krumenaker.
I would now like to introduce Mr. Larry Lopez, a lieutenant
at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Lieutenant
Lopez, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT LARRY LOPEZ, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Lopez. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Tiffany and
members of the Committee. I am Lieutenant Larry Lopez, and I am
honored to testify today on behalf of San Bernardino County
Sheriff Shannon Dicus and our department.
We urgently need Federal support to combat the illegal
activities plaguing our Federal lands, activities that endanger
public safety, devastate our environment, and violate human
rights. I strongly support H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands
Amplified Security for Homeland Act, FLASH Act, which directly
addresses the public safety crisis and environmental
destruction caused by illegal operations on Federal lands,
particularly in San Bernardino County, home to some of the
largest and most vulnerable Federal lands in the country.
This legislation provides critical enforcement tools,
stronger penalties, and enhanced collaboration between Federal
and local agencies to dismantle organized criminal operations,
prevent environmental destruction, and protect our communities.
Sheriff Dicus is a member of the Major County Sheriffs of
America, which represent sheriffs of the most populous counties
in the United States from both political parties. The threat
from illicit cannabis operations on public lands is one of the
major drug-related threats that law enforcement, public health,
and families are facing every day.
To address these threats, MCSA has encouraged Congress to
pass HALT Fentanyl Act to ensure law enforcement has
investigative tools to deter fentanyl trafficking as much as
possible. MCSA has also worked closely with Members of Congress
on both sides of the aisle to push for the reauthorization of
the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program at the ONDCP.
HIDTA provides resources that enable close collaboration among
local, state, and Federal law enforcement to combat the most
significant drug trafficking organizations, including the
cartels that are linked to cannabis operations in our public
lands.
I have been honored to serve in the San Bernardino County
Sheriff's Department for 25 years, with assignments including
corrections and patrol in rural communities within the Morongo
Basin and Joshua Tree area. In addition to patrol, I have
served multiple ranks in specialized capacities, including our
specialized enforcement division, or SWAT, and our gangs and
narcotics division. I am proud to be the recipient of the San
Bernardino County's Frank Bland Medal of Valor, the California
Peace Officers' Association Medal of Valor, the Governor's
Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, and the Congressional
Badge of Bravery for my involvement in the Christopher Dorner
Manhunt in 2013.
In 2022, I was promoted to the rank of lieutenant, and I am
currently assigned to the Gangs Narcotics Division. In this
position, I oversee the daily operations of Inland Regional
Narcotics Task Force, the Overdose Response Team, the
Electronic Surveillance Unit, the Marijuana Enforcement Team,
and the High-Tech Detail.
Given my role in law enforcement and my knowledge with San
Bernardino County's Federal lands, I can speak to the unique
challenge we face in enforcing the laws across such a vast and
remote region.
For context, the San Bernardino County is the largest
county in the continental United States, with a land mass of
over 20,000 square miles, larger than New Jersey, Connecticut,
Delaware, and Rhode Island put together. San Bernardino County
is a diverse geographical region with large valleys,
mountainous terrain, and expansive desert regions. We are also
home to two of the most populated national forests, the Angeles
National Forest and the San Bernardino County National Forest,
approximately 80 percent of the land mass of San Bernardino
County is made up of Federal lands, the 2.2 million citizens we
serve and 66 communities in collaboration with our municipal
police departments. Our residents are primarily isolated and
surrounded by Federal lands in mountain regions and desert
areas. This means that San Bernardino County is often impacted
by law enforcement activities and federally mandated search and
rescue activities that the Sheriff's Department responds to
with assistance from our fire district.
As it relates to the FLASH Act, I want to bring up a
significant issue associated with San Bernardino County's rural
desert regions, which encompasses Federal lands like the Mojave
National Preserve, Joshua Tree National Park, and areas near
the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms.
This base is currently home to one of the largest military
training areas in the nation. The Mojave Viper program has
become the pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment training
model at the base. The majority of the units in the Marine
Corps deploying to Iraq were trained at Mojave Viper or mixed
venue using the Mountain Warfare Training Center for
Afghanistan.
In recent years, we have seen an increase of illegal
cannabis cultivation in these regions. The FLASH Act includes
provisions in Section 211 establishing robust response
initiatives with local jurisdictions, law enforcement, and fire
agencies to increase fines and penalties.
Section 211 would also establish the Trespass Cannabis
Cultivation Site Response Initiative, under which the Secretary
concerned must conduct an environmental response on land under
jurisdiction in response to illegal cultivation of cannabis.
Mr. Tiffany. Sir, could you wrap up your testimony, please?
Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir.
In conclusion, our challenges in San Bernardino County,
particularly on our Federal lands, are urgent and complex.
Illegal cannabis cultivation driven by organized crime is
wreaking havoc on our environment and our communities. These
operations threaten public safety, fuel human trafficking, and
introduce toxic chemicals into our ecosystem, putting both
local wildlife and consumers across the nation at risk.
While committed to addressing these issues, local law
enforcement is stretched too thin and lacks the legal authority
to combat this problem entirely.
The FLASH Act offers a vital solution by providing more
substantial penalties, Federal resources, and better
coordination between Federal and local agencies. This
legislation will empower us to dismantle these criminal
enterprises and protect our national lands.
I urge this Committee to support the FLASH Act and give law
enforcement the tools we need to secure our borders, safeguard
our environment, and restore our safety to our communities.
Thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant Larry Lopez, San Bernardino
County Sheriff's Department
Good morning, Chair Tiffany (R-Wis.), Ranking Member Neguse (D-CO),
and members of the committee:
My name is Lieutenant Larry Lopez, and I am honored to testify
today on behalf of San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus and our
department. We urgently need federal support to combat the illegal
activities plaguing our federal lands--activities that endanger public
safety, devastate our environment, and violate human rights.
I strongly support H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security
for the Homeland Act (FLASH Act), which directly addresses the public
safety crisis and environmental destruction caused by illegal
operations on federal lands--particularly in San Bernardino County,
home to some of the largest and most vulnerable federal lands in the
country.
This legislation provides critical enforcement tools, stronger
penalties, and enhanced collaboration between federal and local
agencies to dismantle organized criminal operations, prevent
environmental destruction, and protect our communities.
Sheriff Dicus is a member of the Major County Sheriffs of America
(MCSA), which represents sheriffs of the most populous counties in the
United States from both political parties. The threat from illicit
cannabis operations on public lands is one of many drug-related threats
that law enforcement, public health, and families are facing every day.
To address these threats, MCSA has encouraged Congress to pass the HALT
Fentanyl Act to ensure law enforcement has investigative tools to deter
fentanyl trafficking as much as possible. MCSA has also worked closely
with many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to push for
the reauthorization of the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA) Program at the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
HIDTA provides resources that enable close collaboration among local,
state, and federal law enforcement to combat the most significant drug
trafficking organizations, including the cartels that are linked to
cannabis operations on our public lands
LT. LOPEZ BACKGROUND
I have been honored to serve in the San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department for 25 years with assignments including corrections and
patrol in rural communities within the Morongo Basin and Joshua Tree
area. In addition to patrol, I have served multiple ranks in
specialized capacities, including our Specialized Enforcement Division
or SWAT team and our narcotics division. I'm proud to be the recipient
of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Frank Bland Medal of
Valor, the California Peace Officers' Association Medal of Valor, the
Governor's Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, and the Congressional
Badge of Bravery for my involvement with the ``Christopher Dorner
Manhunt in 2013.
