    [Senate Hearing 119-124]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-124

                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
                    U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 10, 2025

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-244                      WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                            MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                      Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
                Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel
                    Jacey Albaugh, Professional Staff Member
                     Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
                     Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
                     Sean Mullin, Professional Staff Member

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENT

                                                                       Page
    Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................     1

                                    WITNESS

    Schultz, Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
      Agriculture....................................................     1

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Poster depicting significant wildland fire potential in the
          Northwest from July-October 2025...........................    21
    Schultz, Tom:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Written Testimony............................................     4
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    33

     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR FISCAL
                                   YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. I call this hearing to order of the
    Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We welcome our
    guest, Mr. Tom Schultz, who is in the position now as the head
    of the Forest Service, and we are happy to have him here to
    testify in front of the Committee. This is an oversight hearing
    for President Trump's budget request for the U.S. Forest
    Service for Fiscal Year 2026.
        The Chairman has been unavoidably delayed. He will be here
    in about 15 minutes, but rather than asking you to delay your
    time, we would invite you to give your opening statement and
    then we will start with some of the questioning. And when the
    Chairman arrives, he will make his opening comments.
        So welcome to the Committee.

      STATEMENT OF TOM SCHULTZ, CHIEF OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Schultz. Howdy. Thank you, Senator Barrasso and members
    of the Committee. We don't have Ranking Member Heinrich here.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
        I want to begin by remembering the tragic loss of the two
    firefighters in Idaho who were ambushed and killed by gunfire
    on June 29, when they showed up to suppress a fire on Forest
    Service lands. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Kootenai
    County and the Coeur d'Alene firefighters, first responders,
    and family members in the Greater Coeur d'Alene community.
        The Forest Service manages 154 national forests and 20
    grasslands, covering 193 million acres in 43 states and Puerto
    Rico. The Forest Service also works with communities, state,
    local, and tribal governments, forest industries, and private
    forest owners managing for multiple uses. The big picture is
    that America's forests provide timber, clean air and water,
    forage, and energy production. They support local economies
    through employment, trade, recreation, tourism, jobs, and
    livestock grazing. Recent analysis shows that in Fiscal Year
    2023, Forest Service programs contributed approximately 390,000
    jobs and $45 billion in gross domestic product.
        I am grateful to serve as the 21st Chief of the Forest
    Service. I recognize that I am the first Chief who did not come
    from or previously work within the agency, but I hope that you
    will see that as I do--as a strength. I have over 27 years of
    land management experience and fire experience and I am a
    lifelong user of public lands. I have worked for the state
    agencies in Montana and Idaho, and that has given me a
    perspective on the role of states in managing public trust
    lands and how that differs from the goals and objectives of
    managing federal lands. My experience in the private sector
    with Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets
    and the role that raw material availability, quality, and price
    play in being able to support a profitable forest products
    industry.
        The Fiscal Year 2026 President's budget refocuses Forest
    Service efforts on active forest management, critical minerals
    permitting, recreation, energy development--basically multiple-
    use management of a back-to-basics approach. In addition, the
    budget request emphasizes efficient and effective fire
    management by consolidating the federal suppression response
    apparatus into the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service under the
    Department of the Interior. The Forest Service was founded on
    and understands the utility of our national forests. The
    production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood
    products is vital for the country's well-being.
        The President's Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion
    of American Timber Production, emphasizes the importance of
    timber production and how forest management can support
    American lives and communities. The Fiscal Year `26 budget
    request supports this executive order by maintaining our
    ability to support the forest products industry and shifting
    the Forest Inventory Analysis program to the National Forest
    System. This shift will better align the practical data needs
    for both public and private forest management.
        Livestock grazing on federal lands is integral to ranchers
    across the United States, especially in the West. Grazing is
    permitted on nearly 40 percent of the 193 million acres of
    National Forest System lands across 27 states. We administer
    permits for approximately 5,500 permitees, with 1.3 million
    acres authorized for cattle and another 800,000 for sheep.
    Access to critical minerals is essential to contribute to a
    stable supply of energy for current and future generations
    while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and
    productivity. National forests are a bountiful resource for
    minerals, and we work hard, along with the BLM, to manage
    leasable minerals from the National Forest System.
        We carry a fiduciary responsibility to the American public.
    We must steward tax dollars wisely, so we are examining how to
    best optimize our workforce and our expenditures to ensure that
    we are focused on field-based operations that are essential to
    meeting high-priority objectives. To this point, the 2026
    budget request reduces or eliminates some aspects of federal
    funding from the Forest Service budget to ensure stewardship of
    the taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate
    roles of the federal and the state governments. It is not our
    intention to degrade the services of states and local
    governments, but we must change the reliance on the Federal
    Government to fund the delivery of these services.
        In alignment with restoring a federalist approach, we
    encourage increasing state authority to fund management of
    state and privately owned forests, community preparedness, and
    public risk mitigation activities. Communities across the
    country depend on national forests and grasslands. I work
    tirelessly to support those communities by partnering to
    actively manage the National Forest System for multiple uses.
    We maintain our commitment to strengthening relationships with
    industries, ranching families, the mining industry,
    communities, and conservation groups to deliver on the
    multiple-use mission, as it has been for more than 100 years.
        Thank you for inviting me to be here today, and I look
    forward to your ongoing support. I will be glad to answer any
    of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much for your thoughtful
    testimony, and I welcome you here this morning. We really
    haven't had an opportunity to meet. I have read your bio. I
    look forward to working with you in the next few years.
    Congratulations on this important appointment, incredibly
    important for Wyoming. And I appreciate your willingness to
    join us in Wyoming at the Wyoming Stock Growers later this
    month in Cody, Wyoming, and I am glad that you will be meeting
    with our livestock producers and learning how you can help
    strengthen the management of our national forests with
    effective livestock grazing.
        I also want to congratulate you and thank you for working
    with Secretary of Agriculture Rollins, your work on rescinding
    the roadless rule a few weeks ago. That rule, to me, was
    outdated. It was outdated policy that has hindered forest
    management in Wyoming for years. This is going to restore vital
    forest health. It's going to help reduce wildfire risk across
    the country and help to boost responsible timber production. So
    thank you for your leadership there.
        With regard to timber production, you know, over two years
    ago, Neiman Enterprises announced layoffs and shift reductions
    at their Spearfish, South Dakota Forest Products facility. At
    their facility in Hulett, Wyoming, they reduced down to one
    shift. This has significantly reduced their capacity as a
    result of the Biden administration's limiting of timber
    production, and this has impacted sawmills all around. What is
    the agency doing to retain the remaining forest products
    infrastructure in the Black Hills National Forest?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for that question.
        We have been working very closely with the Neimans in the
    industry up there to understand the issues and move forward.
