    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       H.R. 1045, H.R. 1655, H.R. 3187,
                                 AND H.R. 3444
    =======================================================================

                              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, June 10, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-31

                                   __________

           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
    60-746 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                      ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA		Joe Neguse, CO
    Tom McClintock, CA		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Paul Gosar, AZ			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Doug LaMalfa, CA		Seth Magaziner, RI
    Daniel Webster, FL		Jared Golden, ME
    Russ Fulcher, ID		Dave Min, CA
    Pete Stauber, MN		Maxine Dexter, OR
    Tom Tiffany, WI			Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
    Lauren Boebert, CO		Emily Randall, WA
    Cliff Bentz, OR			Yassamin Ansari, AZ
    Jen Kiggans, VA			Sarah Elfreth, MD
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Adam Gray, CA
    Mike Collins, GA		Luz Rivas, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY		Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Mark Amodei, NV			Debbie Dingell, MI
    Tim Walberg, MI			Darren Soto, FL
    Mike Ezell, MS			Julia Brownley, CA
    Celeste Maloy, UT		Susie Lee, NV
    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                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Pete Stauber, MN                     Jared Golden, ME
    Cliff Bentz, OR                      Maxine Dexter, OR
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Emily Randall, WA
    Mark Amodei, NV                      Susie Lee, NV
    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, June 10, 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................................................     3

        Panel I:

        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     4
        Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................     7
        Kennedy, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     8
        Hill, Hon. French, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arkansas, prepared statement for the record.......    41

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel II:

        Crockett, John, Deputy Chief of State, Private and Tribal
          Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.............     8
            Prepared Statement of....................................    10

        Panel III:

        Blackmon, Hon. Larry, Judge, Perry County, Perryville,
          Arkansas...................................................    19
            Prepared Statement of....................................    21
        Yocom, Larissa, Director, Utah Forest Restoration Institute,
          Logan, Utah................................................    22
            Prepared Statement of....................................    24
        Tripp, Bill, Director of Natural Resources and Environmental
          Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources,
          Orleans, California........................................    25
            Prepared Statement of....................................    27
        Andreas, Greg, General Manager, Ponderosa Telephone, O'Neals,
          California.................................................    30
            Prepared Statement of....................................    31

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    To:        Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members

    From:     Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler and William
            Kelleher (Aniela@mail.house.gov and
            William.Kelleher@mail.house.gov; x6-7736)

    Date:     Monday, June 9, 2025

    Subject:   Legislative Hearing on 4 Bills
    ________________________________________________________________________
            _______

        The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing
    on 4 bills: H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research
    Institute Act of 2025''; H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire
    Communications Resiliency Act''; H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the
    Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest
    Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes; and H.R.
    3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
    Forestry Act of 2025.''
        The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, at 10:15
    a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
        Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez
    (Will.Rodriguez@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2025,
    if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
    I. KEY MESSAGES

         The pieces of legislation featured in this hearing offer
                targeted solutions to improve land and forest management,
                collaborate with non-federal partners to inform science-
                based management practices, and reduce bureaucratic
                processes post-natural disaster.

         This hearing helps advance President Trump's agenda and
                recent executive actions, including the executive orders on
                ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production'' and
                ``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space
                Management.'' 1

         House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans are
                committed to strengthening Tribal stewardship of fire-prone
                landscapes and fostering meaningful partnerships between
                Tribes and the federal government. This hearing complements
                a prior hearing on related draft legislation, the
                ``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through
                Sound Tribal Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' 2

    II. WITNESSES
    Panel I (Members of Congress):
         To Be Announced

    Panel II (Administration Witnesses):

         Mr. John Crockett, Deputy Chief of State, Private and
                Tribal Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. [All
                bills]

    Panel III (Outside Experts):
         The Honorable Larry Blackmon, Judge, Perry County,
                Perryville, AR [H.R. 3187]

         Ms. Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration
                Institute, Logan, UT [H.R. 1045]

         Mr. Greg Andreas,  General Manager, Go Ponderosa, O'Neals,
                CA [H.R. 1655]

         Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and
                Environmental Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural
                Resources, Orleans, CA [H.R. 3444] [Minority Witness]

    III. BACKGROUND
    H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
            2025''
        The ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004''
    authorized the creation of wildfire research centers in Arizona,
    Colorado, and New Mexico ``to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem
    management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and restore the health of
    forest and woodland ecosystems, in the interior West.'' 3
    These centers, collectively known as the Southwest Ecological
    Restoration Institutes (SWERI), now operate at Colorado State
    University, New Mexico Highlands University, and Northern Arizona
    University.4 Today, these centers conduct cutting-edge
    research on wildfires and forest management 5 and
    collaborate with land managers to ensure the implementation of science-
    based forest management decisions. As part of this work, SWERI must
    produce annual, peer-reviewed, scientific reports and develop work
    plans with the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure accountability.
        Despite a long track record of being at the forefront of
    responsible resource management and forestry research, Utah is
    currently the only Four Corners State without a SWERI center. To
    address this disparity, H.R. 1045 would amend the ``Southwest Forest
    Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004'' to create one additional
    SWERI center in the State of Utah.6 This legislation would
    provide Utah with additional resources to conduct research and
    collaborate on wildfire mitigation, forest management, and watershed
    restoration projects. Further, this legislation allows the State of
    Utah to leverage academic resources to collaborate with federal, state,
    and local stakeholders; develop adaptive forest management techniques;
    and implement fuel reduction strategies.7 A similar version
    of this legislation passed the Senate unanimously in the 118th
    Congress, and a companion bill has been introduced this Congress by
    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee (R-
    UT).8
    H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Increasingly dangerous and severe wildfires are a growing
    threat to critical infrastructure, including communications facilities.
    According to recent studies, ``hundreds to thousands of cell
    transceivers are within wildfire perimeters each year,'' causing
    blackouts, loss of connectivity, and damage or destruction of
    communications infrastructure.9 This issue impacts millions
    of people annually, as researchers have found that there are more than
    57,500 cell transceivers in high-fire risk areas that serve populations
    over 1.5 million people.10 Most recently, the Eaton Fire in
    Los Angeles threatened the antenna farm and broadcasting transmitters
    at Mount Wilson, causing temporary limits to ``the broadcasting
    capabilities of Los Angeles' major TV and radio stations.''
    11
        If a communications facility is damaged or destroyed during a
    wildfire on federal lands, developers must go through a lengthy and
    burdensome permitting process to rebuild this infrastructure. This
    process is not only duplicative, since environmental and historic
    preservation reviews would already have been conducted during the
    facility's initial permitting process, but it also significantly delays
    the ability to bring critical wireless and communications capabilities
    back online post-fire. To address this problem, H.R. 1655 would remove
    the need to complete duplicative National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) reviews for
    certain communications facilities already permitted that need to be
    rebuilt or repaired due to wildfire damage.12 The bill
    applies only to areas where the President, the governor of a state, or
    a Tribal chief executive have declared a major disaster or emergency.
    Projects must occur within five years of the declaration, occur
    entirely within the impacted area, and focus on replacing damaged
    facilities or upgrading infrastructure to reduce future risk.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The bill addresses a critical gap in post-disaster recovery
    efforts: the timely restoration of essential communications systems.
    Lengthy and duplicative environmental and historic preservation reviews
    often delay construction projects that are critical to restoring
    services and public safety. H.R. 1655 offers a narrow, targeted
    solution designed to expedite recovery without broadly waiving the need
    to complete environmental or cultural resources reviews on the initial
    construction of a communications facility. Through this tailored
    approach, this legislation helps ensure rapid response capacity and
    resilient infrastructure in wildfire-prone regions.
    H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
            convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry
            County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
        This legislation removes a burden from the American taxpayer by
    disposing of a vacant federal building, consistent with President
    Trump's Executive Order on ``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office
    Space Management.'' 13
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Perry County, Arkansas, is a rural area northwest of Little
    Rock with roughly 10,000 residents.14 The U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) manages approximately 119,171 acres of forested land and
    administrative buildings in Perry County.15 One such
    building, located on approximately 0.81 acres of land in Perryville,
    Arkansas, is currently vacant, and USFS has no future plans for its
    use. Perry County has long sought to acquire this property to meet
    growing needs in education, conservation, and youth services, but has
    been unsuccessful in doing so for more than a decade.16
        H.R. 3187 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey this
    building and its surrounding land to Perry County. Perry County intends
    to renovate and repurpose the site to support the University of
    Arkansas Extension Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and
    youth development programs such as 4-H.17 This is a smart
    use of public resources that would serve a compelling public purpose,
    particularly in a rural county with limited financial resources.
    Creating a permanent space for the University of Arkansas Extension
    Program and 4-H Youth Development Program would enhance their
    coordination and allow them to expand outreach to more Perry County
    youth. H.R. 3187 provides a cost-effective solution that leverages
    existing infrastructure for community use and empowers local efforts to
    support economic development, natural resource stewardship, and youth
    engagement.
    H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
            in Forestry Act of 2025''
        H.R. 3444 seeks to enhance the role of Tribal governments in the
    management of federal lands by formally authorizing new and existing
    co-management plans between Tribes and federal land management
    agencies. Section 2 of the bill directs the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service
    (NPS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to develop a ``Tribal Co-
    Management Plan'' in consultation with the Department of the Interior's
    (DOI) Tribal Advisory Committee. These plans would cover forest and
    grassland planning and management activities, research and development,
    restoration activities, and recreational services on federal lands.
    Section 3 directs DOI to ensure that employees involved in the
    formulation of these plans undergo training on working with Tribes on
    the development and execution of such plans. Finally, Section 4 directs
    USFS to enter into at least five agreements over a four-year period to
    carry out forest management, research, recreation, or restoration
    activities. This section stipulates that USFS cannot delegate any
    nondelegable functions to Tribes and lays out a process for Tribes to
    request to enter into agreements with USFS. Finally, this section
    authorizes $50 million in appropriations for five years.
        The Federal Lands Subcommittee recently held a legislative hearing
    on a discussion draft of Tribal forestry legislation led by Indian and
    Insular Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Hurd (R-CO-03) entitled the
    ``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through Sound Tribal
    Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' Information about that legislation can be
    found at link below:

    https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
    _sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_forests_act__05.20.25.pdf

        Both the FORESTS Act and H.R. 3444 illustrate that there is room
    for bipartisan agreement on some crucial forest management issues. As
    USFS testified in the legislative hearing on the FORESTS Act,
    encouraging more Tribal co-stewardship of overgrown, fire-prone federal
    lands is also consistent with President Trump's Executive Order on
    ``Immediate Expansion of Timber Production.'' 18
        Outstanding questions remain regarding H.R. 3444. For example,
    Sections 2 and 3 of the legislation exclude USFS, a critical agency for
    co-stewardship in forestry, and are ambiguous about how Tribal Co-
    Management Plans and associated training will interact with existing
    land use or resource management plans. Further, it is unclear what
    portion of these plans actually delegates co-management authority to
    Tribes. There are also questions about how Section 4 interacts with
    existing authorities, primarily the Tribal Forest Protection Act of
    2004 and Good Neighbor Authority.19 Further, the un-offset
    authorization of appropriations does not comply with Republican floor
    protocols.
    IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
    H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
            2025''
    Section 2. Additional Institute.

         Amends the ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
                Prevention Act of 2004'' to add Utah as a fourth location
                for a SWERI center, joining Arizona, New Mexico, and
                Colorado.

    H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''
    Section 2. Application of NEPA and NHPA to Covered Communications
            Projects.
         Exempts certain covered communications projects from NEPA
                and NHPA reviews.20 In order to qualify, a
                covered communications project must be:

         Carried out entirely in an area where the President, a
                Governor, or Indian Tribe has declared a major disaster or
                emergency related to wildfire;

         Carried out within five years of such declaration; and

         Designed to replace or make improvements to a communications
                facility necessary to recover from, mitigate, or prevent a
                wildfire.

    H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
            convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry
            County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
    Section 1. Conveyance of Specified Forest Service Property to Perry
            County, Arkansas.

         Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
                approximately 0.81 acres of USFS land to Perry County,
                Arkansas within 180 days of the bill's enactment if the
                county submits a written request for the conveyance.

         Specifies that the conveyance will be made subject to
                valid and existing rights, without consideration, and that
                the exact property to be conveyed will be determined based
                on the results of a mutually satisfactory survey.

         Requires Perry County to pay all costs associated with the
                conveyance.

         Specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not have
                to provide a covenant or warranty for the property under
                the ``Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
                and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.'' 21

    H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
            in Forestry Act of 2025''
    Section 2. Tribal Co-Management Plans of the Department of the
            Interior.

         Requires BLM, NPS, FWS, and BIA to develop a ``Tribal Co-
                Management Plan'' within one year of the bill's enactment,
                or, if a substantially similar plan already exists, to
                adopt and update it within 120 days of the bill's
                enactment. These plans must be developed in consultation
                with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary's
                Tribal Advisory Committee (chartered on November 11, 2021).

         Specifies that the plans must identify any activity,
                service, or function to be carried out on federally
                administered lands that the Secretary of the Interior
                determines need such action; are consistent with existing
                land management plans; have historical, cultural, or
                geographical significance to an Indian Tribe; and comply
                with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Actions
                also included in this identification are forest and
                grassland planning and management, research and
                development, restoration, and recreational service
                activities.

    Section 3. Tribal Co-Management Training.

         Requires all DOI employees involved in developing and
                carrying out a Tribal Co-Management Plan to complete a
                training on Indigenous knowledge, the Tribal history of the
                areas in which they work, as well as the federal
                government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes.

         Allows the Secretary of the Interior to consult with
                Indian Tribes.

    Section 4. Authority to Enter into Agreements with Indian Tribes and
            Tribal Organizations to Carry Out Certain Forest Service
            Activities.

         Requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
                Chief of the Forest Service, to enter, within four years,
                into at least five co-management agreements with Indian
                Tribes or Tribal organizations under this bill or existing
                authorities (such as the Indian Self-Determination and
                Education Assistance Program or the Agriculture Improvement
                Act of 2018).22 Such agreements can cover forest
                and grassland planning and management, research and
                development, restoration, and recreational service
                activities, as well as activities of the Heritage Program.

         Specifies that co-management agreements must be carried
                out on National Forest System (NFS) lands, consistent with
                the applicable forest plan and applicable laws, and
                relevant to an applicable Indian Tribe. Co-management
                agreements cannot include activities that are nondelegable,
                conflict with existing stewardship contracts, or require
                Tribal reliance on a state government for necessary
                resources.

         Stipulates that Tribes must submit a formal proposal to
                request an agreement, including a description of proposed
                activities and identification of the relevant NFS lands.

         Sets up considerations for the Secretary of Agriculture to
                evaluate proposals from Tribes and requirements for denying
                Tribal requests. In particular, the Secretary of
                Agriculture is permitted to evaluate proposals on a best-
                value basis and give special consideration to factors such
                as historical Tribal ties to the land, landscape
                characteristics, prior collaboration with USFS, access
                needs, as well as Indigenous knowledge and skills.