In 2022, I was promoted to Lieutenant and am currently assigned to
the Gangs and Narcotics Division. In this position, I oversee the daily
operations of the Inland Regional Narcotics Task Force, the Overdose
Response Team, the Electronic Surveillance Unit, the Marijuana
Enforcement Team, and the High-Tech Detail.
Given my role in law enforcement and my deep familiarity with San
Bernardino County's federal lands, I can speak to the unique challenges
we face in enforcing the law across such a vast and remote region.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BACKGROUND
For context, San Bernardino County is the largest County in the
continental United States, with a land mass of over 20,000 square
miles--larger than New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island
put together.
San Bernardino County is a diverse geographical region with large
valleys, mountainous terrain, and expansive desert regions. We are also
home to two of the most populated national forests--the Angeles
National Forest and the San Bernardino County Forest. Approximately 80
percent of the land mass of San Bernardino County is made up of federal
lands--the 2.2 million citizens we serve in sixty-six communities in
collaboration with our municipal police departments. Our residents are
primarily isolated and surrounded by federal lands in mountain regions
and desert areas. This means that San Bernardino County is often
impacted by law enforcement activities and federally mandated search
and rescue activities that the Sheriff's Department responds to with
assistance from our fire district.
ILLEGAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN DESERT REGIONS
As it relates to the FLASH Act, I want to bring up a significant
issue associated with San Bernardino County's rural desert regions,
which encompass federal lands like the Mojave National Preserve, Joshua
Tree National Park, and areas near the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center and Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command located in
Twentynine Palms. This base is currently home to one of the largest
military training areas in the nation. The Mojave Viper program has
become the pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment training model at the
base. The majority of units in the Marine Corps deploying to Iraq were
trained at Mojave Viper or a mixed venue using the Mountain Warfare
Training Center for Afghanistan.
In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of illegal cannabis
cultivation in this region. The FLASH Act includes provisions in
Section 211 establishing robust response initiatives with local
jurisdictions, law enforcement, and fire agencies to increase fines and
penalties.
Section 211 would also establish the Trespass Cannabis Cultivation
Site Response Initiative, under which the Secretary concerned must
conduct an environmental response on lands under their jurisdiction in
response to the illegal cultivation of cannabis.
With a region as vast as San Bernardino County, we have found that
National Forest land cannabis grows are extremely labor-intensive for
our Deputy Sheriffs.
This is critically important because the laws in California as they
relate to cannabis are governed by the 2016 ballot measure called
Proposition 64. Proposition 64 downgraded the illegal cultivation of
cannabis from a felony to a misdemeanor, reducing deterrence and
stripping local law enforcement of the ability to impose severe
penalties. Without federal statutes like those proposed in the FLASH
Act, we lack the authority to prosecute cartel-linked operations
effectively. This Act would give us the tools to impose real
consequences on those destroying our lands and exploiting vulnerable
individuals.
These illicit grows are nothing like what you might be expecting--
an episode of Breaking Bad--they are full-grade industrial operations
with links to cartel organizations and human trafficking operations. As
publicized in the news in recent months, cartel operations millions of
dollars on illicit cannabis as well as utilizing slave labor for
subjects from Mexico coming to the United States and seeking assistance
to cross the border from cartel organizations--if these subjects cannot
pay the cartels to go to the U.S., we believe they are being subjected
to slave labor at illegal cannabis operations in regions like ours to
pay off a debt to the cartel. This is a travesty to human rights and
basic dignity.
ILLEGAL CANNABIS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
These illegal cannabis operations are not interested in protecting
our unique desert environment; they are only motivated by profit from
slave labor but also utilizing chemicals that are not legal--including
compounds of carbofuran that have a level of toxicity that has the
potential to harm consumers of cannabis. Carbofuran is considered one
of the most toxic pesticides. It is classified as a highly hazardous
substance in the United States as defined in Section 302 of the United
States Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. This has
effectively banned the use of the toxic substance in the U.S., which
indicates that cartels are smuggling this pesticide across the U.S.-
Mexico Border.
Research conducted by the Integral Ecology Research Center\1\ has
found traces of carbofuran in streams, rivers, and animals, including
at-risk species such as Pacific fish. 1/4 of a teaspoon of carbofuran
can be fatal to humans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-28/cannabis-
california-national-forests-environment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illegal cannabis operations on federal lands don't just harm our
local environment; the contaminated cannabis they produce often ends up
in states where marijuana is still illegal, endangering consumers
nationwide. The toxic chemicals in these operations flow through our
rivers and streams, impacting species far beyond our county. The FLASH
Act addresses these issues nationally, making it a critical legislation
for every American.
One of the most important portions of the FLASH Act is the
provisions located in Section 212--which creates additional federal
criminal penalties that we don't have under California statute for the
use of banned pesticides and rodenticides during the commission of a
federal offense, with a maximum sentence of 10 years in addition to the
punishment for the original offense.
CARBOFURAN AND PUBLIC HEALTH FOR CANNABIS CONSUMERS
According to research from the LA Times \2\, illegally smuggled
carbofuran from Mexico to the U.S. is used on 90% of marijuana grown on
public land in California. Illicit cannabis contaminated with
carbofuran from California is a significant source of marijuana in
states where it remains illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-08-28/cannabis-
california-national-forests-environment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this problem proliferated throughout our region in San
Bernardino County, some of our northern counties in California, like
Siskiyou and Humboldt County, also saw the same thing because there
were virtually no consequences in California law under Proposition 64.
Recently, the Los Angeles Times \3\ tested twenty-five cannabis
products that were purchased from California-legal retail stores and
had tested at private labs, which showed concentrations of pesticides
above levels that the state allows or at levels that exceed federal
standards for tobacco. The contaminants (Chlorfenapyr, Pymetrozine,
Trifloxystrobin, Bifenazate, and Chlorpyrifos) include chemicals tied
to cancer, liver failure, thyroid disease, and genetic and neurological
harm to users and unborn children. These harmful pesticides, many of
which originate from China, are being smuggled into the United States
and used in illegal cannabis cultivation on public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-14/the-dirty-
secret-of-californias-legal-weed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seized cannabis from illegal grows in San Bernardino and Siskiyou
counties has been traced to licensed facilities in Oregon and
California, revealing a dangerous contamination risk. Many of these
samples are coming back with these harmful pesticides that are
originating on our public lands and inundated the legal market,
creating a public health situation where users of cannabis believe that
their cannabis is ``legal'' and safe, but it is not safe. These
pesticides are avoided detection by labs because states like California
do not require labs to test foreign--labeled pesticides. After all, we
shouldn't be using them. This poses a severe public health threat and
contributes to environmental degradation.
OPERATION HAMMER STRIKE
As this problem became more prevalent in our County, with over
1,400 reports from residents of cannabis cultivations, Sheriff Dicus
established Operation Hammer Strike with support from the San
Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in August of 2021.
Operation Hammer Strike is a years-long operation targeting illegal
marijuana cultivation and yielded the following results:
1,496,906 marijuana plants eradicated
194,821 pounds of processed marijuana seized
$3,631,667.00 U.S. Currency seized
33 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) labs mitigated
363 firearms seized
1,379 arrests made
1,087 search warrants served
8,771 greenhouses cleared
As of September 2024, we have two Marijuana Enforcement Teams, and
we estimate we still have approximately 100 illegal cannabis
cultivation sites in San Bernardino County.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our challenges in San Bernardino County--
particularly on our federal lands--are urgent and complex. Illegal
cannabis cultivation, driven by organized crime, is wreaking havoc on
our environment and our communities. These operations threaten public
safety, fuel human trafficking, and introduce toxic chemicals into our
ecosystems, putting both local wildlife and consumers across the nation
at risk. While committed to addressing these issues, local law
enforcement is stretched too thin and lacks the legal authority to
combat this problem entirely.