    There are three specific things that we have done. We have
    identified staff that we have transferred to the Black Hills,
    actually from Washington State, to help assist in preparing
    sales. We have increased funding for them in the short term to
    help address some of the shortfalls in funding. They have had
    to do more work. The other piece is that we are collaborating
    with not only the industry, but some NGOs there--the Wild
    Turkey Federation, the Mule Deer Foundation, and also with the
    State of Wyoming--under the GNA program to increase
    predictability of the program for the Black Hills. So those are
    the three things we are doing: staffing, funding, and
    collaborating with those entities to ensure that we have the
    right plan in place.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        And then, you are helping with the local communities as
    well?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        You said we must steward tax dollars wisely. I appreciate
    that. You know, we have had a number of fairly significant
    fires in Wyoming. Last year, the House Draw fire, Johnson
    County, 175,000 acres. The Elk fire, 68,000--I'm sorry, 98,000
    acres. Rural communities in the West are bracing again for this
    year. And of course, resources are spread thin. Federal and
    state agencies, I believe, must work together. So can you talk
    about how the Forest Service is engaging state, local, and
    private partners to ensure we can effectively respond to
    wildfires?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator, so first of all, the National Association of State
    Foresters represents those state interests in many cases. We
    have ongoing dialogue throughout the year with them, and going
    into the fire season, we increase that dialogue. We have had
    pre-season meetings with all of our cooperators at the local
    government level, the volunteers, and the states. So those
    meetings have been accomplished. The big thing though, this
    year, operating agreements are already all in place for all the
    states, so that when issues come up in terms of who is going to
    pay the cost of fighting the fire, those questions are not
    going to be in front of us. That has all been agreed to
    already. So in terms of that, that will not impact any tactics
    or strategies in fighting fire with some concern over who is
    going to pay for those fires. So those are things that we have
    done pre-season to ensure that we are prepared and working with
    our partners.
        Senator Barrasso. In this Committee over the years, we talk
    about how many millions of acres of our national forests are at
    high or very high risk of wildfire--I think it's about 63
    million acres right now. In Fiscal Year 2024, the U.S. Forest
    Service treated only about four million acres of our national
    forest. I think it's imperative that the U.S. Forest Service is
    planning on how they are going to treat all of these high-risk
    areas within our National Forest System.
        You inherited the prior administration's budget deficit as
    well. Can you talk about how you plan to lead the agency to
    catch up from the last four years in forest management?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, thanks for that question.
        So I think the big thing is relying on partners. If you
    recall, there was a disaster bill passed at the end of the year
    last year. There was about $75 million that Sierra Pacific is
    putting to use on federal lands to create fuel breaks. So we
    are going to be looking at other partnerships, whether that's
    with NGOs, whether it's directly with industry, but helping us
    to manage the National Forest System to increase the pace and
    scale of what we are doing. So that's a big part of our
    strategy. It's also going to be relying on states to do that.
        Senator Barrasso. And my final question, Mr. Chairman,
    thanks so much for your indulgence. Just last week, the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture announced it will be revising the
    NEPA regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act. So I
    commend you and Secretary Rollins for your efforts to reduce
    unnecessary red tape and to streamline the projects. As you are
    well aware, the Forest Service is required to update and
    develop land management plans to guide management of our
    national forests. And I understand the U.S. Forest Service will
    be conducting public and stakeholder meetings so Wyoming's
    voice will be heard.
        Currently in Wyoming, the Bridger-Teton National Forest and
    the Black Hills National Forest are undergoing their forest
    plan revision process. Can you please give us an update on your
    timelines for these forest plans?
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, thanks for the question.
        The Black Hills plan was started in 2001. The phase one
    assessment is complete and we expect to have the full plan
    completed in 2027. So there is ongoing public involvement
    there.
        On the Bridger-Teton plan that was started in 2024, the
    draft assessment is out currently, today, for public review.
    That public review will end in August 2025. And we expect that
    it should take two to three years to complete that process.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you so much, Senator
    Barrasso.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Schultz, the lack of emergency preparedness, whether
    it's in Texas Hill Country or public lands in Oregon, can cost
    lives. Just recently fire officials in southern Oregon told me
    they were coming up dangerously short in emergency
    preparedness. Specifically, I was told in southern Oregon, one
    meteorologist was trying to provide early warning systems and
    doing the work for four people. Now, what this, of course, is
    all about is getting key timely information out to communities
    so they can battle these infernos. We have talked in the past
    about how these infernos are not your grandfathers' fires. They
    are bigger and they are hotter. And we need to address this
    critical preparedness gap.
        Now, instead of moving quickly, you all have trotted out
    yet another new, and described as improved, reorganization in
    the middle of a very dangerous fire season. Now, nobody in my
    home state--and I was Chair of this Committee and worked
    closely with the agency--has in effect said, Ron, we have got
    to have the Forest Service less involved in fighting fires. But
    that is the net effect of your organizational plan.
        So here is my question: what is this new plan going to
    accomplish for preparedness in my home state this fire season?
    That's what I was asked about, what can be done this fire
    season. And how is this new organizational plan going to get
    real help to people quickly?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Wyden, thank you for the question.
        This fire season, we do not intend to implement any changes
    in the structure of the fire program. Nothing is going to take
    place this fire season.
        Senator Wyden. So why aren't we using the resources that
    seem to be going to this new plan to get help to the people who
    are telling me they are coming up short? Why wouldn't we get
    that help out to them quickly?
        Mr. Schultz. So, just, in terms of resources this year,
    here is where we are at today. So our max staffing that we
    typically hire for firefighters, GS-9 and below, is 11,300
    firefighters. Today, we are at roughly 11,250 firefighters. So
    we are at about 99 percent of our hiring resources. So in terms
    of firefighting capacity, we are there. So we have not made any
    changes to our resource availability this year, whether it's
    aviation resources or----
        Senator Wyden. Why don't you get me, in writing, something
    that backs up your argument that there has been no reduction in
    resources, because that's not what I was just told in southern
    Oregon, where they are worried about getting urgently needed
    information.
        Now, along these lines, we have been told that the agency--
    and we are most of the way through the fiscal year--hasn't even
    treated half as many acres to reduce wildfire risk as were
    treated in the last year of the Biden administration. Why is
    that?
        Mr. Schultz. So sir, we actually have treated similar acres
    that we did in previous years. And so, this administration came
    in in February. So in terms of basically treating acres, there
    has not been a major reduction in acres treated for the last
    year, for this year, so.
        Senator Wyden. We will get to you those numbers because
    that is factually inaccurate.
        Mr. Schultz. Okay.
        Senator Wyden. And let me tell you what concerns me about
    this net effect, because I have described to you the problems
    that we are seeing on the ground in southern Oregon where we
    are not getting the help, in terms of stepping up to deal with
    emergencies. I mentioned the data that shows we are not doing
    as much timber production in line with natural resources laws
    as in the Biden administration. And it seems to me, what you
    all are doing is making a case that somehow this mismanagement
    is a case for selling off our public lands. And I want you to
    know that I am going to fight that argument every step of the
    way because we heard loud and clear that when the
    administration advanced their arguments just recently for
    selling off public lands, the American people said no way--not
    a close call--no way. And I am not going to allow the
    mismanagement and the lack of really using resources
    effectively, as I have just described in my state, become an
    argument that somehow this mismanagement is a case for selling
    off our public lands.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        Chief Schultz, I was thrilled by the announcement made by
    Secretary Rollins about the rescission of the 2001 roadless
    rule. The roadless rule prohibits, as the name implies, road
    construction, and it also prohibits, effectively, timber
    harvesting on nearly 59 million acres of National Forest System
    lands, including 60 percent of the Forest Service land in Utah.