         Sets terms and conditions for payments to Tribes under co-
                management agreements and sets parameters to reduce
                paperwork requirements on Tribes that receive payments.

         Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review agreements
                every five years, offering modifications or termination if
                appropriate, and allows for earlier review at the request
                of Tribes following a natural disaster.

         Requires the publication of a non-exhaustive list of
                activities in the Federal Register that are eligible for
                co-management agreements every three years.

         Requires a report to Congress every three years of the
                accomplishments made using this authority.

         Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with
                Indian Tribes on Indigenous knowledge and data sovereignty.

         Allows Tribes to be considered USFS employees under the
                Federal Tort Claims Act.23

         Exempts activities under this section from the
                requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

         Specifies that nothing in this section affects the current
                or future rights of any Indian Tribe or their authority to
                enter into agreements, provides for the exclusive use of
                NFS lands, or limits the Secretary of Agriculture from
                entering into other agreements.

         Authorizes $50 million in funding from fiscal year (FY)
                2026 through FY 2030 to carry out this section.

    V. COST
        A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
    is not yet available for any of the bills.
    VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
        The Trump administration's position is unknown at this time.
    VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
        H.R. 1045

    https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
    law_119hr1045ih.pdf
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1045, UTAH WILDFIRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACT
    OF 2025; H.R. 1655, WILDFIRE COMMUNICATIONS RESILIENCY ACT; H.R. 3187,
    TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY A PARCEL OF PROPERTY
        OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO PERRY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND FOR OTHER
    PURPOSES; AND H.R. 3444, TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT IN
                              FORESTRY ACT OF 2025

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 10, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                         Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Bentz,
    Amodei, Maloy, Kennedy; Neguse, Leger Fernandez, and Huffman.
        Also present: Representatives Hill; and Hoyle.
        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 four bills:
    H.R. 1045 by Representative Kennedy, Utah Wildlife--Wildfire
    Research Institute Act of 2025; H.R. 1655, sponsored by
    Representative Bentz, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency
    Act; H.R. 3187, Representative Hill; H.R. 3444, by Ranking
    Member Huffman, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
    in Forestry Act of 2025.
        I ask unanimous consent that the following members be
    allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
    gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle.
        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. Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets
    to consider four pieces of legislation that will address our
    Nation's forest health and wildfire crisis. Across the United
    States more than 1.2 million acres have already burned this
    year. As we enter the height of wildland fire activity over the
    next few months, it is critical we advance solutions that will
    restore forest health, cut red tape, and prevent catastrophic
    wildfires.
        We simply cannot afford to wait. That is why the House
    passed the Fix Our Forests Act earlier this year on a
    bipartisan basis. The Senate Agriculture Committee has already
    held two hearings on FOFA, and I look forward to continuing to
    work with my bipartisan Senate counterparts to send this bill
    to the President's desk soon.
        We cannot truly address the wildfire crisis unless we have
    the right data. Representative Kennedy's Utah Wildfire Research
    Institute Act of 2025 would create a new Southwest Ecological
    Restoration Institute to help advance cutting-edge research
    that can be applied on the ground to achieve true results. In
    Utah more than 190,000 people live in areas considered to be at
    high risk of fire. Despite this, Utah is the only four-corner
    State without a Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute.
    Representative Kennedy's legislation resolves this issue,
    keeping Utahns safe and ensuring the State remains at the
    forefront of wildland fire research.
        I would also like to highlight Representative Bentz's
    Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act. Across the country
    there are tens of thousands of communications facilities at
    risk of wildland fire. When those facilities are damaged or
    destroyed on Federal lands, companies must undergo a lengthy
    permitting process for these facilities to be repaired or
    rebuilt. For the millions of Americans that rely on fast,
    accessible communications infrastructure, these long wait times
    are unacceptable.
        Representative Bentz's legislation is a common-sense
    solution to this problem, and would allow facilities damaged by
    wildfires to be rebuilt quickly without undergoing duplicative
    environmental reviews. This is not an exemption from any type
    of environmental review. In fact, in order to be built in the
    first place these facilities must undergo extensive
    environmental analysis. The mere fact that communications
    facilities are damaged during wildfires should not mean that
    they are forced to undertake the same duplicative processes
    that have already been completed.
        In addition to this legislation, we will also consider
    legislation from Representative Hill to convey a vacant Forest
    Service building in Perryville, Arkansas to the local community
    so they can better utilize it as an education and community
    outreach center. This thoughtful legislation is a win-win, as
    it reduces the burden on the Federal taxpayer and helps advance
    President Trump's recent executive order on restoring common
    sense to Federal office space management.
        Finally, the Federal Lands Subcommittee will continue its
    important work today elevating Tribes as full partners in
    managing overgrown, fire-prone forests. In our last hearing we
    heard testimony on Representative Hurd's FORESTS Act, which
    provides several new tools to the Forest Service and Department
    of the Interior to expand tribal stewardship of Federal
    forests. I look forward to continuing that important discussion
    today.
        I would like to thank each of the sponsors of today's
    legislation for bringing forward these thoughtful proposals. I
    also 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.
        Mr. Tiffany. With that I will yield back and recognize the
    Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for his opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    of our colleagues for joining us today for the hearing and, of
    course, our witnesses.
        We are here to consider, as the Chairman referenced, four
    very different bills focused on wildfire research,
    communications infrastructure, tribal self-determination, and a
    land conveyance. Any meaningful response to the wildfire
    crisis, which I agree is certainly a crisis, demands science-
    driven solutions, strong interagency coordination, and respect
    for Indigenous knowledge. The bills that we are considering
    today offer some useful innovations in that regard, and so I
    look forward to digging into the details.
        Starting with H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research
    Institute Act, I want to thank Representative Kennedy for his
    effort to expand wildfire research capacity by including Utah
    in the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes network. As
    I am sure Mr. Kennedy is aware, the institute at Colorado State
    University is in my district, and I have certainly seen
    firsthand how these collaborative programs in Fort Collins have
    supported forest health and wildfire preparedness, and so
    grateful to my colleague for introducing this bill to add our
    neighbor to the west to the network.
        I do want to say, you know, for the record, that I am very
    concerned, remain deeply concerned about the Forest Service's
    proposed 55 percent funding cut to the Southwest Ecological
    Restoration Institute's network programs for Fiscal Year 2025.
    That threatens the institute programs, including in Fort
    Collins and any other programs that might be added in other
    States and the viability, I would think, of a new Utah
    institute. And so I think that is important contextually for us
    to be considering.
        It is troubling to me that the Administration has proposed
    completely eradicating the Forest Service's research budget.
    Research is a fundamental pillar of our response to the
    wildfire crisis that k our communities safe, promotes
    forest health, and enhances resilience to climate change. This
    requires sustained funding and investment in order to be
    successful, and so I hope that that is an issue that we can
    address in a bipartisan manner as we look into the possibility
    of adding a new institute in Utah.
        With respect to H.R. 1655, introduced by Representative
    Bentz, this bill I understand he is very passionate about with
    respect to rebuilding communication systems after wildfires,
    and I certainly agree that rebuilding those systems after
    natural disasters or wildfires is a real and urgent need. But I
    have some concerns with respect to the legislation he has
    proposed, and so I look forward to asking some questions of the
    witnesses to further unpack that particular bill.
        Next we are discussing H.R. 3187 from Representative Hill.
    This bill proposes transferring a small parcel of Forest
    Service land to Perry County, Arkansas. I want to thank the
    Chairman and my colleagues for bringing the bill to our
    Subcommittee through the regular order process. This is an
    example of how a bill like this ought to be considered, and so
    I look forward to hearing more about the transfer and
    considering that bill.
        Lastly, but certainly not least, we will be discussing H.R.
    3444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management and
    Forestry Act, introduced by, of course, the Ranking Member of
    our full Committee, Mr. Huffman. I am proud to be an original
    co-sponsor of this bill and to support the legislation which I
    think is thoughtful and insightful and forward-thinking. The
    bill creates new tools for true partnerships between tribal
    nations and Federal agencies, moving us beyond consultation
    toward shared governance. It centers tribal voices in forest
    planning and resource protection, reduces barriers that might
    limit tribal co-management. Tribal co-management, of course, is
    not new, but Congress can do a whole lot more to fulfill our
    treaty and our trust responsibilities to tribal nations.
        Mr. Neguse. So again, I am looking forward to considering
    all of these bills today, and I will yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
        And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
    full Committee, Mr. Huffman, for your opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
        Folks, I am pleased to see a really productive agenda for
    us today. There are a number of bills here reflecting issues
    where we ought to be able to do some things together on a
    bipartisan basis, productive, common-sense, problem-solving
    things. Some of these are easier than others, but it is a good,
    productive agenda.
        And Mr. Chair, I just want to say, as we continue to try to
    advance work like this in this Committee, we have to also talk
    about the disconnect going on right now because we can say that
    we care about wildfire research, which I think we all do, we
    can express a desire to get communications back up online after
    wildfires and natural disasters. We can talk about these, you
    know, rather routine land transfer issues that come up from
    time to time. Those are important, too. I have had bills that
    do that. And certainly, we can and we need to work together on
    tribal co-management. But all of those things are a lot harder
    to do when you are slashing budgets in a reckless way and
    hollowing out this agency, and dismantling its ability to do
    all of the things that I just mentioned and that these bills
    all represent.
        And unfortunately, there has just been too much silence
    across the aisle in the face of some blatant disregarding of
    the law and total chaos from these budget cuts and these
    actions of DOGE, including at the Forest Service where funds
    for everything from hazardous fuel management to research on
    wildfire risk to recreation, all of it, was halted earlier last
    year and the agency is still reeling from that disruption. Now,
    I am relieved to see that some of the funds are starting to be
    unfrozen. Some of it is starting to move again. But I am
    concerned about the President's recently-released budget
    proposal which would decimate the Forest Service, an agency
    that Congress has actually under-invested in for too long.
        You know, House Democrats, a couple of Congresses ago
    prioritized investment in this agency through the Inflation
    Reduction Act, the Great American Outdoors Act, and the
    infrastructure law. But those investments and the future of the
    agency are at risk right now, and we need to be talking about
    that.
        The President's recently-released budget cuts the agency's
    budget by more than 75 percent, reduces salaries and expenses
    for Forest Service employees by $342 million, eliminates the
    Forest Service's research arm. Wildfire research is hard to do
    when you are eliminating the agency's research arm. And it
    zeroes out funding for the State, private, and tribal forestry
    program. Now, that is going to be obviously an important
    program if we are serious about tribal co-management.
        State, Private, and Tribal Forestry is the office,
    thankfully, that we have represented here today. So I look
    forward to hearing from Deputy Chief Crockett about how this
    critical aspect of the Forest Service will function without any
    funding. Maybe he has some magical solution to that dilemma,
    but I hope that he will call it the way it is. I don't think
    that office and that program works without funding, and we
    ought to be able to talk frankly about that. This is
    particularly relevant as the Committee discusses bills like
    mine to enhance tribal co-management and self-determination.
    New authorities and programs simply cannot function without
    staff and without resources to back them up.
        Mr. Huffman. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. We are
    going to now move on to our first panel, which consists of
    members who are sponsoring today's legislation. And Mr.
    Huffman, you are on a roll. You get another 5 minutes with H.R.
    3444 to be able to explain your bill.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Give me a chance to
    catch my breath. But now I get to talk about my bill. I want to
    thank the majority for including it in this hearing. This is,
    of course, my Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
    Forestry Act.
        Just a few weeks ago the Subcommittee brought together a
    distinguished panel of witnesses who were leaders in tribal
    forestry. And each of them I have had the privilege of working
    with and developing my legislation. Every one of them
    importantly emphasized that tribal forestry should be a
    bipartisan issue for this Committee, and I am certainly
    committed to making that so.
        I look forward to hearing from Mr. Tripp today. He has
    years of experience working with the Karuk Tribe's Natural
    Resources Department. Mr. Tripp knows that in my district the
    Karuk Tribe and others have been leaders in forest management,
    the integration of cultural burns, use of Indigenous knowledge
    on lands with generations of history that remain deeply tied to
    them. I hope my Republican colleagues and Chair Westerman will
    continue to work with us and with Tribes and tribal
    organizations, all of whom share the goal of bringing Tribes
    into the decision-making process when it comes to managing our
    Federal lands.
        Tribal nations have played a key role in land management
    since time immemorial, and it is past time for the Federal land
    management agencies to start working with them as equal
    partners, to take a step towards fulfilling our trust and
    treaty obligations to tribal nations. That is what my
    legislation is all about. My bill ensures that Tribes not only
    have a seat at the table, but a meaningful stake in decisions
    affecting their communities.
        The legislation provides that the Forest Service will have
    additional standalone authority to enter into co-management
    agreements with Tribes to carry out critical wildfire
    prevention work and other forest management activities on our
    national forest lands. It gives Tribes more authority to build
    on the work that they have already been doing through the
    National Forest System to improve water quality, preserve
    culturally significant species and places, and manage invasives
    and sustain natural resources.
        These are broadly-supported policy goals, but we are all
    well aware on this Committee that work that is needed in our
    national forest is often halted by devastating wildfires and
    other natural disasters. This legislation provides more
    flexibility to adjust co-management plans in the event of that
    kind of disruption, and also allows Tribes to request review
    from the Forest Service to keep things on track.
        I am glad to see the Forest Service here today, as this
    legislation builds on critical tribal consultation that USDA
    and the Forest Service have conducted to expand and advance
    self-determination in forestry. Many of the ideas proposed
    during that consultation are reflected in my legislation.
        To help Congress address the wildfire crisis, USDA worked
    with the Department of the Interior, with Homeland Security,
    and FEMA to establish the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
    Management Commission, and that commission developed
    comprehensive recommendations for improving wildfire response.
    One key recommendation was for the USDA to have standalone
    authorities to enter into co-management agreements with tribal
    nations. That is exactly what my bill does.
        The bill would also enhance tribal stewardship at Interior
    by directing each land management agency to collaboratively
    develop tribal co-management plans with the Secretary's Tribal
    Advisory Committee. So the focus of the bill clearly is
    forestry and the Forest Service, but we think that the tribal
    co-management policies there will become models for all public
    land agencies, and we want to get the Interior agencies moving
    forward with their own planning and tribal co-management
    activities as well.
        All Department of the Interior employees would be involved
    in developing or implementing tribal co-management plans. They
    would also be required to receive culturally appropriate
    training, including education on the trust relationship between
    the Federal Government and tribal nations.
        So I hope my colleagues share our commitment to delivering
    for Tribes and their forestry goals. I urge them to work with
    us on this legislation to ensure that the Administration's
    actions do not irreparably harm Indian Country.
        Mr. Huffman. And I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you to the Ranking Member. And I
    would now like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
    Bentz, for his statement in regards to H.R. 1655.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    present my bill, H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications
    Resiliency Act. This legislation was crafted as a direct
    response to the devastating wildfire seasons we have seen in
    the West, and in Oregon in particular.
        In 2024, just last year, nearly 2 million acres burned in
    Oregon, and approximately 900,000 of those acres are in my
    district alone sadly, setting new records. Many of these fires
    struck rural communities where communication infrastructure is
    already limited, and the loss of even a single tower or line
    can strand entire counties from emergency resources during
    these disasters. My district includes 20 such counties.
        In too many cases the process of rebuilding or upgrading
    communication systems has been delayed not due to technical
    difficulty, but because of bureaucratic rules and regulations.
    Federal environmental reviews under NEPA and the National
    Historic Preservation Act often take months or sometimes years
    to complete, even when the project simply seeks to replace or
    harden equipment destroyed in a federally declared disaster
    area. This is not just inefficient, it is dangerous and
    absolutely makes no sense.
        H.R. 1655 provides a targeted exemption from these reviews
    for communication infrastructure projects located within the
    footprint of a declared wildfire disaster. It applies only to
    facilities that are replacing damaged structures or upgrading
    systems for greater fire resilience. This bill is not about
    circumventing environmental protection; it is about enabling
    our communities to recover and prepare without unnecessary and
    duplicative hurdles that cost time, money, and, in some cases,
    lives.
        This bill represents a common-sense approach to disaster
    recovery, which is grounded in the reality that our communities
    are facing growing threats from increasingly severe wildfires.
    In times of emergency people need reliable, necessary, and
    essential communication networks that are up and operational to
    coordinate rescue efforts, receive emergency alerts, and
    maintain contact with loved ones. Bureaucratic permitting
    delays and lengthy environmental assessments should not hinder
    this urgent and necessary restoration process.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Bentz. I now
    recognize Representative Kennedy for 5 minutes on H.R. 1045.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Ranking
    Member Neguse, as well as my fellow Committee members. I am
    grateful to be here to present my bill, which is a simple bill.
        As an oversight to the 2004 Southwest Forest Health and
    Wildfire Prevention Act, Utah was not included in the Four
    Corners States--Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado were included
    in--the opportunity to have a Southwest Ecological Restoration
    Institute, or SWERI Institute, and this bill amends that Act
    with inclusion of Utah as a State that has one of these
    institutes.
        And I am actually pleased to report that in 2024 the State
    legislature actually authorized the formation of an institute
    housed at Utah State University, and also provided start-up
    funding already for that institute. And my witness later on,
    Dr. Yocom, will testify to the fact that the State of Utah is
    ready to stand up that institute.
        Utah has a unique geographic boundary that reflects
    important interests as to fire prevention, and this Southwest
    Ecological Restoration Institute will provide the research that
    would allow us to prevent these devastating wildfires that
    plague not only the West generally, but Utah specifically.
        We are looking forward to collaborating with partners to
    improve forest management and wildfire prevention efforts, and
    there is a long history of successful and innovative resource
    management and planning programs in Utah that add value to
    wildfire prevention and restoration efforts across the West.
        So, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing this bill to be heard
    in this Committee, and I look forward to the support of not
    only my friends on one side of the aisle, but bipartisan-wise,
    wildfires are not a partisan issue and I am grateful for the
    opportunity to sponsor this problem-solving legislation that
    can help us move forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Representative Kennedy. We are
    going to move on to our second panel now.
        Let me remind the witness that under Committee rules you
    must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire
    statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony please press the on button.
        We use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn
    green. At the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red, and we
    will ask you to complete your statement. You are a veteran at
    this.
        I would now like to introduce Mr. John Crockett, Deputy
    Chief of State, Private, and Tribal Forestry at the United
    States Forest Service.
        Deputy Chief Crockett, welcome, and you are recognized for
    5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN CROCKETT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STATE, PRIVATE, AND
    TRIBAL FORESTRY, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Crockett. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Tiffany,
    Ranking Member Neguse, members of Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the four
    public land bills with Forest Service equities under
    consideration today. My name is John Crockett, and I have been
    a career employee with the U.S. Forest Service for over 28
    years, and I currently serve as the Deputy Chief of State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry, as well as the Acting Deputy
    Chief for the National Forest System.
        The Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of
    Federal lands for a variety of uses that support sound
    management of lands held in other ownerships, works at the
    forefront of science to improve the health of our Nation's
    forests. And today I look forward to discussing a range of
    bills that touch on the agency's work. While our interest
    varies across the bills, our testimony expresses a willingness
    to work with the Committee on the ideas put forward.
        H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a
    small parcel of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National
    Forest to Perry County, Arkansas. The Forest Service supports
    this conveyance and the local benefits it will generate, and
    looks forward to working with the Committee to ensure the
    parcel's prompt conveyance.
        H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,
    would ensure the construction and repair of communication
    facilities following major disasters such as wildfires, and
    they are not subject to certain reviews under the National
    Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation
    Act. We support this bill and the goal to expedite approvals to
    rebuild communication infrastructure following natural
    disasters, and welcome the opportunity to share feedback on
    small technical matters.
        H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
    2025, would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
    Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an
    additional Southwest Ecological Research Institute, or SWERI,
    in the State of Utah. The Forest Service supports this bill,
    this bill's goal to work closely with State universities on
    research that helps to address the challenges faced in the
    Great Basin and the Interior West.
        H.R. 3444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
    in Forestry Act of 2025, would authorize the Secretary of
    Agriculture to enter into agreements with Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act title 1 contracts
    with Indian Tribes, tribal organizations to perform certain
    activities, services, or functions, including management
    decisions on National Forest System lands that are
    historically, culturally, or geographically relevant to Tribes.
    The Forest Service supports shared stewardship with tribal
    nations, where overlapping interests with the National Forest
    System lands exist, including work to reduce wildfire risk,
    restore landscapes following natural disasters, and preserve
    cultural heritage.
        We also strongly support the bill's proposed extension of
    the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal employees carrying out
    activities under these contracts or agreements. However, there
    are components of the bill we hope to discuss further with the
    Committee.
        First, we respectfully note that title 1 of the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act applies to
    programs that are operated for Tribes at the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and Indian Health Services. The statues are not a
    funding vehicle. Rather, it transfers the administration of the
    qualifying programs that are operated to the benefit of the
    Tribe from the Federal agency to the Tribe. Since the Forest
    Service does not provide direct services to Tribes, we hope to
    discuss the compatibility of this statute with the agency's
    work.
        Second, we hope to work with the Committee to further
    understand what is meant by the term ``management decisions''
    in order to ensure the language meets congressional intent.
        And lastly, we hope to further discuss the potential of
    this bill's positioning the Forest Service as the arbiter of
    competing interests with Tribes within the same landscape, a
    role that could be difficult for the agency to fulfill.
        This concludes my testimony, and thank you for the
    opportunity to share the Forest Service views, and I look
    forward to answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:]
     Prepared Statement of John Crockett, Deputy Chief, State, Private and
                                Tribal Forestry