The Federal Lands Amplified Security for the Homeland (FLASH) Act
offers a vital solution. By providing more substantial penalties,
federal resources, and better coordination between federal and local
agencies, this legislation will empower us to dismantle these criminal
enterprises and protect our national lands. I urge this Committee to
support the FLASH Act and give law enforcement the tools we need to
secure our borders, safeguard our environment, and restore safety to
our communities. Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Lieutenant Lopez.
Now we will take Members' questions. I am going to start
out with my 5 minutes of questioning here.
First of all, though, I want to recount the visit a year
ago that I made down to the Tucson region and south of Tucson,
where we had the hearing in Sierra Vista. And as you can see in
the picture to my right here, we found all kinds of trash,
human waste. It is the reason, the genesis, of the TRASHED Act
that you see in this legislation that we are considering today.
I find it amazing that we have allowed millions of pounds
of trash to be spread across these areas like the Coronado
National Forest. I believe, Sheriff Cleveland, you commented
about you perhaps worked in that sector. And I find it amazing
that this was simply allowed to happen under the Biden
administration.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk
consistently about protecting the environment. And if there is
as much as a capful of oil that is spilled on a drilling site,
there is an immediate reaction. Yet we see this degradation
that is going on on some of our public lands and not a peep was
said. Because it stood in the way of the narrative of the Holy
Grail, which was to import as many people illegally into this
country as possible, even at the cost to our environment. I
find it amazing.
But I would point out one other thing on that trip. We
happened to stop at a hotel that had been turned into a halfway
house in Tucson by one of the NGOs that were profiting from
illegal immigration. One of the NGOs that was one of the vital
links in the chain, as well as the cartels, the International
Organization for Migration, other entities that made illegal
immigration a big business on both sides of the border.
We found in that Tucson hotel exactly what was happening in
Arizona. And we exposed it to the world. And it was amazing how
the footage that we shot at that hotel in Tucson went viral
showing how many people were profiting off of illegal
immigration, including some who claimed to be doing it for
charitable purposes. Hopefully, that day is gone now forever.
To that point, are things changing? Sheriff Cleveland, we
have seen a new administration since January 20. Tell us, are
things changing on the southern border?
Sheriff Cleveland. One hundred percent. It is night and
day. It has been a complete 180.
I have anticipated activity in our county to start picking
up. I am not sure that I mentioned but again the activity we
have in our area pales in comparison to many parts of the U.S.-
Mexico border. But between Del Rio, Texas, to El Paso, Texas,
we are the busiest county and the busiest Border Patrol
station. And I anticipated with the plus up of Department of
Defense personnel on our side as well as the Mexican National
Guard on the south side, it would push activity to our area,
because we are a more rural area. But we have seen very few
groups.
We have seen the numbers, less than 300 apprehensions made
across the Southwest border. What it shows, I know I have said
before in interviews, a lot of times we say, what a difference
a year can make. But I will tell you what a difference one
person has made with President Trump's voice that has
completely changed the dynamics on the Southwest border.
Mr. Tiffany. So, yes or no, things have completely changed
on the southern border since 2024?
Sheriff Cleveland. Yes, completely changed.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Perez, has Border Patrol seen a change
since January 20?
Mr. Perez. One hundred percent, sir. Our posture has
completely changed from a processing and facilitating workforce
to a detecting and deterring workforce, where we are out there
doing the job that we wanted to do by protecting the border,
having all of our agents out on the lane, forward deployed.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. Border Patrol currently has to respect legal
restrictions associated like with wilderness areas; is that
correct?
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. Do illegal immigrants also respect those rules
and regulations that are supposed to be down on the southern
border?
Mr. Perez. Not at all. They actually take advantage of it.
Mr. Tiffany. My final question I am going to save for
Lieutenant Lopez. So has legalization of marijuana made it less
likely for the cartels to be growing marijuana in your state of
California?
Mr. Lopez. It is not less likely; it is more likely.
Mr. Tiffany. And do you find a significant number of
chemicals with marijuana grows? I think about it. It was
happening in my state, in Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin a
number of years ago, and they found these very dangerous
chemicals that were out in the environment. Do you find the
same thing in California?
Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Tiffany. With that, my 5 minutes are up. And I want to
thank all of you for joining us.
Next, I turn to Dr. Dexter for her questioning for 5
minutes.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for
coming today.
As a physician and mother, I think every day about the
world we are leaving behind for our children, and I sit here on
this Committee because I care deeply about public lands. We
should be working together, as many of us have talked about
today, to protect our public lands. I would argue it is not the
place to pushing a cruel and unnecessary immigration agenda
that is minimally relevant to the work of this Committee.
Instead of addressing environmental challenges or actually
staffing our parks and forests to keep them safe and clean,
this Administration is using funds and resources to fuel anti-
immigration policies. Just look at Guantanamo Bay, where over a
thousand security forces and civilians are assigned to ongoing
operations. This is a clear pattern.
My Republican colleagues are diverting resources away from
urgent priorities like delivering the services and benefits our
veterans bled for, while putting them toward an agenda that
puts our most vulnerable at risk and ignores civil rights and
gives billionaires tax cuts.
That is why I am looking for answers. I am demanding to
know why Donald Trump is detaining immigrants with no criminal
record in a maximum-security prison. I am demanding to know why
Trump is refusing to give those detained due process. And I am
demanding to know why, in a committee that is tasked with
protecting our public lands, this is the focus of today's
hearing.
To add insult to injury, we are holding this hearing while
the Trump-Musk administration continues to fire thousands of
workers at the Department of the Interior, Forest Service, and
national parks. And will we hear from those agencies about what
that is doing to their ability to carry out their missions? No.
Because my Republican colleagues have declined to invite them.
It is my understanding that last Congress, the U.S. Forest
Service testified before this Committee that implementing the
legislation before us today would require an up-front
investment of $40 million to $60 million, plus annual
maintenance costs of up to $280,000.
Mr. Krumenaker, with 1,000 job cuts at the National Park
Service and 3,400 at the U.S. Forest Service, do these agencies
have the capacity to implement a project of this scale?
Mr. Krumenaker. We do not have capacity. We are down staff
even before the Trump administration began.
Dr. Dexter. OK. And this bill before us today would also
allow border states to place temporary, movable structures such
as shipping containers along the southern border, without
requiring a special use permit. We have already seen the
devastating consequences of this approach. Between 2017 and
2021, Arizona stacked 922 shipping containers along three and a
half miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Coronado National
Forest, deep in the Huachuca Mountains. A GAO report later
found that this project caused irreparable harm, damaged
cultural sites, contaminated water sources, and endangered
wildlife.
Mr. Krumenaker, if this bill were to become law, how would
the fragile habitats and ecosystems protected by our public
lands be impacted?
Mr. Krumenaker. I will speak primarily to what I know of
Big Bend National Park. The bigger concern that I have,
frankly, in addition to the environmental issues that you just
mentioned, is the fact that Big Bend National Park and many
other old line national parks have exclusive Federal
jurisdiction. So right now, neither the state of Texas nor
local law enforcement, both of whom we cooperate with very
well, have the authority to actually enforce laws within the
national park. And so I think this law would create huge
ambiguity in terms of who has the authority and responsibility
for that.