    By the way, that 59 million acres represents nearly 10 percent
    of the total federal land footprint. This is a significant
    amount of land.
        Now, while the intent of the original roadless rule may
    well have been to preserve the environment, in practical
    effect, in many ways, it has done the opposite of that. The
    practical effect of it has been environmental disaster. It has
    been devastating to forest health and to wildfire mitigation
    efforts. It has also added to the demise of our domestic timber
    industry. Last year, I asked your predecessor, the person who
    held this job in the previous administration, if the roadless
    rule had helped or hindered wildfire mitigation efforts. He
    said, ``I don't think it was designed to help wildfire
    mitigation.'' Certainly a true statement, and vastly
    understated, in my opinion.
        Would you say that the roadless rule has helped or hindered
    wildfire mitigation efforts over the last two decades?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Lee, I would say the roadless rule,
    and what we see in terms of the datasets, there are about 24.5
    million acres of roadless areas that are within the wildland
    urban interface or within one mile of the wildland urban
    interface. So by not being able to have areas that we can go
    into and manage or be able to put the fires out, that is a
    problem. So it doesn't help, for sure, and it definitely
    hinders. And what you will find out too is that many roadless
    areas are, in fact, roaded, so sometimes it's a misnomer. I was
    in Montana last week on the Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest.
    There is a lot of roaded roadless. It's the same thing on the
    Lolo Forest. So to suggest that roadless areas are truly always
    roadless, that is not the case. In many cases----
        The Chairman. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. They were roaded.
        The Chairman. No, I get that, but that's not the point. The
    point is just whether it has helped or hindered.
        Mr. Schultz. It has not helped.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Now, so what does the rescission of the roadless rule mean
    then for land management, for timber harvesting, and for
    wildfire mitigation on Forest Service land going forward? What
    does that look like?
        Mr. Schultz. Chairman, so the rescission, what that will
    look like is, we will begin this fall, we will have a
    rulemaking process and we will go through that process to
    repeal the rule officially. There are two states where we will
    not be repealing the rule. That's Idaho and Colorado. They have
    their own unique roadless rules. So those rules will not be
    impacted. But we will repeal the rule through our rulemaking
    process. We will have public input in that process. And then,
    ultimately, we would have to amend forest plans to adopt that
    strategy in those forest plans. But that's what will be started
    this fall.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Well, I would like to discuss briefly the revisions to the
    Manti-La Sal National Forest Management Plan. The 2023 draft of
    that plan included 122,780 acres of recommended wilderness
    areas. Now, to be perfectly clear, these areas do not meet the
    Forest Service's own standards for wilderness or for
    recommended wilderness. The recommendations also appear to
    conflict with the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, which designated
    wilderness areas in exchange for the assurance of no future
    Utah wilderness designations. That agreement was seemingly
    ignored by the Biden administration. Will you commit to working
    with the state and with local cooperating agencies to
    reevaluate and remove these recommended wilderness areas before
    the final land management plan is complete?
        Mr. Schultz. So sir, yes. We have received those comments
    from the state. They are being reviewed right now, and we will
    definitely work with the state in that review of that process
    in reconsidering those recommendations in the draft.
        The Chairman. Thank you. And I hope you will reach out to
    me as you do that. In any way I can be helpful, I would love to
    be kept apprised of that.
        Now, timber harvesting is a critical component of
    responsible forest management. It helps maintain healthy forest
    density, removes hazardous fuels by preventing fuel buildup for
    the fires, and supports rural economies across the country.
    Since 2000, just the last 25 years alone, the average annual
    harvest from Forest System lands has been just 2.3 billion
    board-feet, far below both historic averages and allowable
    quantities. Now, just last week, we took a huge step in the
    right direction by enacting new timber harvesting provisions in
    the Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress and signed into law
    by President Trump, to help restore our forests and revitalize
    the domestic timber industry.
        What do you see as the biggest remaining barriers to
    increasing timber production on federal lands, you know, now
    that this bill has been passed, and how do we cut through red
    tape and provide a degree of certainty for our timber and our
    sawmill industries?
        Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I think you hit a lot of the
    good points. The biggest thing that the sawmills are looking
    for is certainty and predictability, right? So the biggest
    thing is, the Forest Service needs to do what they say they are
    going to do. So when you talk about, you know, our sustainable
    supply in what we are doing, if we deliver what we are saying
    we are going to do, that's what the industry is looking for.
        In terms of barriers that are out there, we know
    litigations are barriers, but in terms of funding things, we
    are looking at other ways. You mentioned the long-term
    contracts that are identified in the reconciliation bill.
    That's something we will be looking at. We actually just signed
    an agreement with the State of Montana just last week to do a
    20-year agreement where the state would come in and assist in
    managing federal lands. And that's something where we actually
    have some initial discussions with Utah to look at that and
    other states in the West as well. So we see that being an
    opportunity where the states can kind of step in and help us in
    managing those resources on a go-forward basis.
        So that's it. I mean, we are looking at other mechanisms
    for contracting. We are looking at working with partners on a
    go-forward basis. Litigation is something, and I know there are
    provisions and other statutes and laws you are looking at right
    now to help with some of that, we have talked about the
    Cottonwood decision many times, but that is one that is out
    there that still creates some hurdles for us on the litigation
    piece.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Schultz, welcome.
        As you know, the Forest Service plays a critical role in
    wildfire response, not just programs to prevent or mitigate the
    impact of fires, but to respond to them when they happen.
    However, under the current administration, we have seen a
    dangerous reduction in the capabilities and capacity of the
    Forest Service to respond to wildfires. Through both the
    deferred resignation program and the voluntary early retirement
    authority, the Forest Service has lost more than 5,000
    employees, about 1,400 of whom had red cards, and you know the
    significance of red cards. So I am concerned that this
    represents a significant reduction in capability and capacity
    and poses a serious danger to communities, not just in
    California, but elsewhere in the West and across the country.
    These staff reductions coupled with the President diverting
    National Guard units in California to mean that those resources
    are no longer available to support a wildfire response
    capacity. It's not just irresponsible, it's dangerous.
        That's me talking. I want to hear from you, Chief. I know
    that since the reductions, the agency has invited those who
    resigned to re-status themselves for fire season. Can you share
    with the Committee how many have actually taken the agency up
    on the offer to re-status?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question.
        So just to kind of restate again, in terms of resources, we
    are basically at 99 percent of capacity of our firefighting
    resources in terms of our GS-9 and below firefighters. So we
    have had no degradation----
        Senator Padilla. Is that funding or staffing levels?
        Mr. Schultz. It's staffing levels, yes, sir. And there has
    been no impact on the funding, either, on that.