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) Forest Service to provide testimony on four bills: H.R. 1045--
    ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'', H.R. 1655--``Wildfire
    Communications Resiliency Act'', H.R. 3187--``To require the Secretary
    of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to
    Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes'', and H.R. 3444--
    ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of
    2025.''
    H.R. 1045, Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025
        H.R. 1045, the ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025,''
    would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of
    2004 to require the establishment of an additional research institute
    in the state of Utah. This would be in addition to three existing
    institutes in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico that are collectively
    known as the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERIs).
        The Forest Service understands the Committee's interest in pursuing
    additional research in the Great Basin and Interior West, including on
    the spread of invasive plants and associated fire danger, with the goal
    of increasing knowledge and dissemination of challenges and successes
    in regional forest and rangeland management.
        While the Forest Service supports the goal of working closely with
    state universities to address challenges facing the Great Basin and
    Interior West, the FY 2026 Budget does not include resources to provide
    financial assistance to the SWERIs.
    H.R. 1655, Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act
        H.R. 1655, the ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,'' would
    provide that construction, rebuilding, or hardening of communications
    facilities following a major disaster or wildfire--related emergency
    are not subject to certain reviews under the National Environmental
    Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.
        The Forest Service recognizes the serious impacts that utility
    interruptions have on the health and welfare of communities and
    individuals and prioritizes post-disaster restoration of communications
    and other critical services on National Forest System lands. The agency
    supports an expedited approval process for rebuilding communications
    facilities that have been damaged or destroyed by a major disaster or
    emergency event and supports the opportunity presented in H.R. 1655 to
    efficiently address facility repairs. Specifically, the Forest Service
    strongly supports the exclusion of communications facilities damaged by
    a wildfire disaster or emergency from being considered a ``major
    Federal action,'' and therefore not subject to requirements to prepare
    certain environmental reviews or be considered an undertaking under 54
    U.S.C. 300320. We welcome further discussion with the Committee on some
    small technical concerns to ensure that the proposed legislation can
    accelerate agency efforts.
    H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel
            of property of the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas,
            and for other purposes
        H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel
    of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National Forest to Perry County,
    Arkansas.
        The Forest Service recognizes the potential local benefits this
    conveyance could provide and supports the conveyance of the Perryville
    office building and 0.81-acre parcel to Perry County. The Forest
    Service has engaged Perry County in direct sale conversations since
    2022 and would like to work with the Committee to ensure the prompt
    conveyance of this parcel.
    H.R. 3444, Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act
            of 2025
        H.R. 3444, the ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
    Forestry Act of 2025,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    develop a Tribal Co-Management Plan for Bureaus within the Department
    and would require related training for staff. It would also authorize
    the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements and contracts
    with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to perform certain
    activities, services, or functions, including management decisions, on
    National Forest System lands that are consistent with applicable land
    management plans and carried out on land that is historically,
    culturally, or geographically related to the relevant Tribe. Activities
    could include forest and grassland planning and management,
    restoration, recreational services, Forest Service Heritage Program
    activities, and research and development activities.
        The Forest Service supports robust shared stewardship with Tribal
    Nations where overlapping interests exist. We work closely with Tribal
    Nations on forest management, wildfire mitigation, resource
    restoration, risk reduction, and cultural preservation efforts. We
    actively engage in shared stewardship through a dozen existing
    authorities, including the Tribal Forest Protection Act and Good
    Neighbor Authority.
        We defer to the Department of the Interior on Sections 2 and 3 of
    the bill, which direct the development of a Tribal Co-Management Plan
    and related staff training for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
    Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Section 4 authorizes the Forest Service to enter into agreements or
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Title I
    contracts with Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out activities,
    services, or functions--including permissive activities and management
    decisions--on Forest Service lands that are identified as historically,
    culturally, or geographically related to relevant Indian Tribes. The
    bill requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register, every
    three years, a non-exhaustive list of activities eligible for inclusion
    in those agreements, in consultation with Tribes. The bill sets forth
    time frames and factors that the Forest Service must consider before
    entering into the agreements, such as valid existing rights of other
    parties, and identifies special factors for consideration, such as
    Tribal citizen access and indigenous knowledge. The bill allows a Tribe
    to amend its agreement to undertake additional activities in response
    to a natural disaster. The bill also extends the Federal Tort Claims
    Act coverage to Tribes carrying out the agreements or contracts.
        The Forest Service supports the inclusion of formal consultation,
    the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge, and the extension of the
    Federal Tort Claims Act to Tribal employees carrying out activities
    under the agreements.
        The Forest Service welcomes a discussion with the sponsors to
    address certain legal and implementation matters related to Section 4
    to ensure that Congressional intent is effectuated. More clarity on
    which management decisions are eligible for contracting would be
    beneficial, particularly since the agreements must be consistent with
    federal law and non-delegation principles.
        As the sponsors may know, Title I of the Indian Self-Determination
    and Education Assistance Act is not a funding vehicle, but rather a
    statutory mechanism that transfers Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
    Health Service programs operated for Tribes over to Tribal control. We
    welcome a discussion on the applicability of that statute's terms for
    the Forest Service context and its interplay with the annual funding
    provisions from the Self-Governance Act in the bill. We also welcome a
    discussion concerning the Forest Service's authority to protect Tribal
    data sovereignty in order to carry out the goals contained in the bill.
        Lastly, Section 4 of the bill requires that activities carried out
    on Forest Service land be historically, culturally, or geographically
    related to the Tribe without requiring a temporal nexus to the
    landscape. When there are overlapping Tribal interests with complicated
    histories over the same landscape this provision places the Forest
    Service in a position as arbiter of those interests. We welcome a
    discussion with the sponsors on this issue. We defer to the Department
    of the Interior if any portions of Section 4 that may affect its
    bureaus and agencies.
    Conclusion
        That concludes the Forest Service's testimony. Thank you again
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to present USDA's views on this
    proposed legislation.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett. I am now
    going to recognize members for 5 minutes of questioning, and we
    will start with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiffany.
        Deputy Chief Crockett, thank you for joining us today. Can
    you expand upon the challenges the Forest Service faces in
    conducting proper forest management after a wildfire or another
    disaster?
        And how long does it typically take for the Forest Service
    to rebuild infrastructure on land that has been affected?
        Mr. Crockett. So thank you for the question. How long does
    it take to rebuild infrastructure? It depends on the nature of
    the damage, the type of facility that was in place, and so I
    will give you a general bookmark of time frames. So on the
    minimum side, a couple of months if everything is pretty simple
    and everything works out with it.
        On the other side of that bookend would be anywhere----
        Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, when you say,
    ``everything works out'', define ``works out.''
        Mr. Crockett. Sure. So if it is----
        Mr. Stauber. You know where I am going with that.
        Mr. Crockett. Yes. So I am trying to basically give you the
    simplest answer on it because it is complicated.
        So when I say, ``works out,'' if the alignment of the
    people capacity in the Forest Service is there, if the proposal
    itself is pretty straightforward, meaning there is not any back
    and forth that we need to do with the entity, so that is what I
    mean, if it works out.
        Mr. Stauber. So if it doesn't work out, what is the longest
    time frame you have seen?
        Mr. Crockett. We are required by the Mobile Now Act to have
    everything either approved or denied within 270 days. So that
    is the maximum extent of it.
        Mr. Stauber. And during your career with the Forest
    Service, have these timelines increased or decreased to rebuild
    infrastructure after a wildfire?
        Mr. Crockett. I would say they vary. There are some
    infrastructure facilities that we are able to expedite, and
    there are other ones that take an extended amount of time for
    some of the reasons that I just named.
        Mr. Stauber. And before I yield my time to Chairman
    Tiffany, I just wanted to double check. I think I know this
    answer. Wildfires don't adhere to NEPA, do they?
        Mr. Crockett. No, they don't.
        Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, thanks for your
    testimony. I am going to yield the balance of my time to
    Chairman Tiffany.
        Mr. Crockett. Thank you.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Minnesota.
        To the question that he was doing there you said it is
    complicated. Give us a little bit more about why this is
    complicated, that it takes so much time.
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, so the complicating factors is depending
    on what level of staffing we have on hand to be able to accept
    the proposal and run it through our review process. So the
    people side of it, the complexity of the actual proposal
    itself, like I said earlier, if it is pretty straightforward,
    should be able to move forward without any delays. But if there
    are unforeseen matters that either the proposal didn't plan
    for, then that could adjust the time frames.
        Mr. Tiffany. How could Congress help uncomplicate it?
        Mr. Crockett. I think what you named around, because in
    your opening statement you mentioned that the analysis has been
    done already if a communication site is in place. And so why
    duplicate that effort of having to do the additional analysis?
        As long as a check to make sure there is not a changed
    condition with it, I think the proposal that you put in place
    will help expedite the decision-making process.
        Mr. Tiffany. More generally speaking, not just on this
    specific proposal by, I think we are referring to
    Representative Bentz, how could Congress help uncomplicate your
    work?
        Mr. Crockett. So I would say timelines are definitely
    helpful. And if--obviously, it is our goal to expedite anything
    that comes in. But if we had timelines that we had to adhere
    to, that would be helpful. Obviously, having the right
    resources of staff capacity and funding.
        Mr. Tiffany. So in other words, tightening timelines might
    be a good thing?
        Mr. Crockett. Sure.
        Mr. Tiffany. That is all the questions I have.
    Representative Stauber, do you have any? I will yield back to
    you. It is your time if you have any further follow-up.
        Mr. Stauber. No, I think that if you had a structure on
    Forest Service land that you had to rebuild, same structure,
    same footprint, would you have to do a NEPA review?
        Mr. Crockett. We would do I would say a proficiency check
    on it to make sure that there are not any changed conditions
    from when that facility was originally put in place to now. So
    that is what I would name----
        Mr. Stauber. So no changes, no NEPA review?
        Mr. Crockett. No changes, no additional analysis.
        Mr. Stauber. Right. Like a categorical exclusion?
        Mr. Crockett. So a CATEX on the small end, yes, we should
    be able to run it through, and get public comment and
    perspectives on it, and move it forward.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Neguse.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett, for your testimony, for
    being here again before us. And I want to preface my comments
    and my questions with a statement, which is to say that I am
    very grateful for your service to the agency and to our
    country, and I hope you consider my questions in that light
    because I know you are a career official and doing your part to
    serve within the Forest Service. But as you can probably
    imagine, there are many of us here on the dais who have deep
    concerns about the political leadership of the Department of
    the Interior and the Forest Service and the Department of
    Agriculture. And as a result, given that you are----testifying
    in front of us today, I want to be sure that we have an
    opportunity to ask you some questions in that regard.
        So my colleague, my Republican colleague, Mr. Tiffany,
    mentioned uncomplicating your work, I think, was the phrase
    that he used. And your response was something to the effect of
    having more resources for, you know, the folks on your team to
    do their jobs would be helpful. You are aware that President
    Trump has submitted his Fiscal Year 2026 skinny budget, and you
    have reviewed that. Is that fair?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.
        Mr. Neguse. OK. You are aware that his budget calls for the
    elimination of the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry branch
    of the United States Forest Service.
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.
        Mr. Neguse. What is your title?
        Mr. Crockett. I am the Deputy Chief for State, Private, and
    Tribal Forestry.
        Mr. Neguse. So the President, President Trump, proposes to
    eliminate the branch of the Forest Service that you lead.
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Mr. Neguse. Yes. I think that it is patently unfair for the
    Trump administration to ask you to come testify in front of
    this Committee on behalf of a budget that eliminates the very
    branch of the agency that you lead. And I am not the only one
    who feels that way.
        A variety of State leaders from across the country,
    Republicans and Democrats, have condemned the proposed cuts
    that this budget would make to wildfire programs, to the work
    that is being done by the hard-working people at the Forest
    Service, including in the branch that you lead, the hard-
    working civil servants who do their jobs every day. I know you
    are aware of this, Deputy Chief, but I think it is important
    for my colleagues to understand this, particularly those of us
    who serve on this Committee who also serve on the
    Appropriations Committee, because they are going to have a
    chance in the markups to potentially change this.
        You are aware of the State and volunteer fire capacity
    programs in your division, of course.
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Mr. Neguse. You are aware that that is being eliminated by
    the Trump administration, proposed to be eliminated in the
    budget?
        Mr. Crockett. I am aware of that, yes.
        Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Forest Stewardship
    Program?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, sir, right.
        Mr. Neguse. That is another program that President Trump
    has proposed to eliminate entirely.
        Mr. Crockett. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Joint Fire Science
    Program?
        Mr. Crockett. I am.
        Mr. Neguse. This funds wildfire research in response to the
    needs of land managers in Nevada and Utah and Colorado and
    Idaho. You are aware of that?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes.
        Mr. Neguse. And you are aware that President Trump is
    proposing eliminating it?
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Mr. Neguse. OK. So Mr. Chairman, one way to uncomplicate
    the Deputy Chief's job may be to ask President Trump not to
    propose eliminating the sub-agency that he leads and all of the
    various fire programs that I just mentioned, the impacts of
    which, by the way, will be most pronounced in the States that
    are represented by the members on this Committee, including my
    own in Colorado. I don't think that is an unfair request, and I
    say this in good faith.
        I mean, again, there are members of this Committee who
    serve on the Appropriations Committee. This is a live item. It
    is up for debate right now, right? House Republicans could
    reject some of these cuts and save these programs, they could
    save the division that you lead. We only need two or three.
        I am very supportive of Utah's effort to expand the SWERIs
    programs, the institutes that exist in Fort Collins, and to add
    Utah to it. But Deputy Chief, you have said in your testimony
    here the Fiscal Year 2026 budget does not include resources to
    provide financial assistance to these institutes. Right?
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Mr. Neguse. So I am trying to understand. My colleagues
    from Utah are proposing to add an institute while
    simultaneously this Congress is going to defund all of the
    institutes.
        And I guess what I would just ask of Mr. Kennedy because,
    again, I am very supportive, and I would just ask for your
    partnership. Let's get your legislation across the finish line,
    but let's also make sure that your institute and that
    Colorado's institute and Arizona's, that they are funded.
    Otherwise, what is the point of adding new institutes if we are
    going to defund them? That is my request, I should say.
        And I yield back. Thank you for the Chairman's indulgence.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now would like to
    recognize Ms. Maloy for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Crockett, thank you for being here. I only have a
    couple of questions for you, and they should be really easy.
    They are things you probably already know really well.
        As my colleague mentioned, my colleague from Utah sitting
    here to my right has introduced a bill to create a wildfire
    research institute in Utah. There are three that already exist
    in the Four Corners area. Can you speak to the value of those
    wildfire research institutes to the Forest Service, and
    improving management practices, and especially any way that
    they have helped the Forest Service localize management
    practices and make them specific?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, so thank you for the question. And yes,
    we do value our relationships with the existing SWERIs, and
    know that the Utah SWERI would provide a benefit from the
    research perspective, particularly around collaboration and
    helping our land managers upstream of the fire risk do the
    analysis that is needed to determine how to mitigate that fire
    risk. And that happens at the local level within the existing
    SWERIs, and I would assume that same level of collaboration
    would happen with the Utah SWERI.
        Ms. Maloy. Are there any examples where having local
    research from a SWERI has allowed Forest Service to improve
    management and localize it, instead of just having Federal,
    national, country-wide policies?
        Mr. Crockett. I think the examples in both Colorado from
    the Ranking Member as well as in Arizona, where the research
    institutions work hand in hand with the local forest leaders,
    either the forest supervisors or forest fire managers, to get
    the localized perspective on the research that is happening and
    impacting that State or that forest. And I have seen examples
    on the ground firsthand, particularly around Flagstaff,
    Arizona, on where that has benefited the local forest.
        Ms. Maloy. OK, thank you. I look forward to seeing that
    happening in Utah.
        And Mr. Bentz's bill that speeds up rebuilding
    communications infrastructure after a wildfire, I am excited to
    see that in here. I represent a State that has wildfires and is
    majority of the land managed by the Federal Government. Can you
    talk about the challenges your agency faces in permitting
    rebuilding critical infrastructure, particularly utilities,
    after a wildfire?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, so some of those challenges I did name
    earlier, but what I would say is the bottom line for us is
    faster approval of permitting processes allows communication
    sites to get back up and be utilized for their intended
    purposes.
        Ms. Maloy. I have also gone through this process before
    after wildfires in Utah, where we have utility infrastructure
    that has been damaged and we are just trying to rebuild it the
    same way, in the same path, and the process itself becomes a
    prohibition to getting things done. And I am excited that we
    are looking at ways to improve that and work together.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize Ms.
    Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    so much for joining us here today.
        I need to tell you my heart goes out to you. It really
    does, because you are trying to do your job knowing that there
    is a starvation budget that has been proposed by Trump that is
    yet to be opposed by the Republicans, which basically will make
    it impossible for you to do your job.
        And, you know, Mr. Kennedy, I joined with my Ranking Member
    in welcoming a research center in Utah. We have one in New
    Mexico.
        And, you know, Representative Maloy, you are absolutely
    right. These research centers are so key, especially as we try
    to recover from wildfires. We have a horrific wildfire in New
    Mexico. We have, luckily, a research center right in the middle
    of where that fire was, and so I welcome it. And I hope you do
    join us in supporting funding, because it doesn't do us any
    good to authorize something and then take away the funding for
    it.
        There was a bipartisan letter on May 16, 2025. We did get
    some Republicans to support it. Hopefully you will, as well,
    because that called for robust funding for these facilities. So
    I know the letter already went out, and I know we asked the
    Utah delegation to join us, but hopefully you will because it
    doesn't do us any good to authorize these programs if we don't
    fund them.
        You know, Deputy Chief Crockett, it takes boots on the
    ground to actually fight the fires and do the work you have
    been asked to do. Is that correct?
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, it takes boots in the forest to
    actually manage those forests. Is that correct?
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. And it takes dollars to fund the
    people who wear those boots. Is that correct?
        Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. And, you know, I am looking at the
    testimony that you provided to this Committee, I think it was 2
    years ago, approximately 2 years ago. And it is such a contrast
    with the testimony that you have provided today. Because if we
    look at that testimony, Tiffany was Chair. You came here
    telling us all the great work you were able to do. In fact, you
    pointed out that for the tribal programs that we are talking
    about today, you had testimony precisely about this kind of
    bill. Do you recall that testimony?
        Mr. Crockett. I do recall that testimony.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, and you pointed out that you were
    able to triple the number of agreements from 19.8 million to
    $68 million, right? What did it feel like to be able to do that
    kind of work, to get the money to actually do those kinds of
    agreements?
        Mr. Crockett. It was exciting to work with the Tribes and
    see that they had not only the ability to do the work, but it
    was funded. So yes, that was exciting.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. So what are you going to do if the
    starvation budget is what actually gets passed into law when
    you have now potentially four institutes and no money? How will
    you decide, like, which child goes hungry?
        Mr. Crockett. I don't know if I have an answer for you on
    that question, ma'am.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Will you be able to fund the four
    institutes, if we become four institutes, with the money that
    is in the proposed budget?
        Mr. Crockett. As it is currently proposed in the budget,
    the funding system that funds the institutes would be
    transferred to the Department of the Interior because it is our
    hazardous fuel budget line item that funds the institute, and
    the President's budget does propose moving that funding
    structure to the Department of the Interior.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. But there isn't enough money,
    regardless of where it is. There isn't enough money to do the
    research. There isn't enough money to actually carry out these
    programs. I think that is part of the problem.
        I mean, in contrast to your testimony 2 years ago, where
    you were excited, talking about these new things that were
    happening, and I need to tell you. Coming from, you know, the
    rural district that I represent, and it has those beautiful
    lands that are in Utah, that are in Montana, that are in
    Colorado, that are in all of these Western States, in fact,
    many of these Western States are represented by Republicans,
    but they seem ready to cut off, you know, cut it off at the
    knees so those boots won't be on the ground to be able to
    conduct the work that they need to do. And I just don't know
    how we are going to do this. We are running out of time.
        But I will point out that that earlier funding increases,
    they were bipartisan. It included the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law. And these bipartisan efforts are being defunded now at a
    rate that is alarming, given the wildfires that we are going to
    be seeing raging across the beautiful forests that I call home.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And Deputy Chief, thank you very much for being with us
    today. We appreciate your work on a daily basis, as well as you
    coming up here to visit with us.
        So the SWERI institutes were created by Congress to support
    science-based forest restoration. How does the U.S. Forest
    Service coordinate with these institutes to align Federal
    forest management priorities with academic research and on-the-
    ground capacity?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes, thank you for the question. And as I
    mentioned earlier, well, as an extension of what I mentioned
    earlier, research institutions are an extension of our ability
    to do work within the Forest Service. So obviously, we have a
    research wing within the agency, but the universities provide
    an extended perspective around wildfire research, one that we
    find valuable to the local resource.
        Dr. Kennedy. Can you give me any examples of research that
    has been useful to you in your 28-year career? I think you said
    28 years.
        Mr. Crockett. Yes.
        Dr. Kennedy. So over the years, what sort of research have
    the SWERI institutes given to the Forest Service that has
    helped you in doing the job that you do?
        Mr. Crockett. Yes. So the SWERIs and the one in Arizona
    that I mentioned earlier, particularly around ponderosa pine, a
    species that is fire-dependent, they have provided research to
    help us better understand what management activities would look
    like to help reduce risk and severity from the ponderosa pine
    ecosystem.
        Dr. Kennedy. And you did mention, I think earlier, that----
    permitting reform is an important part of something that would
    help the institutes help with policy formulation that would
    actually help us in Washington, D.C. help you do your job.
        Mr. Crockett. I would say that the short answer is yes, but
    most of the work that they are doing is at the local level,
    helping those local managers make better decisions, which
    obviously helps us at the national level because they have
    policy in place that allows them to do their job better.
        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
        And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
        So the commentary on the other side is complete, so I want
    to just take a minute here before we close, Mr. Crockett, and
    ask you, first of all, thank you for your testimony. And after
    this exchange, what goes through your mind that we missed that
    needs to be brought up?
        I will focus on the solution side, but what have we missed?
    What do you recommend? Last-minute air time.
        Mr. Crockett. Sure, thank you for the question and the
    opportunity to provide a perspective.
        I think the Committee has named a dynamic tension between
    the authorizers and the appropriators, and I have a role in
    being in the middle of that, of having to make some tough
    decisions around our budget and our resources, and to fund or
    not to fund SWERIs, or to do the work or not to do the work.
    For me, I think that is the key point that has been named, that
    tension between the authorizers and the appropriators, and the
    differences in the branches of government between legislative
    and executive.
        Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Crockett, thank you very much.
        Mr. Crockett. Thank you.
        Mr. Fulcher. OK. With that, if there are no further
    questions, we will now move on to our third panel.
        I would like to thank the witness for his valuable
    testimony, and you are dismissed.
        While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the
    witnesses that under Committee rules they must limit their oral
    statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear
    in the hearing record.
        I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
    lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
    statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
        As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
    testify before member questioning.
        OK, first I would like to introduce The Honorable Larry
    Blackmon, Judge of Perry County, Arkansas.
        Judge Blackmon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY BLACKMON, JUDGE, PERRY COUNTY,
                          PERRYVILLE, ARKANSAS