In addition, placing barriers without any input from the
National Park Service, there is no expertise in environmental
issues, in wildlife, in watersheds, or in public use. And so
Big Bend National Park, the border is part of the visitor
experience. It is also a major factor for wildlife crossings.
And so indiscriminate placement of infrastructure that may or
may not be helpful to the border issue and, like Sheriff
Cleveland said, we do not have that many immigrants that go
across through there because of the terrain in Mexico, which is
frankly unyielding, I think it would be mostly a show, as
opposed to something that would be effective. And it would do
all sorts of harm to the national park and to the American
people's experience in that national park.
Dr. Dexter. Excellent. And I appreciate my colleague, Mr.
Westerman's, points and concerns about the protection of
sensitive lands. Is it your opinion that cutting staff will
help improve fragile land protection and cleaning up of garbage
and other things along our borders?
Mr. Krumenaker. Trash is not merely an immigrant problem.
It is a problem whenever there are people on the border. So Big
Bend National Park and other public lands have trash
challenges. And we do not have enough people.
And so I know at least within the area that I was
responsible for, we did not see large piles of immigrant trash.
We had trouble collecting the trash that the visiting public
generated. And Big Bend National Park had a landfill inside the
national park, one of only two that does.
So lowering the amount of trash is an excellent idea. I do
not see how creating more penalties on those who already are
violating the law by dropping trash in national parks, whether
they are American citizens, visitors, or the immigrants, I do
not see how that will make a difference. Having enough people
to actually collect the trash and to enforce the existing laws,
that would make a huge difference.
Dr. Dexter. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Thank you.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I am shocked by the testimony we just heard. I have
personally seen this enormous garbage patch that stretches
across the southern border. The problem is illegal aliens do
not only disobey our immigration laws, they also disobey our
environmental laws with impunity. The piles of garbage that
have been left behind are a major blight and a monument to the
hypocrisy of the left. And to posture as a guardian of our
Federal lands and not recognize that is appalling to me. It
leads me to believe the Democratic witness has either not been
there or just does not care.
But that is the least of the damage of deliberately
trafficking eight million unvetted and impoverished illegal
aliens into this country. The mass migration has overwhelmed
our public schools, our public hospitals, our food pantries,
our homeless shelters. They forced down wages for working
American families. Supporting this impoverished population
costs American taxpayers about $160 billion a year. Think of
that as about $1,300 of your taxes, as an average household,
every year. Worst of all, it has introduced into our cities the
most violent criminal gangs and cartels on the planet, often
shielded from deportation by the Democrat sanctuary laws. And
yet it appears from what we just heard the Democrats are still
supporting these policies.
One of the most appalling obstacles to enforcing our
immigration laws has been the restrictions and the obstacles
placed in the way of the Border Patrol by environmental
regulations that hamper their operations along the border.
Mr. Perez, has the environment on our Federal border lands
improved over the last 4 years, now that eight million illegal
aliens were allowed to cross into our country and leave their
garbage behind them?
Mr. Perez. Not at all, sir.
Mr. McClintock. What have you observed?
Mr. Perez. Well, in a lot of these areas, these
restrictions, they do not allow us free reign to patrol those
areas, so the cartels take advantage of our inability to go in
and patrol. We can only enter a lot of these under emergency
situations. And because of that, we are not able to go out
there and detect or deter.
Mr. McClintock. I made probably 10 trips to the border over
the last 4 years. And the amount of garbage that has piled up
is just appalling. Have you seen the same thing?
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir, everywhere I have worked I have seen
the same thing.
Mr. McClintock. And that is not American tourists; those
are illegal migrants who are not only thumbing their noses at
our immigration laws but also our environmental laws.
So the Democratic policies have not only harmed the
environment. Let's talk about our immigration laws. Without
enforcing those laws, we have no immigration laws. Without
immigration laws, we have no border. And without a border, we
have no country.
So, Mr. Perez, could you elaborate on the impediments that
these environmental regulations have imposed on your agency's
ability to enforce our immigration laws?
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir. Like I said, we are not able to get in
and access all of this land. We are not able to put the
tactical infrastructure such as portable radio repeaters,
cameras, anything that would allow us to better secure the
border and detect anybody coming across. So the cartels, they
take advantage of that. They are able to cross people, they are
able to cross drugs, and they are also able to cross southbound
money and weapons as well. So they do not follow the laws, they
do not follow the regulations that our agents have to follow.
So it is an impediment.
Mr. McClintock. Sheriff Cleveland, the sheriff of Tulare
County testified before the Immigration Subcommittee recently
and estimated that about half of the crime that he is now
dealing with in Tulare County, California, is generated by
migrants, including the notorious Sinaloa Cartel, which
actually has assassination teams that go after the enemies of
their gang.
This comports with NYPD that was estimating that about two
thirds of the crime that they are dealing with in Manhattan is
migrant related. I think half or so in Queens.
What are you seeing in your county?
Sheriff Cleveland. As I mentioned, I retired as a Border
Patrol agent in my county. I spent the last 11 years there. And
I can tell you I have arrested more illegal aliens, not only as
a border patrol agent, but as a sheriff, that have criminal
records. Do they all have criminal records? No. But many of
them do.
Mr. McClintock. Well, the Democrats, as the President
pointed out, told us there is nothing they can do about that,
as they deliberately trafficked eight million illegal aliens
into our country. I think the President was right, we did not
need new laws, we needed a new President. We got one, and we
have seen a decrease of 95 to 97 percent of illegal border
crossings, thank God.
I am out of time. Who do we have next?
Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you, witnesses, for coming today. And I must say that I
agree that we have a crisis on our public lands, but it is a
crisis that President Trump and Elon Musk are causing, through
their actions to dismantle our Federal land management agencies
like the Forest Service, the National Park Service.
You know, the Forest Service was already understaffed and
underfunded before Trump and Musk, that unelected billionaire,
fired 3,400 of their workers across the country. You know USDA
has not released the exact numbers, and I would note that there
is no Trump administration official here, right? No, none at
all. So we cannot ask them exact questions. Right? The same way
Republicans are refusing to do town halls because their voters
will start asking them questions, we cannot ask the Trump
administration these questions. But we think it is about 30
percent of the workers in the Santa Fe National Forest, who I
represent, have been terminated.
Representative Ciscomani, who introduced the FLASH Act, is
not a stranger to these firings. His district is home to nearly
15,000 Federal workers. And the Trump cuts are hurting the
Coronado National Forest. In fact, Trump fired the only
hydrologist in the whole forest. The only hydrologist in the
whole forest. And for those of us who live in the Southwest and
enjoy our mountains and our forests and know the problem with
drought and the importance of water, to fire the only
hydrologist is irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record an article titled Fired U.S. Forest
Service Worker at Coronado National Forest Speaks Out.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The article follows:]
Fired U.S. Forest Service worker at Coronado National Forest speaks out
Danelle Scott is one of 2,000 probationary employees fired to
eliminate wasteful spending, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
By: Maria Staubs
Posted 10:55 PM, Feb 28, 2025 and last updated 6:26 PM, Mar 04,
2025
* Editor's note: This article has been updated since the video
originally aired. New information from the USDA on prescribed burns is
not reflected in the video above.
TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN)--Thousands of probationary U.S. Forest Service
workers across the country are navigating life after being fired as the
Trump administration continues cutting federal jobs.
One of those employees is Danelle Scott, who said she was the only
hydrologist working for the entire Coronado National Forest. Now, she
has concerns about forest maintenance and wildfire control.
``My first thought was how does a mom support two kids without an
income? '' Scott said.