        Senator Padilla. So how have you offset the more than 1,500
    staff----
        Mr. Schultz. Okay, so, we are talking about two different
    things. So we had people that took DRP. Firefighters were not
    eligible for DRP. We had non-firefighting personnel that had
    red cards, like you said, there were about 1,400 that----
        Senator Padilla. So you are saying there is no reduction in
    the red cards?
        Mr. Schultz. No, what I am saying is that the firefighters
    that are classified as firefighters were not eligible for DRP,
    so none of them took DRP. We had other staff that were non-fire
    personnel that do have red cards and we had, like you
    mentioned, I think we had 4,000 who took DRP, and another
    thousand that retired outside of DRP. And there were about
    1,400 that did have red cards. So those are the folks that you
    are referring to. We don't have numbers yet. They have just
    been kind of coming back on in the last couple weeks. And as we
    get those numbers, we can get them to you, but we have reached
    out, as you indicated, to those 1,400 and allowed for them to
    come back--and not just allowed--but encouraged them to come
    back, and we have a process for them to come back and support
    us this year through the end of September.
        Senator Padilla. Well, I am going to eagerly await those
    numbers and regular reports and updates because red cards are
    significant, even those that are not firefighters serving
    critical roles to support the firefighting activity. And so, I
    am going to be looking for that data and those further
    assurances and commitment on your part because we are just now
    entering peak fire season in California and throughout the
    West.
        I want to get back to the topic of partnerships. You
    mentioned it earlier in the hearing, and I know Senator
    Barrasso emphasized this earlier in the hearing. The Forest
    Service's state and private forestry programs, including state
    fire assistance, the volunteer fire assistance, and the broader
    state, private, and tribal forestry initiatives provide crucial
    financial and technical support to state and local fire
    departments for wildfire prevention, as well as detection and
    suppression. These programs are essential for building and
    maximizing the capacity in fire-adapted communities and
    ensuring the safety of first responders during wildfires.
        What is the status of FY25 funding for these programs? Are
    you aware? And I guess alongside with that, what is your
    confidence in getting the funding out by the August 15
    deadline?
        Mr. Schultz. Sure, thank you, sir. So Senator, for the
    Fiscal Year 2025, we are still working with OMB on that
    request. So we are looking to finalize that here, probably
    within the next couple weeks.
        Senator Padilla. That worries me. I don't mean to cut you
    off.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes.
        Senator Padilla. The deadline to get this out is August
    15th. We are a month out and you are still finalizing the
    numbers?
        Mr. Schultz. So Q4 numbers for 2025 are still being
    finalized for some of those programs, yes, sir.
        Senator Padilla. That should be a big red flag for all of
    us.
        And let me make one other important point as my time is
    running out. From past fires in California, including Santa
    Rosa years ago and Los Angeles more recently, these are the
    types of programs that we should be supporting. I asked you
    about the FY25 numbers. Do you know what the FY26 numbers are?
    My understanding is that the President's proposed budget zeros
    out this program. How does that make any sense?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think the intent of that program in
    2026 is to transfer that responsibility to the states. That's
    the intent of that. And giving the states some heads up that
    that's coming----
        Senator Padilla. Every state that I am aware of is having a
    tougher budget picture to face. The threat of fires is real.
    The threat of fires is growing. How does it make sense for the
    Federal Government to zero out these programs that you said are
    so critical?
        Mr. Schultz. Sir, we would still be partnering with the
    states in dialogue and discussions, but the transfer----
        Senator Padilla. But you are zeroing out their resources.
    How does that make any sense?
        Mr. Schultz. Well, it's sharing that responsibility and
    pushing that to the states----
        Senator Padilla. Pushing that to the states that have less
    resources to work with. How does that make any sense?
        Mr. Schultz. In a sense, it makes sense because it's
    putting that responsibility on the states to make those
    decisions locally.
        Senator Padilla. Look, it may be residents of California or
    Utah or other states in between, these are all Americans.
    Communities in the United States of America that are at
    increased risk because of the actions of this administration,
    which contradict the supposed goals and objectives.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        If I might just comment on the states' role, and thank you,
    Chief Schultz, for being here. If you take a look at the
    landscapes across Montana and look at federal lands versus
    state lands, I can tell you, the state is doing a much, much
    better job in terms of stewardship of public lands than the
    Federal Government. I appreciate the efforts you are doing to
    work with the states as you are doing.
        I know the Idaho delegation, Chief Schultz, likes to claim
    you, but I want to remind the Committee here that before you
    were in Idaho, you were a Montanan, and it's good to see you
    here. You understand the West, and I appreciate that. I want to
    acknowledge the work the Forest Service firefighters are doing
    currently across the country. This fire season is expected to
    be another challenging year for you and your team. Congress
    must do more to ensure the Forest Service has the tools needed
    to not only fight the fires, but to prevent them in the first
    place. And we can do this by increasing better forest
    management activities and decreasing litigation that is holding
    up projects.
        Chief Schultz, on the Fourth of July, President Trump
    signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill, and with it is an
    extremely important provision for forest health. As you know,
    the new law requires the Forest Service to nearly double annual
    timber sales by 2034. That would put Montana at approximately
    250 million board-feet and about 5 billion board-feet
    nationally. These numbers are more in line with our forest
    plans and will lead to stronger rural communities, better
    forest health, and reduced wildfire risk.
        Chief Schultz, will you prioritize implementation of this
    provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks--thanks for the question. Yes,
    we will be doing that. We know that those provisions are there.
    I think the increase is 250 million board-feet nationally, year
    over year, for the next 10 years, and we will be doing that.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        You brought up the Cottonwood decision in one of your
    responses. I have the bill that will fix that disastrous Ninth
    Circuit Cottonwood decision. It is crucial in preventing some
    of the litigation that is stopping wildfire mitigation work,
    and fixing it will be necessary for you to fully implement the
    new provisions that are found in the Big Beautiful Bill. In
    Montana alone, there are 367 million board-feet of timber
    projects tied up in litigation. This means less work done on
    the ground before fire season starts in Montana and increased
    risk of catastrophic wildfires for our communities. And by the
    way, many think about Montana as being, you know, the beautiful
    rivers, our fishing, which we are all a part of, but we are a
    semi-arid state. Think about this: this city here, Washington,
    DC gets 39 inches of rain--more than Seattle gets, by the way,
    by a little bit. My hometown of Bozeman--16 inches of rain. So
    it's a precious commodity, water is. It's also why we have got
    to be smarter and better in managing our forests, because of
    the semi-arid climate, of which I get to call home, which I am
    very thankful for.
        There are increased costs, as the Forest Service must spend
    additional staff time responding to litigation and time trying
    to make these projects bulletproof, rather than advancing other
    work. In fact, during a recent hearing, Associate Chief Chris
    French said, ``The Forest Service unit costs are double in
    regions with frequent anti-forestry litigation.'' Chief
    Schultz, will you commit to working with me and this Committee
    to get a legislative fix done so that the Forest Service can
    focus on getting fire mitigations completed rather than
    fighting endless litigation?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Daines, yes, we will do that.