        Judge Blackmon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Neguse, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. I appreciate the chance to speak in support of
    my Congressman representing French Hill's legislation, H.R.
    3087, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a
    parcel of property of the Forest Service in Perry County,
    Arkansas, and for other purposes.
        Perry County is a small rural county located in central
    Arkansas with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is
    the fourth smallest county in Arkansas, and the third by total
    land area. Roughly 16 percent of the residents in Perry County
    live in poverty. The county is 77 percent forested, resulting
    in limited economic opportunities. As a result, we have limited
    budget to invest in our community, which means we must find
    ways to maximize the value of every dollar.
        For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S.
    Forest Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in
    Perryville, Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful
    in this effort. As mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited
    resources and a high poverty rate, and the Forest Service
    building in the small county has been unable to purchase it
    outright.
        Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has
    been a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an
    appraisal, the U.S. Forest Service took over a year to complete
    the assessment of the building. During that year's time frame,
    the U.S. Forest Service had a new roof installed.
    Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to faulty
    insulation by the contractor. Once Perry County received the
    appraisal value, we were no longer able to afford to purchase
    the building and make the necessary repairs to make it usable.
        The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service will
    include installing a new roof, repairing all the exterior wood
    facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water
    damage from the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the
    interior of the building, repairs to the trusses, and most of
    the flooring will need to be replaced. While the U.S. Forest
    Service building will require repairs and updates, the county
    does have funding to make the necessary substantial repairs
    from the water damage. However, Perry County cannot make these
    improvements and purchase the building outright.
        Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service
    building, it will support key programs. Specifically, the
    building will house local organizations currently struggling
    with limited space and inadequate resources which restrained
    them from serving the community effectively. If Perry County is
    able to acquire the Forest Service Building, we can move the
    County Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4-H into the
    building. Currently, none of these organizations have
    sufficient space to conduct the necessary activities to fully
    serve the people of Perry County.
        In addition, these organizations do not have access to
    meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, which
    includes classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most
    significant benefits to Perry County is that the 4-H would have
    a permanent home. Currently, 4-H is forced to meet wherever
    they can find a suitable location.
        Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is
    strong, which includes but is not limited to the City of
    Perryville, Perryville Mayor John Rowland, the Perry County
    Chamber of Commerce, Perry County Fair Association, State
    Representative Mary Bentley, and State Senator Terry Rice.
        In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County create
    lasting benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable
    numerous organizations to serve Perry County in a greater
    capacity than they currently can due to a lack of office space,
    meeting rooms, and storage areas for equipment that they need
    to assist the citizens of Perry County.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy
    to answer any questions you or the other members may have.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Blackmon follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Judge Larry Blackmon