After years of wildland firefighting, Scott moved from Michigan to
Tucson in January 2024 to begin working full-time as a hydrologist for
the Coronado National Forest, which spans 1.78 million acres.
``I fell in love with the area, fell in love with the job,'' Scott
said.
She secured water rights for the forest for wildlife and recreation
purposes.
``Here we don't have a lot of water, so it's really important that
we manage the waters that we have,'' Scott said.
Last summer, she served as the Burned Area Emergency Response
Specialist, collecting data on three active fires and running models to
identify areas at risk for potentially deadly flooding.
But after more than a year in her role, a phone call on a Sunday
ended her career.
``They said you're fired. And my 11-year-old ran off crying,''
Scott recalled. ``Then they called 30 minutes later and said, `Wait,
no, never mind. We refreshed the list, and now you're not on it.' Then
they called Monday morning and said, `Wait, no, never mind. You are
fired. Come in on Tuesday and turn in all your stuff.' ''
When she arrived at work, she saw an email firing her for her
performance. But, less than a month before, she said she had received a
fully successful performance appraisal.
Scott is one of 2,000 probationary employees fired to eliminate
wasteful spending, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She
said she knows of three others also fired from Coronado National
Forest.
A USDA spokesperson said in a statement:
``Secretary Rollins fully supports the President's directive to
improve government, eliminate inefficiencies, and strengthen USDA's
many services to the American people. We have a solemn responsibility
to be good stewards of the American people's hard-earned taxpayer
dollars and to ensure that every dollar spent goes to serve the people,
not the bureaucracy.
As part of this effort, USDA has made the difficult decision to
release about 2,000 probationary, non-firefighting employees from the
Forest Service. To be clear, none of these individuals were operational
firefighters. Released employees were probationary in status, many of
whom were compensated by temporary IRA funding. It's unfortunate that
the Biden administration hired thousands of people with no plan in
place to pay them long term. Secretary Rollins is committed to
preserving essential safety positions and will ensure that critical
services remain uninterrupted.''
But Scott is concerned the job cuts could increase the chances of
wildfires.
``We had funding that was appropriated by Congress to do prescribed
burning to reduce fuels ahead of the fire season, and those monies were
seized and we were given directives not to do any prescribed burning,''
Scott said.
A USDA spokesperson said there has been no order to stop prescribed
fires on the Coronado National Forest.
``In the last two weeks, the Coronado National Forest has completed
more than 1,000 acres of prescribed fire with more active management
activities planned as conditions allow,'' the spokesperson said.
``Active management continues across all national forests and
grasslands, including hazardous fuels reduction projects and prescribed
fires. Protecting the people and communities we serve, as well as the
infrastructure, businesses, and resources they depend on to grow and
thrive, remains a top priority for the USDA and the Forest Service.''
In the meantime, Scott is searching for her next job.
``It's been really stressful, very anxious. Just appealing and
applying,'' Scott said. ``A lot of people have really rallied, but it
would be better if I just didn't lose my job.''
______
Ms. Leger Fernandez. How can we expect agencies to manage
our Federal lands in the wake of these cuts alone, and then add
more unfunded work to their plate as this bill would do? The
bill we are considering today would add nearly 600 more miles
of new roads for Federal land management agencies to maintain.
And guess how much money it provides for the maintenance of
those new roads? Nada, zero. So you are adding roads. Who is
going to build those roads? How are you going to maintain those
roads? Because there is no more new money.
In fiscal year 2023, the National Park Service reported
over $8 billion in deferred maintenance on its roads alone.
Mr. Krumenaker, as a longtime leader in the National Park
Service, how do you see the unfunded projects in this bill
impacting the Agency's ability to maintain its current
services?
Mr. Krumenaker. The Park Service cannot maintain its
current services now with the existing staff. And in fact, it
is not just the recent cuts, which are estimated at about 9
percent of the staff. Since 2010, the Park Service is down
about 16 percent in staff, and visitation has skyrocketed. So
the ratios are going in exactly the wrong direction.
So Big Bend National Park lost about nine people, which is
about 10 percent of its workforce, since January 20, and right
now has no maintenance supervisors at all. So still has to deal
with spring break and visitors, half a million visitors a year.
And then you are looking at a deferred maintenance workload in
Big Bend alone of $192 million. And so the park is falling
behind now.
And then to add additional roads, construction and
maintenance in a desert environment where it is subject to
flash floods and unstable soils, it just does not seem possible
to me.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think that we all agree
that we need to address the fentanyl issues, right? But we also
know that fentanyl is coming in in the ports of entry. Smuggled
in by American citizens for the most part. So we need to invest
in the technology in the places where we will be able to
capture that fentanyl and not put this undue burden in order to
just make a big to-do, when we are not actually funding the
work that will solve the problem. And that is what I have with
this bill, is it is not the solution that we need. And there is
no money that goes along with it.
And they are going to vote on a funding bill, the
Republicans are, that gives Musk and Trump the ability to cut
whatever they want. And I think that is a problem.
Mr. McClintock. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Fulcher.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I just cannot help but comment to my friends on
the other side of the aisle, the Trump administration has been
in place about 6 weeks. We have had an open border for 4 years.
And so to try to hang this on the Trump administration or Elon
Musk, that is beyond a stretch, Mr. Chairman. And I would think
that would be obvious to most people, but apparently not. So I
just needed to add that to the record.
I have a question for Mr. Perez. But I just wanted to point
out there is a personal connection all over the country for
this. And with the FLASH Act, we are attempting to ensure
Border Patrol has full access to Federal lands. And even in my
home state of Idaho, which is not a southern border, we are
actually a northern border state, but we have had the impacts
of this substantially. We have, in 2023 alone, 264 deaths
related to fentanyl. And we have had 568 emergency department
visits due to opioid overdose. And there were some deaths that
occurred as a result of that, too. So this is impacting all of
us in a very significant way.
And in your written testimony, Mr. Perez, you mentioned
that you have greater access to privately held border lands
through partnerships, which is understandably frustrating.
Could you just expand on that? And then what do you mean by
that? And forgive some of us, by the way, because we have
dueling committees. So if this is a repeat, forgive me for
that. But please talk about that, through these partnerships.
And then also, have there been cases where these
restrictions to Federal land have led to known escapes or the
inability to apprehend?
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir. And thank you for the question.
So the partnerships that we have developed with ranchers
that have privately owned land, they will allow us to patrol
their ranches. You know, they benefit from it as well. They
allow us to patrol the ranches, place infrastructure such as
sensors, cameras. They allow us to go in and actually interdict
groups of aliens that are coming across with smugglers and also
interrupt cartel activity.
What we encounter on Federal lands is we have to get
permission to actually patrol. They will allow us in an
emergency situation to get onto the land and go across country
if we have to, either with ATVs or vehicles, but that is only
in an emergency situation. So what happens is the cartels take
advantage of that fact and they are able to operate in those
areas without us being able to interdict them, because we do
not have the ability to go on there without an emergency being
present.
Mr. Fulcher. So if I understand correctly, there is at
least a time delay? There might be an emergency access
provision, but there is a time delay that could be harmful?
Mr. Perez. Absolutely. It does not allow us to effectively
patrol those areas.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Perez, my friends on the other side of the
aisle are arguing as well that the increasing Border Patrol
access to Federal lands could harm the environment. Now I
picked up on some of the conversations about the environment
and the environmental concerns. But what is your perspective on
how we should prioritize this argument of environmental
concerns over security?
Mr. Perez. Well, the priority should always be security.