        Senator Daines. And incidentally on that Ninth Circuit
    Cottonwood fix, this started off as a small band here of
    advocates wanting to address that issue. It has moved now to
    being very bipartisan. In fact, it came through unanimous
    consent in the Committee last time we had it before in the
    markup. So I am hoping we can get this done. Both sides of the
    aisle recognize the importance of fixing the Ninth Circuit
    decision and making the Ninth congruent with the rest of the
    nation.
        Third, I want to talk about emergency action terminations.
    In April, Secretary Rollins expanded the authorization for the
    Forest Service to use the emergency action authority that I
    authored. This authority reduces red tape and allows the Forest
    Service to expedite needed active forest management to prevent
    these catastrophic wildfires. No one can deny that our forests
    are in a crisis with beetle kill, drought, and overgrowth that
    are destroying the health of our forests.
        Chief Schultz, can you speak to the ground work the Forest
    Service was able to do with this expanded emergency authority?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Daines, yes, thanks for the question.
        So yes, that authority expanded that. Previously, it was
    about 20 to 30 million acres that had been identified. Now, we
    are looking at 112 million acres across the country that are at
    risk of catastrophic fire or insect and disease. So those
    authorities help us to get work done quicker on the ground. And
    we are using that today in Region 1, in Region 6, and in Region
    5. So those authorities are already moving forward, as you
    alluded to.
        Senator Daines. Great. Thank you, Chief.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Chief, you have talked recently about how
    your budget is constrained because you need to pay out accrued
    vacation time for the 5,000 Forest Service employees who opted
    into the deferred resignation program. Basically, 5,000 people
    that we are paying not to do work in our forests. Which
    programs are being affected this year because of the need to
    pay off that leave?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, we are using primarily IRA
    and IIJA funds to pay those out. Those are the funds that are
    being used for that.
        Senator Heinrich. So it had no impact on the decision to
    zero out the state and volunteer fire assistance program?
        Mr. Schultz. Sir, no, those funds were not used directly.
    They were not directly earmarked for SFA and VFA funding. Those
    were not those funds.
        Senator Heinrich. You told the Senate Appropriations
    Committee a few weeks ago that the Forest Service would be
    quickly releasing the FY25 funds for these programs for state
    and volunteer fire assistance. But now, we are hearing that
    states have been told to prepare to receive zero funding this
    year. Is that correct?
        Mr. Schultz. Sir, you are correct in what my testimony was,
    and what we are telling states right now is we don't have an
    answer just yet, but we are not telling them that they are not
    going to get it. We are saying we are still in discussion on
    that. So we are not saying they are not going to get it, but we
    are still in discussion.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, what I would say is that states
    need that funding. That is an example of a successful
    partnership. If we don't have that funding, that's not shared
    responsibility, that's abdicating our federal responsibility.
    And not every state has even an agency in place to sort of
    replace that capacity at the state level at a time when their
    budgets are also being decimated by Medicaid cuts thanks to the
    big whatever bill. So I would think very seriously about our
    responsibility to continue to maintain positive relationships
    with those states and meet our federal responsibility.
        Do you have any thoughts?
        Mr. Schultz. I can tell you, your sentiments have been
    reflected by the state foresters, and we are in close
    communication with them and we are aware of their concerns and
    we are taking those into consideration as we work through this
    issue. Yes, sir.
        Senator Heinrich. Last year, the Forest Service predicted
    it would accomplish about four million acres of hazardous fuels
    reduction in 2025. You are three quarters the way through the
    fiscal year. What is your number right now?
        Mr. Schultz. Sir, I don't have that number with me, but I
    will get it to you.
        Senator Heinrich. I think I have the number.
        Mr. Schultz. Okay.
        Senator Heinrich. And you can tell me if I am wrong. It is
    about 1.7 million acres. So not even 50 percent of the way
    towards our goal, despite the fact that we are almost through
    the fiscal year. So, you know, one of the things we agree on in
    this Committee is we would like to see more fuels reduction as
    a way to deal with our fire risk. And yet, we are abysmally
    behind our goals. We have 5,000 fewer people working for the
    Forest Service now. And there are many of us on this Committee
    that are worried that the current budget is a recipe for more
    trees burned and fewer trees cut.
        What would you say to my constituents who are worried that
    this budget blueprint is going to result in fewer hazardous
    fuels being treated?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, what I would say is that
    overall, we are still going to maintain our fuels program, as
    we have done. And this budget, what it does is, it transfers
    the fuels program to the Department of the Interior, so that
    work would be done in the future by the Department of the
    Interior. That is part of what happens in this budget, that
    fuels program goes there. So we would be working with the
    Department of the Interior to accomplish those objectives on
    Forest Service grounds. So the intent--we still have the same
    amount of funding. The funding doesn't shift for fuels, it just
    shifts from Forest Service to Department of Interior. So the
    intent would still be to accomplish those goals.
        Senator Heinrich. So if the firefighting efforts are
    shifted to Interior, would the hazardous fuels treatments go
    with them?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, yes, sir. So the funding for
    that program, the $170 million does transfer to Interior. So
    the large bulk of that would transfer with that program, yes,
    sir.
        Senator Heinrich. When are we going to get a detailed
    blueprint of what this new firefighting approach is going to
    look like?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, we have been requested, through
    executive order, within the next 90 days, to develop a plan
    that would identify the structure of this. So that's something
    that we just started discussions on internally and with the
    Department of the Interior, so we will meet the timelines that
    are established in the executive order. So as we work through
    that, in 90 days, we will have a plan of what this would look
    like.
        Senator Heinrich. Irrespective of how long it takes to put
    that plan together, I think there are many of us who are more
    concerned about the adequacy of that plan and would like to see
    that plan before we start making budgetary decisions about
    whether it's a good idea or not. I am very open to different
    ways of organizing how we fight fires on our national forests
    and our public lands but I want to see the plan because
    people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. We have to get
    that right. And irrespective of whether the White House wants
    it in two weeks or 90 days, I know that members of this
    Committee are going to want to see the details and know that
    this has actually been thought through, unlike some of the
    early decisions about letting people go who are critical to the
    management of our public lands.
        The Chairman. Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Tom, good to see you. Tom and I share a lot. My
    undergraduate was in forestry. Are you first? I am very sorry.
    The Chairman called on me.
        The Chairman. I'm so sorry. I have even got it on my card.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. When I speak to my sheriffs back home,
    next to Kisatchie National Forest, they are providing law
    enforcement within the forest, and there will be people that
    will go for recreation, and somebody gets drunk and causes a
    problem, and it's they who are providing the services. They are
    not really getting compensated for that. So Grant Parish, for
    example, the majority of which is owned by the Federal
    Government, through the Kisatchie, is providing that sort of
    service. I am told that the agents that are there are merely
    there to make sure that somebody is not harvesting a tree which
    they shouldn't harvest or take something out of the ground and
    take it away. But if there's a fistfight, they don't go and
    break it up. But my sheriffs are not being compensated.