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    appreciate the chance to speak in support of my Congressman, Rep.
    French Hill's legislation, H.R. H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of
    Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to
    Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
        Perry County is a small, rural county located in central Arkansas,
    with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is the fourth
    smallest county in Arkansas and the third-smallest by total land area.
    Roughly 16 percent of residents in Perry County live in poverty. The
    county is 77 percent forested, resulting in limited economic
    opportunities. As a result, we have a limited budget to invest in our
    community, which means we must find ways to maximize the value of eve1y
    dollar.
        For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S. Forest
    Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville,
    Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful in this effort. As
    mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited resources and a high
    poverty rate, and the small county has been unable to purchase it
    outright. Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has been
    a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an appraisal, the U.S.
    Forest Service took over a year to complete the assessment of the
    building. During that year's timeframe, the U.S. Forest Service had a
    new roof installed. Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to
    faulty installation of the new roof by a contractor. Once Perry County
    received the appraisal value, we could no longer afford to purchase the
    U.S. Forest Service building and make the necessary repairs to make it
    usable.
        The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service Building
    include installing a new roof and repairing all the exterior wood
    facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water damage from
    the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the interior of the
    building, repairs to the trusses, and most of the flooring will need to
    be replaced. While the U.S. Forest Service building will require
    repairs and updates, our county does have the funding to make the
    necessary substantial repairs from the water damage. However, Perry
    County cannot make these improvements in addition to purchasing the
    U.S. Forest Service building outright.
        Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service building, it
    will support key programs. Specifically, the building will house local
    organizations currently struggling with limited space and inadequate
    resources, which restrain them from serving the community effectively.
    If Perry County is able to acquire the U.S. Forest Service building, we
    can move the county Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4H into
    the building. Currently, none of these organizations has sufficient
    space to conduct the necessary activities to fully serve the people of
    Perry County. In addition, these organizations do not have access to
    meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, including
    classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most significant
    benefits to Perry County is that 4H would have a permanent home.
    Currently, 4H is forced to meet wherever they can find a suitable
    location.
        Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is strong,
    which includes, but is not limited to, the City of Perryville,
    Perryville Mayor John Roland, the Perry County Chamber of Commerce, the
    Perry County Fair Association, State Representative Mary Bentley, and
    State Senator Terry Rice.
        In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County and create lasting
    benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable numerous
    organizations to serve Perry County in a greater capacity than they
    currently can due to a lack of office space, meeting rooms, and storage
    areas for equipment needed to assist the citizens of Perry County.
        Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

                                     ______

        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Judge Blackmon. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for 1 minute to introduce our
    next witness.
        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. I am grateful to
    be here to talk more about my Utah Wildfire Research Institute
    Act of 2025 and to introduce Dr. Yocom, who is the director of
    the Utah Forest Restoration Institute and an Associate
    Professor in the Wildland Resources Department at Utah State
    University.
        Dr. Yocom has contributed to numerous peer-reviewed journal
    articles on wildfire and forest management, and has been
    invited across Utah and the country, as well as the world, to
    give presentations on her work. As a subject matter expert, she
    currently serves on the board of the Southern Rockies Fire
    Science Network, a committee member of the Association for Fire
    Ecology Education Committee, and an advisory committee member
    for the Great Basin Fire Science Exchange.
        I thank Dr. Yocom for joining us here today, and I look
    forward to your testimony later.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I now recognize Ms.
    Larissa Yocom, Director of the Utah Forest Restoration
    Institute. Ms. Yocom, you have 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF LARISSA YOCOM, DIRECTOR, UTAH FOREST RESTORATION
                         INSTITUTE, LOGAN, UTAH

        Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am
    Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration
    Institute and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology and
    Management at Utah State University. I am excited about the
    opportunity to discuss the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act
    of 2025, a bill introduced by Representative Kennedy, with a
    companion bill, S. 457, introduced by Senator Lee.
        This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and
    Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of
    an additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under
    the Act in the State of Utah. Currently, three institutes exist
    in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
        Fire plays an essential role in keeping diverse Western
    forests healthy and has wide-ranging benefits. For example,
    aspen trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out
    recently burned areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a
    destructive force that resulted in the waste of valuable
    timber. For decades forest managers were remarkably successful
    in preventing and suppressing fire, while communities expanded
    into fire-prone areas. About 25 years ago, large and
    destructive megafires started to become a regular occurrence.
    At present we are experiencing more destructive fire, spending
    more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other
    cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies
    and rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for
    answers.
        How can we better manage our forests, keep communities
    safe, and reduce the risks for millions of Americans who depend
    on forests for services such as timber, clean air, recreation,
    hunting, grazing, and water supply?
        In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological
    Restoration Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical
    connector of science and practice to restore forest health and
    reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Hosted at
    universities to stay on the cutting edge of research, the SWERI
    work side by side with managers, policymakers, and communities
    to ensure that locally relevant science and technology reaches
    the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years
    to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an
    effective tool for improving outcomes.
        Although there is still plenty of work to do, we have
    learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to
    reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and
    prescribed fire, as well as developed science-based fire
    response strategies that are safer and more effective. We have
    learned more about how to engage residents to garner support
    for active forest management. We have learned about how to
    support collaboration across boundaries so that important fire
    prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We have
    learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned to
    restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways.
        Much of this learning has been developed and applied on the
    ground under the leadership of the SWERI, through their place-
    based monitoring and timely and nimble production of actionable
    ecological and social science. The work of the SWERI is so
    distinct and impactful that Utah wants a SWERI of their own. In
    2024 the Utah State Legislature authorized the formation of an
    institute housed at Utah State University, provided start-up
    funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I
    was named the Director in January of this year.
        Initial responses in Utah to the formation of the institute
    have been universally positive from partners including the
    State of Utah, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
    Service, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
    Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policy-
    makers.
        Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire problem, and we
    need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of forests and
    woodlands are unique. We will have different fire patterns from
    our neighboring States, and our solutions will need to be
    unique, too. Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in
    determining which management tools work best for Utah's forests
    and woodlands, and how to engage residents and decision-makers.
    Establishing a SWERI in Utah is critical to help us get ahead
    of the curve before it is too late. The benefits of
    establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier forests, safer
    communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed public.
        We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to
    ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI
    program, and will enhance their work across the Intermountain
    West. Federal designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be
    followed by sufficient appropriations for the new Utah
    Institute and sustained appropriations for the existing SWERI.
    Sustained Federal funding allows the SWERI to reliably and
    swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for
    science-based solutions, for reducing the risk of catastrophic
    wildfire, and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests
    in the Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent
    of the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of
    2004.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Yocom follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration
    Institute & Associate Professor, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah
                                State University