The amount of people that have been let into this country
unvetted is a very scary notion for anybody in the country to
understand, that we had no way to vet the millions of people
that we let in. And so as you well know, there are criminals
out there, there are gang members. The Administration right now
is doing everything they can to apprehend and remove them. But
because we were not allowed to do the job for the last 4 years,
it has become a critical situation.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
A quick question for the sheriff. Sheriff, you mentioned in
your testimony that the smugglers frequently change their
tactics. What we are trying to do with this FLASH Act is to
increase access so that we can get access to Federal lands. Do
you anticipate as a function of this cartels shifting their
routes deeper into private lands or possibly into more urban
areas?
Sheriff Cleveland. No, sir, I perceive them going to the
remote areas. As a matter of fact, down in Big Bend National
Park, where we spoke of, just a few days ago there was another
group apprehended out in that way. We do not see a lot of
activity in that specific area. But we do anticipate more
activity in more of those rural areas versus those more urban-
to-urban environments on both sides of the border.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service
collectively.
Mr. McClintock. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fulcher. The gentleman will yield.
Mr. McClintock. I just wanted to point out regarding the
staffing levels that in 2023, 34 percent of the National Park
Service employees were still working from home.
Mr. Fulcher. I guess that substantiates my point, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for
being here.
Sheriff Cleveland, I would like to talk about your space. I
think you note that the size of your county is large. I am
familiar with large spaces. My district, I think, is the second
largest congressional district in the United States that is not
a full state. So I understand broad, huge, open space. I think
mine is 72,000 square miles.
I notice that you have about 54 miles of international
border with Mexico. And then it takes care of about 91 miles.
The bill suggests that we need a road or a barrier even in
these remote areas. And when I was going through the materials,
I noticed that your testimony mentions that 43 people have
passed away trying to cross those huge, wide open, empty,
usually with no water, spaces. Am I getting the numbers
correct? This is over the past 4 years; is that right?
Sheriff Cleveland. Yes, sir. Prior to the Biden
administration, we would have approximately one death in our
county, not very many. But over the past 4 years, during the
Biden administration, we actually had 43 people die trying to
cross our portion of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Mr. Bentz. The idea of having a road and a barrier would at
least, we hope, start preventing some of those deaths. Is that
your thought?
Sheriff Cleveland. It definitely could. In Border Patrol,
we have a sensor package, where if someone is in need, they can
push a button, a rescue beacon is what they are actually
referred to, to receive help. Just due to the limited access in
a lot of our area, we do not have very many of those deployed.
I think we may have three or four.
Mr. Bentz. Part of the problem appears to be access. I
think you mentioned that. So with a road, you could at least be
down there and try to provide that kind of help. And the border
is a lot longer than the miles that you patrol, and there is an
awful lot of open, difficult terrain. What about the local
private landowners? Are they supportive of a road or some sort
of a barrier? What do the local ranchers think?
Sheriff Cleveland. Most definitely. So our portion, talking
about barriers, we do not need a barrier. In much of the Big
Bend region, the Big Bend Border Patrol Sector makes up 517
miles of the entire U.S.-Mexico border, that is one quarter of
it. What we have out there is what I call a God-made barrier.
We have anywhere from 500 to 1,500 to 2,000-foot cliffs. The
right deployment of technology and personnel is something that
would benefit us. And then, of course, some of those access
roads.
And I was talking with Mr. Krumenaker earlier about our
access roads. And, to be honest with you, a lot is to give our
landowners something back, if you will. Because we trespass on
their land. Like Mr. Perez said, our relationships are superb
with our landowners. They support us, they support the U.S.
Border Patrol. And we are often trespassing on their lands. And
there is a lack of access into some of those border areas.
Mr. Bentz. This is not a problem, I do not think, in Texas.
But in California, the penalty for growing marijuana was
dramatically reduced, down to a misdemeanor. And thus, there is
not much enthusiasm for apprehending folks that are growing
marijuana because who cares, right? They are going to be
probably turned loose.
But this bill contains increased penalties, consequences
actually, for cartel members that are growing marijuana. And
thus, at least in states like California, there would be a
penalty. You are a sheriff. You have to understand the value of
having consequences when you go to the D.A. and say, hey, we
apprehended, what do you think of that part of the bill?
Sheriff Cleveland. And I am smiling because it really
coincides with the border security portion of it. If we do not
have a consequence, which we did not have over the past 4
years, people are going to continue to come. Same thing with
the growing of marijuana. And I made the same analogy earlier.
We used to catch tons of marijuana on the U.S.-Mexico border
when I first came to the Border Patrol in 1996. That was the
primary narcotic that we caught. We do not catch as much
anymore because so much of it is being grown here in the United
States, because it has been legalized. So if you do not have a
consequence, yes. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. We could talk for quite a while, sadly, about
the negative impacts of legalization of hard drugs up in
Oregon, and the incredibly horrid consequences when it comes to
fentanyl death and poisoning. And again, it is because the
consequences of such practices were reduced down to basically
nothing. I really appreciate your testimony.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Dr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to have this hearing. I was just in Nogales,
Arizona, to witness the border for myself. And I will say,
there has been, as I am a freshman, and as an outsider, there
was a lot of talk about how we need to pass legislation to
control the border. And in fact, there is order at the border
now because we have the right President.
We need legislation as well, and I do thank, and I will
compliment Congressman Ciscomani for this legislation. I think
it is a step in the right direction for us. And I am a big fan
of passing legislation. But it takes a president with the will
to control our border. And we actually do have a president with
that will.
When I went to the border this weekend and witnessed what
was there, there was essentially nothing there. Nothing was
happening. Now, there is always something happening, and I was
there for 48 hours. But it is impressive to see the order that
has been brought. And I appreciate all of you for being here
and being our witnesses to help us.
I will start with Sheriff Cleveland. Thanks for your
testimony. And actually I will also point out to Mr. Lopez that
if you have any follow-up from your presentation, I understand
you were cut short. So with my residual time that I hope to
have, I would like to turn that over to you, so if you prepare
any comments you might have.
But I am a family practice doctor professionally, and I am
sensitive to the challenges that people can face when seeking
medical care. And Mr. Cleveland, Sheriff Cleveland, in your
testimony you said Terrell County saw strains on the medical
emergency resources as a result of the surge in border
crossings.
Has there been a rise in emergency room visits? And has it
been to the detriment of your population? Can you tell me more
about that?
Sheriff Cleveland. Since the new administration came in, we
have had very little activity, and we have had only one
deceased illegal alien we assisted with the neighboring county
with. But we have had no emergency medical calls that I can
recall since this new administration.
Dr. Kennedy. Congratulations. Previous to this new
administration, what was that like for you?
Sheriff Cleveland. So again, we are a very large county. We
are a very poor county and there is a not a lot of revenue
coming in. So our sheriff's office, it is myself and two
deputies. Fortunately, through Operation Lone Star, we have
been able to hire an additional two, and Operation Lone Star is
Governor Abbott's response to the border.
Like the sheriff's office, our emergency medical services
only has one crew on at a time, which is made up of two people.
So at times, if they are responding to border situations, it
takes them out of service to respond to possibly situations
that may be needed there in our county.
Dr. Kennedy. You told us there were how many deaths in the
past?
Sheriff Cleveland. The last 4 years, we had a total of 43
deaths of people trying to cross our portion of the border
illegally.
Dr. Kennedy. Forty-three deaths. Tragic. Every one is
tragic. But 43 of those is extremely tragic.
But, Mr. Lopez, did you have any further comments that you
would like to make that you did not get to make earlier?