        And I am sure this is true elsewhere. I am sure it's true
    elsewhere. Is there anything in the budget that will help
    defray the expense of law enforcement being effectively
    outsourced to the local community?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cassidy, thank you for the question.
    So we have approximately 300 law enforcement officers around
    the country.
        Senator Cassidy. Well, I am told that they don't break up
    fights. I am told that they keep people from illegally
    harvesting, like digging up a plant and taking it away.
        Mr. Schultz. So I don't think that is wholly accurate. So
    we do, our law enforcement officers and investigators, they do
    deal with trespass, you know, trespass timber issues. They deal
    with fire starts, in terms of investigations, but they also
    address law enforcement issues in the forest.
        Senator Cassidy. But if you have 300, with as much land as
    you have, that's not very many. They are stretched more than
    thin.
        Mr. Schultz. Sir, you are right. They are stretched thin,
    but they do cooperate, as you mentioned, with local law
    enforcement, and we have different agreements. So every law
    enforcement--it could be the county level, it could be the
    local level. We do have reciprocity agreements where there is
    assistance provided and requested in some cases. And there are
    some instances where there are charges that we don't typically
    assess. You are talking about some of those criminal charges.
    Those would be assessed typically by local law enforcement.
        Senator Cassidy. But they are also having to incur the
    expense, and these are rural parishes or counties, and they are
    incurring the expense of actually providing these services. So
    what is being done to compensate? Right now, nothing is being
    done to compensate. That's why, you know, I am----
        Mr. Schultz. Right.
        Senator Cassidy. So how do we address that?
        Mr. Schultz. So I think it's something we need to follow up
    with you on. We will take that offline and we will talk with
    our law enforcement folks and talk about what a strategy might
    look like to do that.
        Senator Cassidy. I would appreciate that because these are
    rural parishes.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. Poorly resourced, particularly if 80
    percent of the parish or county is absorbed by the forest,
    their tax base and PILT do not really work for them. Their tax
    base is not adequate to support, so, major issue. So if we can
    follow up on that, that would be great.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. There are also logging activities that
    take place. In Kisatchie they do logging there. Some of my
    small contractors feel like they get elbowed out by the big
    guys. And so, these are family-owned businesses, important for
    that rural parish's economic vitality. The big guys are based
    someplace else. They come in and they leave. Is there any kind
    of understanding of the need to maintain a local economy in a
    county or parish in which the Federal Government owns most of
    the land? And if so, does it include, and how does it include,
    making sure that you can contract with some of the smaller
    businesses?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks for the question. We do have a
    couple of programs. One, we have Small Business Administration
    programs. So if you have less than 500 employees, there are
    specific provisions in our timber sales that we have to afford
    so many timber sales to small business. And those are bid out.
        Senator Cassidy. Now, that's a sale. Does that include the
    logging itself?
        Mr. Schultz. The logging--you can actually be a logging
    contractor and directly buy a timber sale.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it.
        Mr. Schultz. You do not have to be mill to buy timber
    sales, so they would qualify as a small business. The other
    opportunity we have is, we have provisions that allow some
    direct sales to small companies or to just logging contractors
    at less than $10,000. There are provisions in some of the
    legislation being considered in FOFA that would change that and
    adjust that for inflation. So there is the ability to increase
    direct sales to small operators on small volumes and small
    values so that they could buy those directly.
        And so, there are a couple programs that we do have that
    would give some of those smaller operators a greater advantage
    in terms of buying some of that wood.
        Senator Cassidy. So if some of my folks ended up not being
    aware of this, then I may connect back with you to make sure
    that they are.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. I am almost out of time and I will yield.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I want to thank you, Chief Schultz, for being here.
    And I want to take a moment with my colleague from Idaho to
    acknowledge the sacrifice and bravery of the firefighters in
    the Coeur d'Alene Idaho area, and my condolences go out to
    their families and to this community. And so, we want to
    remember these individuals, and again, thank the firefighters
    all across the nation.
        Chief Schultz, the season is upon us. I think my staff
    probably has our most recent charts that show how bad our
    prediction is for this summer.
        [The charts referred to follow:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. You know, each month it gets more
    dramatic. And so, the challenge that we face is, we want to
    prepare, and I think as the nation sees practically 24/7
    coverage of what natural disasters can do to a community, one
    of the best things that you can do is cache resources early--
    and that meaning c-a-c-h-e--cache them early so that they are
    close to the proximity of where they need to be. And that is
    always the best thing to do, and I do think, you know, people
    were probably asking questions why, if you thought you were
    going to have flood season in Texas, why didn't you have more
    resources there at an earlier time, but now we know this is the
    outlook for us.
        My colleague and I--I think our whole states will be
    covered in red. I don't know about you, but as I fly home every
    week, I see less and less snow on the Cascades, and I keep
    thinking, wow, this is really a challenge because you are just
    going to have drier and drier conditions. Okay, so, where is
    the resource for the state? I think it's, you know, a budget
    that has already been approved. So why aren't we releasing the
    funds that go to the community so that they can best prepare
    for this fire season?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cantwell, thanks for the question. I
    think you are talking about the SFA and the VFA funding. We
    were talking about that previously. So we are evaluating that
    right now. We have had a lot of feedback from the state
    foresters. We are working with OMB on that question right now,
    looking at that issue. We have not made a determination yet,
    but that's something that is being evaluated.
        Senator Cantwell. So when do you expect that to go out?
        Mr. Schultz. We expect there probably to be a determination
    in the next several weeks will be my expectation.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        Mr. Schultz. But we don't, and again, we can't commit that
    that's for sure going to go out yet. That is still under
    discussion.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, we want to follow the normal
    process.
        Mr. Schultz. Right.
        Senator Cantwell. So that the Forest Service is working,
    you know, with others to get the resources into those
    communities and do the work that they need to do.
        Same question about LWCF. Why is that money being held up
    by OMB or others?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cantwell, what we are looking at is
    just looking at the administration's priorities and looking at
    the 2025 budget to make sure the work that we are doing is in
    alignment with the priorities of the administration. So that's
    something that's just being evaluated right now and we are
    still looking at that.
        Senator Cantwell. But if LWCF are projects submitted and
    approved by Congress--this Committee played a key role in
    saying we want to fund these and let's move forward--why is OMB
    now requiring a review of LWCF projects?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think it's just like I mentioned.
    We are looking at all those programs in the 2025 budget, just
    looking at alignment with the priorities of the administration.
        Senator Cantwell. What does that mean? That you are
    creating a different process than exists, that has been the
    practice for 50 or 60 years?
        Mr. Schultz. I don't think it's that we are creating a new
    process. I think what we are saying is, that just given the
    authorities in this--I think the language is that we are saying
    the President is acting within his authority for the full-year
    continuing appropriations to revise spending within the amounts
    provided by Congress. I mean, I think that's what is being
    done. We are looking at that right now.
        Senator Cantwell. Okay.
        And then, on the roadless rule, you know, I love my
    colleague from Idaho. He probably doesn't want me to say that.