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and all members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am
    Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration Institute
    and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology & Management at Utah
    State University. I am excited about the opportunity to discuss the
    ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'' bill, introduced by
    Representative Kennedy with a companion bill S. 457 introduced by
    Senator Lee. This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and
    Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an
    additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under the Act in
    the state of Utah. Currently three institutes exist in Arizona, New
    Mexico, and Colorado. Passing this bill into law is an important
    initial step to benefit the people of Utah, as well as our neighboring
    states, by adding to an existing program with proven results
    accelerating science-based forest management and reducing wildfire
    risk.
        Fire plays an essential ecological role in keeping diverse Western
    forests healthy and has wide--ranging benefits. For example, aspen
    trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out recently burned
    areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a destructive force that
    resulted in the waste of valuable timber. For decades, forest managers
    were remarkably successful in preventing and suppressing fire, while
    communities expanded into fire-prone areas. Then, about twenty-five
    years ago, large and destructive megafires suddenly started to become a
    regular occurrence. At present, we are experiencing more destructive
    fire, spending more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other
    cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies and
    rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for answers. How
    can we better manage our forests, keep communities safe, and reduce the
    risks for millions of Americans who depend on forests for services such
    as timber, clean air, recreation, hunting, grazing, and water supply?
        In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological Restoration
    Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical connector of science and
    practice to restore forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic
    wildfire. Hosted at universities to stay on the cutting edge of
    research, the SWERI work side by side with managers, policymakers, and
    communities to ensure that locally relevant science and technology
    reaches the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years
    to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an effective tool
    for improving outcomes. Although there is still plenty of work to do,
    we have learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to
    reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and prescribed fire,
    as well as developed science-based fire response strategies that are
    safer and more effective. We have learned more about how to engage
    residents to garner support for active forest management. We have
    learned about how to support collaboration across boundaries, so that
    important fire prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We
    have learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned, to
    restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways. Much of this
    learning has been developed and applied on the ground under the
    leadership of the SWERI, through their place-based monitoring and
    timely and nimble production of actionable ecological and social
    science.
        The work of the SWERI is so distinct and impactful that Utah wants
    a SWERI of their own. In 2024, the Utah state legislature authorized
    the formation of an institute housed at Utah State University, provided
    start-up funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I
    was named the Director in January of this year. Initial responses in
    Utah to the formation of the institute have been universally positive,
    from partners including the state of Utah, the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture Forest Service, the Department of Interior Bureau of Land
    Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policymakers.
    Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire and forest resilience
    problem, and we need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of
    forest and woodlands are unique. We have different fire patterns from
    our neighboring states and our solutions will need to be unique too.
    Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in determining which
    management tools work best for Utah's forests and woodlands, and how to
    engage residents and decision makers. Establishing a SWERI in Utah is
    critical to help us get ahead of the curve before it is too late.
        The benefits of establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier
    forests, safer communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed
    public. We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to
    ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI program and
    will enhance their work across the Intermountain West. Federal
    designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be followed by sufficient
    appropriations for the new Utah institute and sustained appropriations
    for the existing SWERI. Sustained federal funding allows the SWERI to
    reliably and swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for
    science-based solutions for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire
    and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests in the
    Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent of the
    Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee. I would
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Yocom. I now
    recognize Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and
    Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural
    Resources.
        Mr. Tripp, welcome back. You have 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF BILL TRIPP, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
        ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, KARUK TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
                     RESOURCES, ORLEANS, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Tripp. [Speaking Native language.] My name is Bill
    Tripp, and I am the Director of Natural Resources and
    Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe, located along the
    Klamath River in far northern California.
        Ninety-eight percent of Karuk original territory is
    collocated with National Forest System lands. I have been
    working in the field of natural resources and environmental
    policy for 32 years. I offer this testimony in my capacity as
    the Karuk tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council,
    and more specifically, my role as Chair of the ITC Fire
    Subcommittee. I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self-
    Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act.
        As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and
    a duty of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a
    potential diminishment of tribal sovereignty or perceived
    extinguishments of any reserved, retained, or other tribal
    rights. Given this, I will convey why it is so important that
    we get this right.
        I have been using fire for traditional and cultural
    purposes since I was 4 years old. My great-grandmother gave me
    a task. And when I saw the inherent problems and accomplished
    it as instructed, she agreed to tell me our stories of
    creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the
    natural world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent
    to Karuk culture. One of these things is our world renewal
    ceremonies on Offield Mountain.
        Following the big burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being
    discussed in Congress, the Western governors conditioned their
    support with a call for an authority for governments to
    coordinate in regard to carrying out wildland fire management
    programs. Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning
    of Offield Mountain happened for the last time due to the
    results of this suppression mindset.
        In recent years the State of California has passed a suite
    of laws that accommodate and enable Indigenous fire use as
    something that is conducted under the inherent sovereign
    authority of Indian Tribes. The same authority founded in the
    Weeks Act and that was originally used to stamp out our
    Indigenous fire use practices can and should be used to enable
    Federal deference to such laws at the State and tribal level.
    This is where the agreement structure offered in the Tribal Co-
    Management and Self-Determination in Forestry Act becomes key
    to its success.
        Both this bill and the FOREST Act, if done well, would
    solidify existing opportunities, reinforce congressional
    intent, clarify the fact that Forest Service should be sharing
    decision-making authority more broadly, and provide specific
    connections to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act to promote efficient program delivery while
    respecting and preserving tribal sovereignty. But all too
    often, agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management
    and decision-making with Tribes based on their own narrow
    readings of statutory authority.
        Federal officials regularly rely on oversimplified
    interpretation, and avoid engaging in co-creating new models of
    shared management. An example of this is explicit in the Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, where Congress
    found that the parental and community control of the
    educational process is of crucial importance to Indian people.
    The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain is supposed to be
    burned by 3 young men that might not even be 18 years old, but
    already have a career's worth of burning under their belt
    through our Indigenous education systems. The Federal agencies
    demand, however, that the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
    training standards are followed before a person can burn.
        It is critical that legislation does not extinguish unceded
    rights of Indian people and acknowledge tribal sovereign
    authority over inherent tribal activities.
        Some Tribes are interested in taking over implementation of
    Federal program services, functions, and activities. Other
    Tribes are most interested in the exercise of their Indigenous
    knowledge, practices, and belief systems without burdensome
    process. We at the Karuk Tribe are pursuing a combination of
    the two.
        In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here
    today. I look forward to working to help ensure this dialog
    progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan
    support and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the
    needle in addressing the wildfire crisis.
        [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tripp follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Bill Tripp on the Tribal Self Determination and
      Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025 House Subcommittee on Federal
                                     Lands
        Ayukii--My name is Bill Tripp and I am the Director of Natural
    Resources and Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe's Department of
    Natural Resources. The Karuk Tribe is located along the Klamath River
    in far Northern California and our Aboriginal Territory is over a
    million acres, which stretch into Oregon. 98% of Karuk Aboriginal
    Territory is co-located with National Forest System lands. I have been
    working in the field of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy for
    32 years, and using fire as a management tool for the last 47 years. I
    now serve as the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) Fire Subcommittee
    Chair, the ITC principal to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)
    leadership team for the WFLC Western Region, and was the Tribal
    Government Representative appointed to the bipartisan Wildland Fire
    Mitigation and Management Commission. I offer this testimony in my
    capacity as the Karuk Tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council
    (ITC) and more specifically my role as Chair of the ITC Fire
    Subcommittee.
        I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self Determination and Co-
    Management in Forestry Act, introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman, who
    represents part of the Aboriginal Territory of the Karuk Tribe. This
    bill is based on the unanimous recommendations (number 29 and 30) of
    the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission,\1\ which urged
    Congress to provide the Forest Service with authority to enter into
    agreements to share or transfer decision-making authority with a Tribe
    or defer to the decisionmaking authority of a Tribe. Specifically, this
    bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements
    with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations for the performance of
    certain activities of the Forest Service. It also recognizes the
    authority to the Forest Services to defer to Tribal decisions in their
    exercise of reserved, retained, and other similar rights. I would urge
    this Committee to take a bipartisan approach to this topic, as there
    has also been a related and complementary bill (Fostering Opportunities
    to Restore Ecosystems using Sound Tribal Stewardship Act, or the
    FORESTS Act, sponsored by Rep. Hurd). I know there is great interest on
    both sides of the aisle in working to overcome some of the adversity
    Tribes have faced in our tribal homelands for generations, while we
    enable proactive stewardship, restore sense of purpose in our tribal
    communities, and protect homes, lives and the environment from
    catastrophic wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ On Fire: A Report of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
    Management Commission (September 2023), Recommendation 30.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and a duty
    of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a potential diminishment
    of tribal sovereignty or perceived extinguishment of any reserved,
    retained, or other Tribal rights.\2\ Given this, I will convey why it
    is so important that we get this right, provide some historical
    context, call out some specific distinctions critical to success, and
    offer help in working to refine this and other bills aimed at enabling
    tribal co-management of federal lands moving forward.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Additional information on these topics can be found in Good
    Fire II, available here: https://
    karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/
    03/good-fire-ii-march-2024.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I have been using fire for traditional and cultural uses and
    purposes since I was 4 years old. I built a fire in the woodstove one
    morning so it would be warm when my great grandma woke up. When she
    heard me, she came out and told me if I was going to be playing with
    fire, I was going to do something good with it. At that point, she (my
    great grandmother) took me outside, gave me a task and went back
    inside. When I solved its inherent problems and accomplished it as
    instructed, she agreed to tell me the Arrarrahi ipikyav, or our stories
    of creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the natural
    world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent to Karuk
    culture. One of these things is our World Renewal Ceremonies, part of
    which take place on Offield Mountain. By the time I was 8 years old I
    had completed all the lessons. She asked me: now that you have been
    given this knowledge, what are you going to do with it? I responded in
    saying that I was going to use my life to help bring fire back to the
    people, as that would be the one thing that we would have to do if we
    were to live in a survivable homeland in the future.
        Following the Big Burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being
    discussed in Congress, the Western Governors conditioned their support
    of the bill with a call for the authority for state and federal
    governments to coordinate in regard to carrying out Wildland Fire
    Management Programs. The Federal and State governments retained their
    distinctions as constitutional government entities in doing so, but
    disregarded the sovereignty and rights of Tribes. As a result of Tribes
    not being at the table, the misguided singular focus on suppression
    spread across both the state and federal land management agencies.
    Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning of Offield
    mountain happened for the last time due to results of this suppression
    mindset. I have spent the last 32 years of my life trying to build
    relationships so we can restore conditions conducive of revitalizing
    this essential ceremonial burning practice. In addition to having
    direct impacts on our religious freedoms and ability to practice our
    ceremony, the importance of enabling cultural burning cannot be
    overstated. There is currently no plan for maintaining all of the acres
    that we are diligently working with our federal partners to restore,
    and cultural burning is the answer. It is the only way we can
    sustainably and reliably make our landscapes safer in the face of
    wildfire, and prevent the loss of lives, property, and timber resources
    among other things.
        In recent years, in an attempt to address the ``wildfire problem,''
    the State of California has passed a suite of laws that accommodate and
    enable Indigenous fire use as something that is conducted under the
    inherent sovereign authority of Indian Tribes.\3\ These laws give
    deference to Tribal law in the conduct of inherently tribal activities
    such as cultural burning. It would be game-changing to see similar
    authorities at the federal level. In fact, the same authority founded
    in the Weeks Act that was originally used to stamp out our Indigenous
    fire use practices, can and should be used to enable federal deference
    to such laws at the state and Tribal level. This is where the agreement
    structure offered in the Tribal Co-Management and Self Determination in
    Forestry Act becomes a key to its success. The authority for the Forest
    Service to enter into an agreement that recognizes the differences
    between federal actions and those inherently tribal is paramount to our
    ability to revitalize our cultural identity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Senate Bill 310, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
    billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202320240SB310.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is clear to me that Congress needs to lead on this issue. Recent
    Forest Service testimony on the FORESTS Act,\4\ made clear to me that
    the agency does not understand at all levels that they can and should
    be working with Tribes in ways unique to their specific situations.
    They do not seem to understand what kinds of new authorities are needed
    to make it all work. From my experience, the agreement templates used
    by the Forest Service are not structured in a manner conducive of a
    government-to-government relationship, but it should not be difficult
    to make the appropriate adjustments if properly approached. Conversely,
    it is important to realize that we have come a long way in our
    relationship building efforts, and it will be difficult to keep up the
    pace, let alone increase the scale of our proactive management impact
    moving forward with continued budget and capacity cuts. Efficiencies
    are better gained with directional focus that when carried out under an
    umbrella of fear and confusion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
    eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both this bill and the FORESTS Act,\5\ if done well, would solidify
    existing opportunities, reinforce Congressional intent, clarify the
    fact that the Forest Service should be sharing decisionmaking authority
    more broadly, and provide specific connections to the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) to promote
    efficient program delivery while respecting and preserving Tribal
    Sovereignty. As successful as our co-stewardship partnerships have been
    in regard to progressing the Forest Service management responsibility
    in our Karuk homelands, more efficient means are possible with
    consistent and reliable funding mechanisms like self-governance
    compacting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
    eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        More than two decades ago, the USDA Forest Service recognized that
    the ISDEAA was indeed a government-wide mandate, but believed that
    there were no authorities specific to the Forest Service to enable
    adequate implementation by the agency. This bill's inclusion of
    additional 638 mechanisms is another key component. But all too often
    agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management and decision-
    making with Tribes based on their own narrow readings of statutory
    authority as well as overblown concerns with the sub-delegation
    doctrine and what constitutes an ``inherently federal function.'' While
    those legal doctrines occasionally present legitimate considerations,
    federal officials regularly rely on them as an over-simplified and ill-
    considered interpretation and avoid engaging and co-creating new models
    of shared management. Congress needs to push the agencies to do better.
        An example of this is explicit in ISDEAA,\6\ where Congress found
    that parental and community control of the educational process is of
    crucial importance to the Indian people, and that Tribes will never
    give up this right. For my Tribe, education is not just what is taught
    in the classroom, but in the intergenerational transfer of knowledge
    about our management systems and the places where we are from. Much of
    Karuk Aboriginal Territory now falls within the jurisdiction of both
    the Forest Service and the Tribe, including a sacred mountain called
    Offield Mountain. The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain or
    Ikxariyatuuyship, meaning the spirit people's mountain, is supposed to
    be burned by three young men that might not even be 18 years old, but
    already have a careers' worth of burning under their belt through our
    Indigenous education systems. Because of Forest Service policies, I
    have been denied this part of my Indigenous education, but it is still
    my inherent responsibility to ensure others are not.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 46 U.S.C. Sec.  5301(b)(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The federal agencies demand, however, that National Wildfire
    Coordinating Group training standards are followed before a person can
    be part of any burning on federally administered lands, meaning that
    their experiential learning cannot even begin until they are at least
    18 years old. This constitutes an extinguishment of our right to
    religious freedoms and is in direct conflict with the findings in
    ISDEAA. Conversely, an Agency cannot extinguish a right, nor can a
    State. It is critical that legislation involving co-management or co-
    decision-making does not extinguish the unceded rights of Indian
    people, and acknowledges pathways whereby Agencies can defer to tribal
    sovereign authority over inherently tribal activities. This bill
    reinforces this in communicating the premise that the Forest Service
    can already accommodate and enable our access to conduct our Indigenous
    fire use practices either as part of, or completely separate from the
    delivery of federal programs.
        Any effective co-management legislation must recognize that Tribes
    are asking to undertake at least two different kinds of activities on
    lands administered by federal agencies. Some Tribes are interested in
    taking over the implementation of federal programs, services,
    functions, and activities. In doing so, they will generally follow
    federal policies (such as the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
    qualifications), but also have access to federal benefits (such as tort
    coverage and federal dollars). But other Tribes are most interested in
    mechanisms whereby the federal government can accommodate the exercise
    of their Indigenous knowledge, practice, and belief systems without
    burdensome processes. Cultural burning is one of these practices: it
    should not be assumed to be prescribed fire, or required to be
    completed in the context of federal program delivery. We at the Karuk
    Tribe are pursuing a complementary combination of the two, and view
    this bill as an important means for enabling this.
        These two different pathways require two different approaches.
    Congress should efficiently permit and resource Tribes in undertaking
    federal programs, services, functions, or activities. And Congress
    should also empower what should be considered ``inherently tribal''
    activities as well. It also matters whether components involve the
    significant use of federal funds and are therefore required to be
    included in an approved land management plan. Who we are and the
    ceremonial practices of individual Indian people are not required
    components of such a plan, but perhaps should rather be analyzed as the
    related actions of a separate sovereign when included in federal land
    management planning activities.
        In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here today.
    I look forward to working with your staff as requested to help ensure
    this dialogue progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan
    support, and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the needle
    in addressing the wildfire crisis. Getting this done right for the
    long-term is more important than getting this done quickly. I hope each
    and every one of you work to progress this dialogue in the states you
    represent so we can utilize the strengths of federal, state, and tribal
    sovereignty in a way that does not constitute an extinguishment of our
    rights. The very term ``Indigenous'' means ``natural to place'', and in
    gaining a mutual understanding of what that can and should mean to us
    all, I look forward to preserving our indigeneity while finding lasting
    solutions to the wildfire problem.
        Yootva (thank you).

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Tripp. I now recognize Mr. Greg
    Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa.
        Mr. Andreas, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENT OF GREG ANDREAS, GENERAL MANAGER, PONDEROSA
                     TELEPHONE, O'NEALS, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Andreas. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice
    Chairman Kennedy, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you
    for the opportunity to testify today. I am Greg Andreas,
    General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone in California.
        I have over 30 years of executive leadership and
    operational expertise across large, multi-national corporations
    and rural telecom providers. My background has provided me with
    the opportunity to lead several small rural operators and
    understand firsthand the unique challenges rural communities
    and their providers face in keeping subscribers connected.
        Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles, from the
    foothills of the Central Valley to the spine of the Sierra
    Nevada mountains, covering Madera and Fresno Counties.
    Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management. We
    have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal communities. This
    good work has not been easy, however. We average four homes per
    mile of network built, navigating through rough terrain that is
    difficult and costly to serve.
        Serving our neighbors, friends, and families is not easy.
    This work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our
    community, an entrepreneurial spirit, and effective government
    policies and programs that help make and sustain the business
    case for investing and continuing to operate in rural America.
        Of course, there are a number of community-focused local
    providers like Ponderosa all across the country. We are proud
    members of NTCA, the rural broadband association which
    represents about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers
    that are deploying cutting-edge networks and offering advanced
    communication services in rural America.
        Turning to this important hearing, I have led critical
    disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunication
    infrastructure in remote and underserved areas. I look forward
    to sharing the many lessons I have learned in managing
    restoration of communication networks following natural
    disasters. This includes both my time in the Virgin Islands,
    dealing with the impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
    and more recently navigating the inefficient, outdated, and/or
    under-staffed permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's
    efforts to help our community recover from catastrophic
    wildfires.
        On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire was
    recorded in California history, and it ravaged our community.
    The Creek Fire burned nearly 400,000 acres and destroyed over
    850 buildings. Our preliminary efforts have put total damages
    and restoration costs at approximately $4.1 million.
        Given my expertise with natural disasters, their impact on
    communication networks, and the challenges of restoring those
    networks, I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's
    Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act under consideration
    today. This legislation aims to tackle the significant delays
    surrounding the restoration of a communication network after a
    wildfire. Communities across the Nation will benefit from this
    legislation being signed into law.
        I would also encourage this Subcommittee to consider
    similar legislation to address other natural disasters such as
    hurricanes and tornadoes. Networks that get destroyed by
    natural disasters but use the same rights-of-way and permitting
    processes when first approved should be included in
    legislation. Expediting NEPA and NHPA procedures in the wake of
    natural disasters such as wildfires would allow providers to
    swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy permanent
    communication solutions, and ensure that affected areas regain
    access to essential services.
        These reviews, while important for environmental and
    cultural protections, are often lengthy and complex, even for
    emergency restoration projects of facilities that had
    previously been in the same area. Streamlined approvals are not
    just a matter of regulatory efficiency; they are a lifeline for
    communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.
        Thank you again for providing me the opportunity to share
    these thoughts with the Committee, and I look forward to
    answering any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Andreas follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Greg Andreas, General Manager,
                              Ponderosa Telephone

    INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice Chairman Kennedy, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    at this legislative hearing. My testimony today will focus on H.R.
    1655, the ``Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act.''
        I am Greg Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone. I have
    over 30 years of executive leadership and operational expertise across
    large multinational corporations and rural telecommunications
    providers. My background has provided me with the opportunity to lead
    several small rural operators and understand firsthand the unique
    challenges rural communities and providers face in getting and staying
    connected.
        Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles from the foothills to
    the spine of the Sierra Nevada mountains covering Madera and Fresno
    Counties. Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management,
    starting in 1908. We have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal
    communities. This good work has not been easy, however. Ninety-five
    percent of our Big Creek exchange is situated on federal land and
    several of our other exchanges also traverse federally managed areas.
    We average four homes per mile of network build, navigating through
    rough terrain that is difficult and costly to serve. It has taken
    extraordinary efforts to serve our neighbors, friends and families--and
    this work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our community, an
    entrepreneurial spirit, and effective governmental policies and
    programs that help make and sustain the business case for investing and
    continuing to operate in rural America.
        Of course, there are a number of community-based and community-
    focused local providers like Ponderosa across the country. We are proud
    members of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, which represents
    about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers that are deploying
    cutting edge networks and offering advanced communications services in
    deeply rural communities. These operators collectively serve less than
    five percent of the population of the United States but nearly thirty
    percent of its landmass. Much like Ponderosa, these rural providers
    operate in rural areas left behind decades ago when earlier efforts to
    build out our nation's communications networks ignored them because
    they were too sparsely populated.
        Even before taking my current role at Ponderosa, I have
    unfortunately had significant experience in managing responses to and
    recovery from natural disasters. In 2017, while working for VIYA in the
    United States Virgin Islands, two Category 5 hurricanes (Irma and
    Maria) went overhead two weeks apart on September 6th and 20th
    respectively. With seventy-eight percent of utility poles down, the
    disaster recovery effort was extensive. It took a year to restore
    internet and phone services to over ninety-five percent of customers
    that were down.
        Experiences like these have given me substantial insights into
    critical disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunications
    infrastructure in remote and underserved areas, including the need to
    work closely with local and federal stakeholders to ensure rapid
    response, community safety and resilient rebuilding--which brings us to
    this important hearing. I look forward to sharing ``lessons learned''
    in managing recovery and restoration of communications networks
    following natural disasters not only on federal lands that are under
    the purview of this Subcommittee but also along interstate, state, and
    local roadways, under railroad crossings, on poles, and/or in private
    rights of way. These lessons have come from both my time in the Virgin
    Islands dealing with the impacts of hurricanes on networks and more
    recently navigating inefficient, outdated, and/or understaffed
    permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's efforts to help our
    community recover from catastrophic wildfires.
        Wildfires pose a serious threat not only to lives and property but
    also to critical communication infrastructure. As fires spread, they
    can damage cell towers, fiber optic cables (that provide service
    directly to residents and businesses as well as serving as backhaul for
    wireless towers), and power lines--leading to widespread communication
    outages. These disruptions can hinder emergency response efforts, delay
    evacuation alerts, and isolate communities, especially the elderly,
    from vital information. In rural and wildfire-prone areas especially,
    the loss of connectivity can exacerbate already dangerous situations. I
    am grateful for the opportunity to highlight how H.R. 1655 will
    expedite the environmental and historical review processes to ensure
    that swift and reliable networks are back up and running after a
    catastrophic wildfire through restoration of critical communications
    infrastructure.
    2020 CREEK FIRE
        On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire recorded in
    California history ravaged our community. The Creek fire burned nearly
    400,000 acres, destroyed over 850 buildings, and took well over four
    months to contain. Firefighting costs exceeded $500 million dollars,
    making it one of the costliest fires in California history.
        Ponderosa experienced the loss of several cell towers due to the
    fire, along with significant damage to our North Fork, Auberry, Shaver
    Lake, Big Creek, and Wishon service areas. Portions of our buried fiber
    were damaged, particularly at access points such as hand-holes and
    pedestals where the fiber transitions above ground. In several
    instances, damage occurred weeks after the initial fire, as residual
    heat from smoldering tree stumps traveled through underground root
    systems and ultimately comprised the network. Preliminary assessments
    put total damages and restoration costs at approximately $4,137,000.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In the aftermath of the Creek Fire, several challenges emerged.
    Restoration crews faced restricted access to impacted areas due to a
    breakdown in interagency coordination among law enforcement, agency
    officials, emergency management and utility stakeholders, delaying
    restoration efforts. We installed temporary networks to continue
    delivering critical communication services to first responders to
    support emergency operations. Although it is not the topic of today's
    hearing specifically, legislation to address interagency coordination
    to combat these breakdowns may be useful in ensuring expedited
    restoration. Restoration delays were further compounded by utility
    companies conducting repairs without submitting 811 locate requests. As
    a result, underground fiber cables were cut and conduits damaged,
    exacerbating the scope of the restoration effort and causing
    unnecessary disruptions to emergency communications for first
    responders.
        Once the immediate emergency concluded, we were required to comply
    with all applicable federal, state, and tribal permitting regulations.
    It has now been five years since the wildfire, and we are still
    navigating the permitting process to rebuild completely in the affected
    areas.
    GENERAL BROADBAND PERMITTING ISSUES
        Stepping back, obtaining access to federal lands for broadband
    facilities installation (including restoration)--or otherwise obtaining
    a permit when a project is considered a ``major federal action'' under
    the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and/or a ``federal
    undertaking'' pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act
    (``NHPA'')--can be a time-consuming, expensive and cumbersome process.
    Due to the nature of the areas served by many rural providers like
    Ponderosa, we often have no alternative but to install fiber under
    roads that cross land owned or managed by federal agencies such as the
    Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Rerouting even a small
    segment of a project is frequently infeasible because of long
    distances, difficult terrain, or the lack of obtainable easements on
    nearby private land--if any exists at all. Moreover, many smaller rural
    providers have no choice but to comply with the NEPA and NHPA processes
    even if they are not installing facilities on federal lands; for
    example, a project undertaken pursuant to a federal broadband grant
    will also face the need to adhere to NEPA and NHPA. I am aware that
    some NTCA members recount delays of up to two years in some cases to
    apply for and obtain permissions to build. Indeed, even if a project
    crosses federal land for only a short distance as part of a broader
    deployment, the entire initiative can be delayed due to the need for
    federal agencies approvals for that portion. Additional delays may
    occur when states, even if they exempt providers from certain
    environmental and historical regulations, use NEPA or NHPA requirements
    to pause or impede restoration efforts.
        While these processes are cumbersome under normal circumstances, in
    the wake of a wildfire, they can lead to significant delays as
    companies like Ponderosa work to reconnect their communities to the
    outside world. In the aftermath of a wildfire, quickly restoring and
    rebuilding communication infrastructure is essential to reconnect
    communities, support emergency services, and enable recovery efforts.
    Thus, any effort to streamline these processes as communities recover
    from wildfires is essential.
    H.R. 1655
        I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's Wildfire
    Communication Resiliency Act, under consideration today--and I thank
    him for his leadership. This legislation aims to tackle the significant
    delays surrounding the restoration of a communication facility after a
    wildfire. Communities across the nation will benefit from this
    legislation being signed into law. I would also encourage this
    Subcommittee to consider similar legislation to address other natural
    disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Expediting NEPA and NHPA
    procedures in the wake of natural disasters such as wildfires would
    allow providers to swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy
    permanent communications solutions, and ensure that affected areas
    regain access to essential services. As I previously stated, it has
    been five years since the Creek fire, and we are still navigating the
    permitting process to restore our networks. These reviews, while
    important for environmental and cultural projections, are often lengthy
    and complex--even for restoration projects of facilities that had
    previously been in the very same area. Streamlined approvals are not
    just a matter of regulatory efficiency--they are a lifeline for
    communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.
    Closing
        By streamlining NEPA and NHPA review processes for communications
    facilities on federal lands post-wildfire, providers like Ponderosa
    will be better positioned to engage in the rapid restoration of
    networks. In an era of increasingly frequent and severe wildfires,
    ensuring fast, reliable deployment and restoration of communication
    infrastructure is critical now more than ever. These networks are the
    backbone of emergency response, public safety, and community
    resilience.
        Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to share
    these thoughts with the Committee. I look forward to working with this
    Subcommittee, other Members of Congress, the federal agencies of
    jurisdiction, and other stakeholders.