Mr. Lopez. I do thank you for yielding your time to me. I
would like to point out that part of my testimony would include
Carbofuran, which is a highly toxic chemical.
Dr. Kennedy. Used in marijuana cultivation, right?
Mr. Lopez. Correct. And I would just like to point out how
that affects my county going forward. So according to research
from the LA Times, illegally smuggled Carbofuran from Mexico to
the U.S. is used on 90 percent of marijuana grows on public
land in California. Illicit cannabis contaminated with
Carbofuran from California is a significant source of marijuana
in states where it remains illegal.
As this problem proliferated throughout our region in San
Bernardino County, some of our northern counties in California
like Siskiyou and Humboldt County also saw the same thing
because there were virtually no consequences in California
under Proposition 64. Recently, Los Angeles Times tested 25
cannabis products that were purchased from California legal
retail stores and had them tested at private labs, which showed
concentrations of pesticides above levels that the state allows
or at levels that exceed Federal standards for tobacco.
The contaminants include chemicals tied to cancer, liver
failure, thyroid disease, and genetic and neurological harm to
users and unborn children. These harmful pesticides, many of
which originated from China, are being smuggled into the United
States and used in illegal cannabis cultivation on public
lands.
Seized cannabis from illegal grows in San Bernardino County
and Siskiyou Counties have been traced to licensed facilities
in Oregon and California, revealing a dangerous contamination
risk. Many of these samples are coming back with these harmful
pesticides that are originating on our public lands and
inundating the legal market, creating a public health situation
where users of cannabis believe that their cannabis is legal
and safe, but it is not safe. These pesticides have avoided
detection by labs because states like California do not require
labs to test foreign-labeled pesticides. After all, we should
not be using them. This poses a severe public health threat and
contributes to environmental degradation.
Thank you. I yield back the time.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. And I will just conclude.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity. But we are allowing
this Carbofuran to toxify our citizens while we claim that
floating barriers are creating a muscle concern at the border.
And I will just point out that we want to keep poisons out of
our citizens' lives. And thank you for bringing up that
testimony.
I yield the remainder of my time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Stauber, do you mind if I go to Representative Hageman
next? Is that OK?
I recognize Representative Hageman for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for being here today.
The Biden administration's open border policies have fueled
a historic crisis of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and
environmental degradation along the U.S.-Mexico border,
especially on Federal lands. Roughly 35 percent of the southern
border is comprised of Federal land, which has been exploited
by human traffickers, drug cartels, and illegal immigrants, due
to its remote and uncontrolled nature. Federal land management
agencies have failed to provide Border Patrol with timely
access and adequate infrastructure, allowing criminal activity
to flourish and damaging public lands. H.R. 1820, the FLASH
Act, restores control by authorizing road construction,
reducing environmental restrictions on border enforcement,
increasing law enforcement access, and holding Federal agencies
accountable for securing our public lands.
Our witnesses' testimony highlights the FLASH Act's
necessity to defend national security, preserve environmental
resources, and empower local and Federal law enforcement to
combat illegal activity on our public lands.
Sheriff Cleveland, Wyoming may be more than 1,000 miles
from the southern border, but the consequences of failed border
security have reached every single community. Fentanyl and
other narcotics are flowing into Wyoming through illegal border
crossings, and the cost to public safety and human life has
been enormous.
You have described the severe environmental damage in
Terrell County caused by illegal crossings, including trash,
human waste, erosion, and destroyed property. Have you seen
evidence of long-term degradation of Federal lands like
national parks and wilderness areas in your region?
Sheriff Cleveland. I would say yes, ma'am. And again, based
on trash that is left behind. Again, being a native of that
area, having worked out in Arizona in the Coronado National
Forest, you know, a career in the U.S. Border Patrol, and
seeing the amounts of trash that is left behind. I also spoke
to the buoys down in Eagle Pass, and how the administration
targeted our governor about the deployment of those. And yet I
can take you to a portion of my border in my county and show
you where those mussels, although they are not a human life,
but where they are still, we are making a point that those
buoys are poisoning them or killing them, then I can show you
where humans crossing the border are definitely having an
impact on those.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Wyoming is home to millions of acres of
Federal land, and we know firsthand how restrictive management
practices can hinder law enforcement. How have road access
limitations and Federal permitting delays impacted Border
Patrol's ability to secure terrain like in the Big Bend region?
Sheriff Cleveland. So in my county, there is no Federal
land other than on the Wild and Scenic Rio Grande River that we
spoke of that is part of the National Park System and the Big
Bend National Park. All of our roads are personally owned,
privately owned by landowners.
In the Big Bend, I am not aware of any problems. Again,
great working relationship between the National Park Service,
U.S. Border Patrol, and then our local law enforcement,
speaking about Sheriff Dodson there, who we are both very
familiar with.
We do a great job, meaning all of us working together to
protect our portion of the border out in that area.
Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Perez, I am going to turn to you
then. Border Patrol's ability to access and patrol Federal
lands is not just a border issue, and it is in fact a national
one. In Wyoming, 48 percent of our surface estate is owned by
the Federal Government, and we know the challenges of dealing
with land management agencies that prioritize paperwork over
safety.
You testified that Border Patrol has better access to
private lands than to Federal lands in some instances. Can you
provide specific examples of how these access limitations have
delayed apprehensions or prevented effective surveillance?
Mr. Perez. Yes, ma'am, thank you. So I can point to deaths
that occur because we are not able to patrol those lands unless
there is an emergency. And we do not have the tactical
infrastructure set up so we cannot monitor that area. So we
have essentially blind spots along the border. And the cartels
take advantage of that, because they do not adhere to the
regulations we have to adhere to. And so it is very detrimental
for us.
Ms. Hageman. So under the FLASH Act, the Department of the
Interior and Agriculture would be required to install at least
584 miles of navigable roads within 10 miles of the border.
From a national perspective, including in states like Wyoming,
how would improving access infrastructure on public lands
affect our ability to intercept drugs and human trafficking
operations before they reach interior states?
Mr. Perez. This would essentially end what we call the no-
go zones. We would be able to actually go and patrol and have
eyes along the border and take back the areas that we have
ceded to the cartels because of the previous administration's
policies.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I think that is all a very good thing
for us to do. I appreciate your testimony.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize
Representative Stauber to bat cleanup here.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Krumenaker, thanks for your service to the National
Parks. I want to just ask you this question. When in your mind
did you feel the Park Service was fully staffed?
Mr. Krumenaker. I do not think it has ever been fully
staffed, sir, in my experience.
Mr. Stauber. OK, so it was not staffed under Bush properly,
was not staffed under Obama; is that correct? It was not
staffed under Trump 45 in your opinion. And it was not staffed
properly under Biden.
So as we move forward, I think we have to look at making
sure that, No. 1, the staffing is there. And No. 2, the parks
remain open and accessible to all people, including those with
disabilities. My wife and I are blessed with a child who is
disabled. And so what we are seeing as we are working that
angle, I think it is important that we keep that perspective.
Mr. Perez, I have to tell you that I really appreciate what
you do. I was in Yuma, Arizona, and then we went down to the
Eagle Pass, Texas. I was speaking to some Border Patrol agents.
And to my left was a young border patrol agent. I was talking
about what they see as agents: dead bodies, murders, victims of
rape, babies floating in the Rio Grande. And I saw this young
agent just well up with tears, well up with tears.
When I was done, I went over, and I shook her hand and I
thanked her for her service. And she says, thank you for
mentioning that. What we have gone through these last 4 years,
what you in law enforcement have seen, what the two other law
enforcement professionals here today have seen, I am sorry that
you had to go through that. It is going to be different now.