    Okay, I will pretend I don't like you. How about that? I don't
    like you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cantwell. But he did implement a roadless rule in
    his state, which he got the people together and he got it done.
    He made the right decisions--or he made a lot of decisions. He
    made a lot of decisions. So that's the prerogative, like, that
    was the way it worked--like, a state could step up and do the
    work or you could have somebody else tell you. In this case, he
    did the work. So, are you aware that research found that
    approximately 88 percent of all wildfires are human-caused and
    95 percent of those fires are ignited within a half a mile of a
    road? And so, one of the reasons why the roadless rule was good
    for some of these areas is because, no, we are not having roads
    all over the place and we are not igniting fires all over the
    place.
        So do you have an assessment of the cost of rescinding the
    roadless rule when you might be building roads into pristine
    areas and causing more challenges?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think our bigger concern isn't
    building roads into pristine areas, it's that we have 24.5
    million acres of the roughly 60 million acres of roadless that
    is within--either in the WUI or is within a mile of the WUI, so
    that is our primary concern on this, that we have areas, and
    much--I mentioned this earlier in my testimony--that there is
    much roadless area that actually has roads in it. I was on the
    Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest last week. The Lolo Forest has
    roads. It's not uncommon that roadless areas do have roads. It
    just inhibits----
        Senator Cantwell. Well, another question is whether we want
    to continue that process. And I think what, you know, I think
    what everybody wants is to not--we want to maintain our
    forests. We want to have recreational areas. We want to invest
    in the resources to have the public go enjoy those recreational
    areas. I personally don't want to sell public lands. But at the
    same time, you are saying let's not build more roads in places
    we don't need to build more roads just because one or two
    people have a great idea that that's what they want to go do.
    Let's set aside those areas that we think, no, really, we
    shouldn't be building roads there. That was the whole point of
    the roadless rule, to make those decisions. And as I said, my
    colleague was successful at making those decisions and
    prioritizing that.
        And so, now, if you are saying the wildland urban interface
    is really an issue, yes, I agree. The wildland urban interface
    should be debated every day of the week now because what we are
    finding is that we almost had, literally, a fire approach
    Spokane. I mean, there are people who are looking at that and
    saying not where the next, you know, fire like the Palisades or
    like Hawaii will be, but people are saying the next event is
    going to be something that goes all the way from the WUI to a
    major urban city and could cause damage. And that's what
    happened outside of Spokane last summer.
        So I think we are all in, but I think you and I will
    probably have to continue this dialogue about what's best to do
    to approach this issue.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Risch.
        Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my
    friend from Washington. I would be remiss if I didn't
    acknowledge that horrible situation we had with the
    firefighters being killed. Firefighting is a really dangerous
    job to begin with, then when you add to it this kind of thing,
    it's awful. And I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you to
    Washington, which responded with literally hundreds of law
    enforcement people to address the situation. We are very
    thankful for that. Our heart goes out to the people up there.
        Tom, proud of you. You are the first Idahoan to be Chief
    since Dale Bosworth was when I was Governor of Idaho. Dale and
    I had graduated in the same class from the University of Idaho
    College of Forestry. That was a little before your time,
    probably, but Dale did a great job and helped me. And my
    colleague got ahead of me on the roadless. She knew I would be
    bringing it up, and that was really an effort between us in
    Idaho. And how this worked is, George W. Bush invited the
    states to look at the roadless areas and come up with a plan
    for their state. I guess Colorado did some, but we were
    primarily--we have got the roadless rule. I am very proud of
    it. The other states did not do what we wanted to do, and
    frankly, I had a lot of people advise me that I shouldn't get
    into that because it was controversial, as you know. Nobody
    knows how many roadless lawsuits there have been. There have
    been hundreds, maybe into the thousands, and every time the
    Republicans are in, the Democrats file suit, and every time the
    Democrats are in, the Republicans file suit. And nothing ever
    gets done.
        The good news--and I think the proof is in the pudding on
    my roadless rule--is that, since that has been in for the last
    two decades, we haven't had one lawsuit involving roadless in
    Idaho. There have been a lot of roadless lawsuits, but every
    time they are filed, they exclude Idaho from the suit. So I
    mean, I think the lawsuits are a great deal for the lawyers,
    but it really wastes a lot of time and energy and everything
    else.
        The way I went about it was, when the Federal Government
    suggested that we and the states have a look at it, they gave
    us no parameters of any kind. And the way I went about it was,
    I said, well, we are going to put together a committee that
    everybody is represented on. It's the loggers, so industry is
    represented. It was the recreation users, which is not one
    bucket, as you know, the motorized recreational users are very
    different from the wilderness type of recreational users. And
    we brought all those people to the table and really took the
    millions of acres that we had in Idaho and broke them in to
    various--we had five different categories. Because, as you
    know, the roadless, as you say, there is roadless that have
    roads in them, and they are all over the board. And they were
    the ones left over when they put all the wilderness lands into
    wilderness area, there were ones they couldn't reach an
    agreement on and they set them aside saying these should be
    looked at. Well, nobody ever looked at them.
        But in any event, my pitch to you is that we are in the
    process of it, and have been for a little while, because it has
    been so successful, looking at it, I will put it in statute as
    opposed to just by rule because over the last two decades, the
    Forest Service--not you, but the people in the Forest Service,
    have taken a run at dismantling the Idaho roadless rule. The
    roadless properties, as you know, are managed by a committee
    that is appointed by the Governor. So it's federal land, but we
    have very strict parameters on these five different themes that
    are there, and then this group manages it. And within there, we
    have a number of small towns. As you suggested, Senator
    Cantwell, interface is a real problem when you come into fire.
    So what the roadless committee in Idaho has done, they have
    focused on these areas and have done treatment plans around
    these towns so they can stop a fire as it goes through there
    because, as you know, if one of these things gets going at
    about ten o'clock in the morning when the wind comes up, what
    you need is a pair of tennis shoes because you have got to stay
    away from the fire and not attack the fire. You can't control
    it.
        So on the other hand, if you have treated property, that is
    ones that have had a sensible harvest on them, it's really a
    good thing. So we are going to look at trying to get this
    statutory in because within the Forest Service, there are some
    who really hate the fact that the state has a say in managing
    these grounds. For those of us that have a lot of federal
    lands, this is not uncommon for us. But look, we can deal with
    this and it has been a tremendous success. I am going to enlist
    your help in that, Tom, to see if we can't get that done.
        And I always hoped that other states would take a hold of
    this. It was a collaborative effort. The minute it was done we
    had one of the environmental groups file suit, which I had
    tried to get to the table. We tried to get everybody to the
    table. And they filed suit immediately, but bless the
    environmental group, we said, look, we were going to do this
    together. We stuck together all the way through the litigation,
    which went on into the Obama administration. And to their
    credit, they let us, in Idaho, direct that lawsuit. Our
    roadless rule was approved by the district judge, an
    environmental-leaning district judge, but more importantly, it
    was approved by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
        And then certiorari was turned down by the Supreme Court,
    so we got it. We got a rule. We got it in law. But we would
    like to see it statutorily, so we have been working at it for
    some time. We're going to continue to do it. It's been a
    tremendous success. I highly recommend it for any state that
    doesn't have it. You can avoid all those lawsuits and actually
    do stuff with the ground that's in keeping with the various
    themes that we propose.