                                     ______

        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Andreas, and
    now I will turn to questions from the Committee.
        Mr. Fulcher, you have 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panel for your comments and testimony today.
        Mr. Andreas, with your testimony it was a prompting
    reminder. I am going to take the first brief minute here and
    just do a shameless pitch for one of my bills not on the docket
    today, but I am going to pitch it anyway. In your testimony you
    highlighted that even brief crossings of Federal land can stall
    an entire broadband project for up to 2 years.
        My bill, H.R. 2298, Reducing Barriers for Broadband on
    Federal Lands Act, helps fix that by exempting previously
    reviewed rights-of-ways on Federal land from NEPA and NHPA
    reviews and, if enacted, this would alleviate the time-
    consuming and expensive permitting process. So I wanted to just
    pitch that out there.
        But I am going to go with that to a question to you, Mr.
    Andreas. I am from the State of Idaho, and many Idaho telecom
    routes cross not just Federal and State, but also private lands
    in one single project. And as you know, that triggers many
    duplicative NEPA and NHPA reviews, and that drives up both time
    and cost. So from your vantage point, what legislative or
    administrative solutions can we employ to try to streamline
    that permitting process?
        Mr. Andreas. Well, I think that the number-one thing would
    be to pass Congressman Bentz's bill to eliminate the need for
    NEPA and NHPA.
        In California we do have a significant number of State
    regulations, as well, and there are times when State agencies
    will utilize Federal programs like NEPA, and I will give you a
    quick example. Caltrans, right now, when we are trying to build
    in currently-used right-of-ways, we are exempted from NEPA. But
    Caltrans will come along and say, ``We require you to follow
    NEPA,'' or--and you have to follow it. You don't have a choice.
    We are exempted from the State programs.
        So there is sort of a battle between the State agencies,
    like you said, and the Federal agencies. I don't know if there
    is some type of pre-emption that could be done from Federal
    level, but it is a battle that we fight pretty often.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and that is something that
    we need to definitely take a look at. So thank you for your
    input there. I am going to come back to you, Mr. Andreas. You
    also described in your written testimony that it has been 5
    years since the 2020 Creek Fire, if I have got this right, the
    2020 Creek Fire, and you are still working through the
    permitting to rebuild buried fiber in cell sites.
        North Idaho again, I have to equate this to my own State,
    but in north Idaho's pay-per-mile cost structure, it is often
    fewer than four homes in a mile. What economic impact would a
    5-year NEPA, NHPA exemption, an exemption, have on small rural
    telecom providers' ability to reinvest in its network?
        Mr. Andreas. Well, one of the biggest issues that we deal
    with when we go through a wildfire situation like the Creek
    Fire, our insurance will pay us like for like. So if we have
    copper in the ground and it gets destroyed in a wildfire, or
    aerial, our insurance company will pay us to replace the
    copper, but will not pay us to replace it with fiber, which is
    obviously the direction that we go. So we end up digging into
    our own pockets to pay for that upgrade, if you will, to fiber.
        So I think that focusing on some of those items would be
    very helpful for us in situations where we have to dig into our
    own pockets and have to subsidize that rebuild by ourselves.
        Mr. Fulcher. So I have got just 1 minute left. I want to
    ask you another question that was not planned here that just
    popped into my head.
        Mr. Andreas. Sure.
        Mr. Fulcher. From your vantage point, is wireless
    technology starting to progress to the point where it can take
    the place of some of the fiber and copper that is out there
    that has to be installed?
        Mr. Andreas. I would say no, and the reason being is we are
    also using some fixed wireless in Ponderosa, but all the cell
    towers that are up there, the cell phones can't connect to
    other cell phones or other phones without fiber backhaul that
    takes the data and the phone calls from the cell phone towers
    into the network.
        So in short, no, it could not replace it in total.
        Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you, Mr. Andreas.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Andreas, as you shared in your testimony, when
    communities face natural disasters like wildfires, not only are
    they negatively impacted by the disaster itself, but they are
    also negatively impacted by the mountains of red tape that
    unfortunately follows. These communities aren't only hurt in
    the days or weeks when the disaster occurs, but they are also
    hurt by the bureaucracy they are forced to deal with in the
    aftermath.
        Could you explain, please explain--or, correction--expand
    upon the long-term impacts of the rebuilding process?
        And how do these delays and rebuilding impact these
    communities?
        Mr. Andreas. I will just use an example from the Creek
    Fire. We have areas within the wildfire area that haven't even
    begun to rebuild yet. We have to go through permitting to get
    communications to these areas.
        Mr. Stauber. Five years later?
        Mr. Andreas. Five years later we are still trying to
    rebuild. People have not rebuilt their homes, and they don't
    want to rebuild their homes because there is no communication
    to those homes. There is power that hasn't been laid down to
    these homes up in the, you know, higher parts of the Sierra
    Nevada.
        Mr. Stauber. You were saying something about NEPA, and I
    interrupted you. Finish up.
        Mr. Andreas. Well, just the fact that, in terms of if we
    didn't have to go through NEPA approval or the historical
    preservation approvals, that would speed things up, OK, and,
    obviously, the sooner that we get things restored, the sooner
    that we are generating revenue for ourselves and for our
    company, and that we can put back into the network to upgrade
    and rebuild the community.
        Mr. Stauber. So you are saying that if you didn't have to
    go in NEPA to replace the same fiber line into these
    neighborhoods, if you didn't have to, today, quite conceivably,
    the neighborhoods could be rebuilt and people would want to
    come back. It is because they are not connected. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Andreas. Conceivably, yes. It may or may not be because
    they are not connected. There are many other factors that build
    into it. Some people do not have fire insurance in areas of
    California.
        Mr. Stauber. Yes.
        Mr. Andreas. So when their house burns down, they have
    nothing to rebuild it with. So it is not as simple as, well,
    they don't have land lines or they don't have data
    capabilities. It is one aspect of it, though.
        Mr. Stauber. OK. Would you say it is common to see
    individuals move from their homes or businesses out of the
    communities simply because they now lack the infrastructure
    needed for the everyday activities that make up their daily
    lives and help their businesses become successful? Have you
    seen that?
        Mr. Andreas. They have to move somewhere. A lot of times it
    is very close to where they had a home before, they had family.
    You know, people have lived in the areas that they are for
    hundreds of years. They have families. Our ownership goes back
    over 100 years. So they don't typically move too far.
        Mr. Stauber. I appreciate your experience, and I appreciate
    all of the testimony today. I think it is really important
    that, after a natural disaster, that we are able to rebuild in
    a timely fashion without the redundancy and the red tape that
    is stopping our communities to get back on their feet.
        And with the remainder of my time I am going to yield to
    Chairman Tiffany for 1 minute and 20 seconds.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you.
        I would like to follow up on what Mr. Stauber was asking
    here, Mr. Andreas. Sum up what you think are a few changes that
    should be made in Federal policy that could make your life
    easier, could allow you to expand to a greater extent your
    business. What are those things that you would like to see
    changed?
        Mr. Andreas. Are you asking from an overall Federal policy
    standpoint?
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
        Mr. Andreas. In telecommunications? Well, one of the first
    issues that we deal with is the Universal Service Fund, as I am
    sure everybody here is aware of. If Universal Service Fund goes
    away, it puts rural telephone companies like ours with 7,200
    subscribers in a very difficult situation. Federal obligations,
    requirements, reporting requirements, things like that put a
    lot of stress on a small company like ours.
        Mr. Tiffany. Is that the reporting requirement that has to
    do with the Securities and Exchange Commission?
        Mr. Andreas. No, really FCC reporting requirements,
    reporting requirements associated with reconnect or USDA loans.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK.
        Mr. Andreas. Things like that, where we have to provide
    subscriber counts, performance measures, things like that. We
    only have 86 employees in our company. We can't dedicate a
    whole bunch of people to it. Bigger companies can spread that
    requirement across a couple different people. If they have
    700,000 subscribers, that is an easier way for them to spread
    that cost.
        Mr. Tiffany. And you would include NEPA in this list, I am
    assuming?
        Mr. Andreas. Absolutely, yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. And I am assuming you would include
    controlling wildfire in rural areas in America.
        Mr. Andreas. Yes, I would absolutely include those.
        Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
        Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you. Thank you.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr.
    Kennedy from Utah for 5 minutes.
        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, yet again for the
    opportunity to speak.
        And Dr. Yocom, I would like to address a few questions to
    you. Similar legislation to mine, H.R. 1045, passed the Senate
    last Congress. And if we can get this bill signed into law with
    the support of the Utah delegation, my colleagues around the
    dais as well as on the floor, what would it mean for Utah State
    University in the State's capacity to advance cutting-edge
    research when it comes to wildfire management?
        Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the question.
        I think it would increase our capacity to focus on wildfire
    research by a huge amount. There are very few people overall
    working in Utah on wildfire research, and so having an
    institute dedicated specifically to that, as well as to
    practical management solutions, I think would be really
    impactful for Utah.
        As I mentioned, there is a little bit of a gap in Utah in
    terms of understanding exactly which management actions work in
    which forests and why. And so I think it is past time for Utah
    to focus resources on these questions.
        Dr. Kennedy. You did mention Utah does require scientific
    research focused on that specific geography. Could you expand
    on the details associated with that that would allow this SWERI
    institute to do a better job not only for Utah, but throughout
    the West and the country generally?
        Dr. Yocom. Sure. Yes, a lot of what we know comes from dry,
    ponderosa pine-based forests. We have a lot of information
    about how to reduce wildfire risk in those types of forests.
    Utah has a unique mix. We don't have very much ponderosa pine.
    We have pinyon juniper woodlands, for example, that a lot of
    people live near, as well as mixed conifer forests with a
    little bit of ponderosa but other tree types.
        And there is a lot of questions still just on the
    ecological side about what, you know, what role fire plays in
    those forests, and exactly how we could use management
    activities to reduce fire risk in the most efficient and
    effective way.
        Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. In Utah State University,
    their current collaboration with the SWERIs that are throughout
    the West, what does that collaborative work look like at this
    point?
        Dr. Yocom. The existing SWERIs have been really
    collaborative, and so have we. We have been working closely
    with them in determining the best way to join them as a new
    SWERI. They each focus mostly on their own States, but they
    also work together on larger regional projects. And I think
    adding a SWERI in Utah would not only help Utah, but also
    contribute to that region-wide understanding of fire risk and
    how to reduce it.
        Dr. Kennedy. Very good. Thank you very much.
        And Judge Blackmon, I thank you, and all the witnesses for
    being here. Judge Blackmon, I was interested in the building
    that was poorly roofed, subsequent damage that came to that
    building. I would like you to render an opinion.
        By the way, your representative that is sponsoring this
    bill is an outstanding representative here. I have, as a
    freshman, great admiration for Congressman Hill and the great
    work that he does.
        But so tell me. If the locals had done the contract with
    the roofer versus Washington, D.C. doing the contract with the
    roofer, do you have an opinion of whether or not that roof
    might have been done correctly? And especially if there was an
    investment, if you owned that building and you were the ones
    that were contracting to make sure the roof got on the correct
    way so the building wasn't damaged, might that building have
    actually been roofed properly and potentially saved not only
    the taxpayers but your local community a lot of money
    associated with this? Can you give me an opinion about that?
        Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. Basically, what happened is the
    Forestry Service contracted having a new roof put on by a
    contractor that I am unaware of who the contractor was. And
    then I have friends that work for the Forest Service that told
    me that, not long after the new roof was installed, it started
    leaking.
        By this time, the process of the Forestry Service getting
    rid of the building in some capacity had already started. So
    instead of having the contractor come back that installed the
    roof originally make repairs, they just said, well, there is no
    need because we are going to get rid of the building.
        Dr. Kennedy. Right.
        Judge Blackmon. So I have been trying to push this process
    along as quickly as possible, because every time it rains there
    is more damage that happens to the building.
        Dr. Kennedy. Well, I appreciate what you are doing and what
    your Representative Hill is doing, as well.
        The reality is local control versus distant control. We can
    see that with who cares about this building. Well, it is a
    taxpayer-funded, federally taxpayer-funded building right now.
    And now what are we talking, $10,000, tens of thousands,
    hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair the damage
    associated with shoddy work?
        Judge Blackmon. I am guessing somewhere around $75,000 by
    the time we put a new roof on it and make the repairs. And the
    unknown is, until we start the repairs, we don't know how
    extensive the damage is.
        Dr. Kennedy. Yes. Right, of course. I am very excited to
    see local control hold sway, and especially for the 4-H to have
    a place to----
        Judge Blackmon. Yes.
        Dr. Kennedy [continuing]. To actually have their
    outstanding services. So thank you for promoting this. I am
    certainly promoting it, as well.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I am going to take my 5
    minutes for questioning. I want to follow up on what
    Representative Kennedy was just talking about, Judge Blackmon.
    I am sorry I was not here during your testimony.
        So I take it this building is no longer used by the Forest
    Service. Is that right?
        Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. How long has that been the case, Judge
    Blackmon?
        Judge Blackmon. They downsized to just two or three
    employees a few years ago. And then last summer the last
    employee moved out, and they moved over into Garland County, to
    another county where they worked out of that center. So the
    building has been sitting empty almost a year.
        Mr. Tiffany. Has that building been put up for sale by the
    Federal Government?
        Judge Blackmon. No, sir, they have not. They had an
    appraisal done of $200,000 on the building, and they offered it
    to Perry County for that sale price. But when we looked at the
    repairs that are going to be necessary to the building, the
    county at that point realized that we could not afford to
    purchase the building and then make the necessary repairs with
    the limited funding that we have to work with.
        Mr. Tiffany. So that building was in significant disrepair,
    is that correct?
        Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. And like I said, it is currently
    leaking right now. The roof has not been repaired. We had a
    major flood about 6 weeks ago, and more of the roof was blown
    off and damaged at that point. So right now, every time it
    rains the damage is increasing to the building.
        Mr. Tiffany. So down in Perryville, when it rains it pours.
        Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. I think this is just a great example of how
    this effort to purchase more land and encumber more land by the
    Federal Government is really wrongheaded. We should first be
    maintaining the facilities that we have.
        Judge Blackmon. Yes.
        Mr. Tiffany. I don't know if you care to comment on that,
    Judge Blackmon, but it just seems to me that rather than buying
    more land, buying more facilities, we need to maintain what we
    have with the hundreds of thousands of acres, well, the
    millions of acres that the Federal Government owns and
    operates.
        Judge Blackmon. Yes. They have the same challenge that I
    have in the county. They have limited resources also. And so,
    you know, they basically consolidated into another building,
    and so this building is sitting there empty.
        So I am sure that, in their opinion, they can't justify
    spending money on this building when they have the other
    buildings to maintain. And then they have the hundreds, if not
    thousands of miles there in the national forest to maintain
    also.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So I would just share this comment, and
    you don't have to reply to it, any of you on the panel. But we
    hear consistently about how the only way that we can go is to
    purchase more land, to put more facilities up on Federal land,
    that we shouldn't reconsider, hey, decades have passed, maybe
    things have changed, maybe we could do things differently.
        I think this is a good example of how we should be doing
    things differently. And this notion that we can't transfer some
    land perhaps to States, to locals, and whatever I think is so
    wrongheaded because times do change, and there are better ways
    in which we can steward the natural resources of the United
    States of America than simply having Federal ownership and
    Federal control.
        The other thing that I would say in closing here, I did not
    get a chance to ask questions of Deputy Chief Crockett, but
    everyone was led to believe here today that the Bureau of
    State, Private, and Local Forestry is going to be shut down,
    and land is not going to be managed anymore, and people are not
    going to be worked with if there are changes. I think this is a
    very good parallel.
        Because the current Administration wants to make some
    changes in how we structure an agency doesn't mean that the
    work isn't going to be done. And if we are going to do an
    effective job here at the Natural Resources Committee and the
    Federal Government in managing our natural resources, in
    particular in the West, and if we are going to end wildfire or
    at least have it in much greater control, there is a few things
    that need to happen.
        One, we need to hire more foresters within the Forest
    Service. I remember talking to my friends in northern Wisconsin
    years ago who said, we have enough ologists. They referred to
    them as ologists. We need more foresters that are going to mark
    trees and manage our forest land.
        Second of all, we need to expedite NEPA, as we saw in
    regard to the telecom issue, including things like broader and
    bigger categorical exclusions. We need to do those things if we
    are going to manage properly.
        And the final thing is we need to bring industry back, and
    we see it with the whole tariffs discussion and all the rest.
    We have to bring industry back to America, and we need to build
    mills. I think about the gentleman from California when I was
    out to Yosemite a few years ago, and they talked about, what, a
    couple hundred mills have shut down over the last three or four
    decades in the wood-consuming mills out in the Sierras. There
    is no wonder that we have a wildfire problem when you do not
    have the infrastructure, in particular the mills that can take
    that wood and turn it into two-by-fours and lots of other good
    stuff that we can rebuild America with.
        It is time. It is time that we make changes to how we do
    our natural resource management here in America in order to
    build things, employ people in building those things, and
    making sure that the permitting processes are not so onerous
    that we can no longer build things. Because if we turn those
    things around by having better permitting processes, by
    building the infrastructure here in America, we will restore
    American greatness and make things in America once again, and I
    can't wait for that day to come. And I sure hope the Natural
    Resources Committee is one of the lynchpins in making that
    happen here at the Federal level.
        With that I want to thank all of you for attending today.
    And as so often is the case, you folks come from the Western
    States and you have a long ways to travel. We appreciate it
    more than you know, that you would take the time out of your
    day and week to come here and provide your testimony.
        The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
    questions for you, and we will ask that you 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, June 13, 2025. The hearing record will be held open for
    10 business days for your responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

        Prepared Statement of the Hon. French Hill, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Arkansas

        Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
    appreciate the chance to testify in support of my legislation, H.R.
    3187, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of
    property owned by the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for
    other purposes.
        This bill seeks to transfer ownership of a vacant federal building
    owned by the U.S. Forest Service, and O.81 acres of land located at
    1069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville, Arkansas, to Perry County. The
    property is no longer in use by the Forest Service and there are no
    plans for its future utilization.
        Perry County is a small, rural community with a population of
    around 10,000. Approximately 16% of residents live below the poverty
    line. About 77% of the county is forested, with 72% of that land
    privately owned. The U.S. Forest Service is the largest public
    landowner in the county, managing 119,171 acres as part of the Ouachita
    National Forest.
        For several years, Perry County has sought to acquire this
    property. However, due to limited resources and a high poverty rate,
    the small county has been unable to purchase it outright. My
    legislation would enable the federal government to convey the property
    at no cost to the county.
        While the building will require repairs and updates, Perry County
    has the funds to make the necessary improvements. Once restored, the
    facility will support vital local programs. Specifically, it will house
    the permanent operations of the University of Arkansas Extension
    Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and serve as a meeting
    space for the 4-H Youth Development Program. These organizations are
    currently struggling with limited space, which hampers their ability to
    serve the community effectively.
        The University of Arkansas Extension Office provides critical,
    research-based information to local families, youth, and farmers. It
    hosts educational workshops focused on agriculture, health, and
    nutrition. This is particularly important, as 40% of youth and 64% of
    adults in Perry County are classified as overweight or obese. A larger
    space will enable the Extension Program to better promote healthy
    eating habits and teach residents how to grow and prepare nutritious
    meals, empowering them to make long-term improvements in their health
    and well-being.
        There is strong local support for this conveyance. Those who have
    expressed their support include:

      1.  Larry Blackmon, Perry County Judge

      2.  Kevin Lawson, County Extension Agent--Agriculture, Faulkner
                County

      3.  Tammy Farnam, Administrative Assistant III, Perry County
                Extension Office

      4.  Jacob Farnam, Board President, Perryville School District

      5.  Kallem Hill, President, Perry County Farm Bureau Board of
                Directors

      6.  Nicole Strecker, 4-H Leader, Perryville High School

      7.  Donnie Crain, President/CEO, Perry County Chamber of Commerce

      8.  Amy Branch, Chair of the Board, Perry County Conservation Board

      9.  David ``Butch'' Hoyt, Vice President, Perry County Cattlemen's
                Association

      10.  Chairperson, Perry County Conservation District

      11.  Rose Gunther, Former 4-H Member, Perry County

      12.  Ettamarie Belden, 4-H Leader and Volunteer, Perry County

      13.  John Roland, Mayor, Perryville

        In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will provide Perry County with a much-
    needed facility to expand youth development, agricultural education,
    and community health initiatives. The conveyance of this unused federal
    property will create lasting benefits for the people of Perry County.
        Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you, or other members of the subcommittee may
    have.

                               [all]