The border is going to be secure. You do not have to see babies
floating in the Rio Grande. You do not have to see murder
victims or rape victims, or people who died along the way.
I just want to say thank you for your service.
I went down there more than the border czar did. It was
devastating.
Mr. Perez. Thank you for that, sir.
Mr. Stauber. I just cannot say it enough. And I will never
forget that young agent crying because of what she saw, and she
knew that I knew.
As a law enforcement officer myself, there are only a few
of us in Congress that have ever worn the local uniform, and I
am one of them. I knew exactly what she was feeling.
So with that being said, it is going to be different now. I
do want to say that we have a northern border, too. Right? We
have a northern border. When that influx was coming through the
Southwest border, you were bringing agents from the north to
help, to give you some relief and help with the number of
illegals that were crossing, which left our northern border
wide open; 5,000 percent increase in crossings. The higher
propensity of terrorists coming through our northern border. It
is unconscionable.
I am part of the Grand Forks Sector, northern Minnesota.
That is 600 miles. At times, there were two agents, only two,
on that whole 600-mile stretch. Because of the Biden
administration's policies, they were bringing everybody down or
making them work during the day to in-process them via
computer.
People say, Pete, what keeps you up at night? Terrorism to
our people and our food supply. We know because of the Biden
policies this country now has to be on red alert because of
what may happen. You all know. As law enforcement officers, you
know, you have seen it. I have been down there. You as leading
law enforcement professionals, your councilmen, your township
supervisors, your county boards were begging us to shut down
the border. They could not handle it. The schools, the
hospitals, the social services could not handle it. The farmers
could not handle it.
The farmers, one of the farmers lost hundreds of thousands
of dollars of crops because when there is fecal matter or urine
around a certain part, you have to remove the crop within a
distance of that. Hundreds of thousands of dollars because of
the policies of the Biden administration.
It stops under this Administration. In just 6 weeks, a 97
percent reduction in illegal crossings.
Mr. Perez and the others, thank you for your professional
service. You have no idea how much we, as an American people,
support you, and we will always defend you. God bless you all.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields and sums up the hearing
quite well.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for their valuable
testimony, and Members for your questions. Members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for our
witnesses, and we will ask that they respond to those in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must
submit questions to the Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday,
March 14, 2025. The hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for those responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Juan Ciscomani, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
subcommittee members for coming together today for this important
hearing on my legislation, H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified
Security for the Homeland Act, or the FLASH Act for short.
I first introduced this legislation following the field hearing
this committee did in my district in Sierra Vista, Arizona last year.
During this hearing we heard from local stakeholders and ranchers about
the border crisis that has impacted border communities and beyond
during the Biden-Harris Administration. I was proud to reintroduce it
again this Congress, as the problems it addresses still exist.
My bill would strengthen border security by providing for the
construction of navigable roads along the border on federal lands,
allow states to place temporary barriers on federal lands, and directs
federal managers to develop a strategy to address hazardous trash piles
which harm the environment?
Federal lands compromise an estimate 693 miles, or 35% of the
southern border. Many of which are in AZ. This bill proposes
comprehensive solutions for public safety issues and environmental
destruction impacting federal lands along the border.
In Tucson Sector much of which I represent, we saw over the past
four years trash piles and `camps' popping up where smugglers had no
regard for the land or the environment, and this bill would solve that
problem by requiring land managers to reduce the trash.
Moreover, in areas where it is VERY hard for agents to navigate,
this would allow our agents to have roads, even on federal lands. This
is a game changer for many areas. Even when our CBP agents and officers
are fully empowered to do their enforcement duties, as they are now, we
must change our laws to ensure that burdensome regulations do not stand
in the way of agents and the public safety.
Federal lands need to be protected from environmental degradation
and our borders need to be secured. The fact is, we can do both. And I
believe this bill is a huge step in that direction.
Thank you for your consideration of this crucial legislation, I
yield my time.
______
Statement for the Record
U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security for the
Homeland (FLASH) Act
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this statement provides the Department of the Interior's
(Department) views on H.R. 1820, the Federal Lands Amplified Security
for the Homeland (FLASH) Act, a multi-title bill that addresses the
public safety issues and environmental destruction currently impacting
Federal lands along the southern border.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency
at the southern border of the United States. The situation at the
southern border is a long-standing humanitarian crisis that threatens
American sovereignty, core security interests of the United States, and
public health and safety. Unlawful border crossings have caused a
widespread proliferation of drug trafficking, human trafficking and
other criminal activity harming and imposing costs on American citizens
in states and local communities along the border and across the
country. Such large-scale illegal activity is also an environmental
crisis ravaging our treasured landscapes and resources. Along the
southern border, cultural resources, Tribal lands, wilderness areas,
national parks, wildlife refuges and the species they protect are
adversely impacted by land degradation and destruction from trail
cutting, trash accumulation, invasive species introductions, fires,
property destruction and other illicit activities.
The President has made clear, a nation without borders is not a
nation, and the Federal government must act with urgency and strength
to end the threats posed by an unsecured border. In carrying out our
mission as steward of the Nation's public lands and resources on behalf
of the American people, the Department is fully committed to delivering
on the President's vision.
The Department manages lands that cover 40 percent of the southern
border, including national parks, wildlife refuges, historic sites,
public lands, and wilderness areas as well as infrastructure including
water delivery structures. The impacts of this crisis on the health,
security and productivity of America's lands are evident.
The FLASH Act directs the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture (Secretaries), in consultation with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), to install navigable roads of at least 584
miles in length along portions of the southern border that abut covered
Federal lands to gain operational control of the southern border and
deter border crossings. It further directs the Secretaries to enter
into cooperative agreements to allow DHS to deploy fencing,
surveillance, and related technology along the roads installed under
the bill, allows states to place temporary barriers on Federal border
lands and authorizes the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
conduct various activities to ensure border security in wilderness
areas.
The bill also includes provisions directing the Secretaries to
promulgate rules and implement policies to address environmental
destruction on public lands including initiatives to reduce trash
accumulation, wildfire risk, and cultivation of cannabis on Federal
lands. Among these provisions, the bill directs the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a ``Southern Border Fuels Management Initiative''
to carry out vegetation management activities along the southern border
within one year of enactment. The Department notes this provision
codifies the Department's Southern Border Fuels Initiative. This
program, launched in 2018, has not only helped to reduce the risk of
wildfire, but has also helped protect natural and cultural resources on
Federal and Tribal lands, while supporting national security operations
carried out by DHS by clearing areas for enhanced border patrol
visibility and protecting DHS infrastructure.
Finally, the FLASH Act prohibits the use of Federal funds to
provide housing, including temporary housing, to specified aliens on
any land under the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park
Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or U.S. Forest Service and revokes and prohibits any lease
between the NPS and the City of New York for portions of Floyd Bennet
Field in Gateway National Recreation Area.
While the President has taken bold, immediate executive action that
has already significantly addressed the crisis at our border, the FLASH
Act would complement the President's actions to secure the border and
keep Americans safe, while allowing the Department to effectively
maintain the character of the lands and resources Congress entrusted it
to protect. The Department strongly supports these efforts. The
Department has a longstanding, cooperative working relationship with
CBP, and will continue to work collaboratively to carry out the
Administration's priorities. We defer to the Department of Agriculture
and DHS for their views on the elements of this draft related to their
areas of responsibility.
The Department looks forward to working with the subcommittee on
this important legislation to advance the critical goal of securing the
southern border.
[all]