        I have talked long enough. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
    floor. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. And those of you from
    states that have large federal holdings, I strongly recommend
    the approach that we did in Idaho.
        Tom, thank you for your service. Thanks for doing this.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper, you are up next.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my
    colleague from Idaho, I appreciate all your work. I share a lot
    of that history with you. We worked on our roadless rule until
    we finally got it enacted in 2012. I came in, got elected in
    2010. So it took a big part of my first couple of years to get
    everybody around that table and make sure that every single--
    hunters and anglers and timber merchants and you go down the
    list, everyone signed off on that roadless rule. And it was a
    remarkable achievement, and I don't think it has been--to my
    knowledge, it has never been litigated since. We moved heaven
    and earth to make sure that everybody was at the table because
    it did help.
        It doesn't solve the problem, and I mean, the problem writ
    large is that we have a lot of people in this country that want
    to live in the woods and they want to experience wildlife and
    be closer to wildlife. And we see more and more people living
    in that wildland urban interface. And I am deeply concerned
    about our ability to keep them safe. And we are working on the
    Fix Our Forests Act that is going to help accelerate the
    ability to allow thinning of forests--ecological thinning so
    that we can make sure that the forests aren't so vulnerable,
    but the cuts that it looks like are coming through your budget
    in terms of firefighters really concerns me. And we have it in
    our national forests in Colorado. We have got the Maroon Bells.
    We have got, well, I could go down the list--Fish Creek Falls,
    a whole bunch of iconic views that people talk about and dream
    about and come visit. And, as every year, we are really worried
    about, if a little wildfire gets out of control, how do we keep
    people safe, and not just the people that live in the wildland
    urban interface, but visitors that don't know their way around
    and are going to get caught up in a place where they are, you
    know, going to have their entire summer disrupted or actually
    become in danger.
        So with the budget cuts, I guess my first question is, how
    are you going to keep Coloradans and people from all across
    this country safe?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks for the question.
        The first response is that the budget--the 2026 budget--
    does not reduce our firefighting resources or capacity. It
    transfers it from the Forest Service to the Department of the
    Interior to create this new Wildland Fire Service. But there is
    no reduction in the firefighting budget that is established. So
    there is no reduction in that case. What we have been talking
    about though is, there are reductions on some of the state and
    private components. And that's maybe what you are alluding to,
    is the SFA/VFA piece. And that's the piece that, as I have
    testified previously, that would be shifting from the Forest
    Service paying for those costs or Interior to the states to
    cover those costs.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Well, I think, what I see
    again and again throughout all the budgets we are seeing, there
    is more cost shifted from the Federal Government to states and
    local areas that are going through their own budget struggles
    right now.
        I also understand that we need to both streamline our
    permitting and all of our financial services to look at the
    wildfire crisis. In what other ways are you promoting
    resilience in terms of forest fires and those efforts?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think a big part of what we look at
    is--you know, the suppression is just the back end of this.
    Ideally, what we want to do is be very active managers, and
    that's using prescribed fire, it's using mechanical thinning,
    it's using commercial timber sales. All of those are critical
    to making sure that we create resilience and protect
    communities.
        One of the big things I mentioned earlier that Congress did
    back in December is, you all passed a disaster supplemental,
    and there was funding in there for Sierra Pacific to actually
    do fuel breaks on federal lands, on Forest Service lands in
    California and Oregon. So to me, those are some of the
    innovative approaches that we are looking at where we can
    partner with industry and partner with the states. We just
    signed an agreement with the State of Montana. We are actually
    having discussions with the State of Colorado right now looking
    at a similar type of arrangement where the state could come in
    and assist in managing some of the federal lands in a broader
    way.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
        Mr. Schultz. We have also had discussions on recreation and
    how the state can assist in managing recreation. Pike's Peak,
    for instance, is an area that the state has expressed interest
    in managing that site. So we are looking very much from a
    perspective of cooperating with the states to look at how we
    can address some of these issues.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I Appreciate that.
        Your budget also proposes a land transfer initiative to
    right-size the federal land. Coloradans--and I can't tell you
    how many tens of thousands of notices we have--do not want
    public lands put up for sale, certainly not on any scale. I
    think we were okay and recognize in certain small areas,
    isolated circumstances, maybe for workforce housing or
    something like that in a small mountain community, but I think
    county commissioners, town councils, mayors, Republicans,
    Democrats all called us, wrote us, and said do not sell our
    public lands at scale and certainly not to try and reduce the
    deficit. So hopefully you will listen to local governments and
    public citizens to recognize that that's not a constructive
    direction to take the Forest Service.
        Mr. Schultz. Senator, one of the things--I think you
    alluded to this--there has been a big focus on housing. The
    administration has looked at this issue and is concerned that
    as communities want to grow and they are surrounded by federal
    lands, there are limited opportunities. So the Forest Service
    is looking at this issue. We have actually done--we did a 99-
    year lease on the White River Forest that is an existing
    administrative site that is going to be leased for housing. And
    we are looking at opportunities in Oregon and in Idaho as well.
    So where we have tracts, we have authority to sell 40 acres
    right now. It's through the Small Tracts Act, but we are also
    looking at other ways to dispose. And those can be long-term
    leases where we can encourage where communities want to expand
    ski resorts, for instance, right, where there is not enough
    housing for employees, whether at current administrative
    sites--we are not talking about going into the backcountry, we
    are talking that we have admin sites that are in areas where
    they are roaded and those kinds of things where you can take
    those sites and maybe make affordable housing.
        So that's the opportunities that we are looking at right
    now.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Okay, well, I am out of time, but
    when you use language like right-sizing the federal estate, I
    think that notion of scale that that language creates is of
    great concern to a lot of people. So just keep that--be
    mindful.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Chief, for
    being here, I appreciate it. I look forward to working with
    you.
        So can I ask, as we are talking about the combination of
    the U.S. Forest Service firefighting crew along with the
    Interior and this new bureau and this combination, of combining
    the existing wildland fire programs, when this happens, what
    involvement will the U.S. Forest Service still have in this new
    bureau?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, so right now, we haven't
    figured that plan out yet. So right now, the executive order
    directs us within 90 days to come up with a plan. So in terms
    of what that's going to look like, we know that the
    firefighting capacity of the Forest Service is projected to
    move to the Department of the Interior to create this fire
    service. So the Forest Service would be a component of that.
    How that exactly is structured, we don't know yet because we
    haven't come up with that plan yet. But we would still have a
    role, it would just be within this unified fire service.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So I think that's what we would all
    be interested in. We want the specifics, obviously, because of
    our states and the impact these fires have.
        Mr. Schultz. Right.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So if you would be willing to share
    that with us when that comes to fruition, that would be very,
    very helpful.
        Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am. Right now, we have that 90-day
    plan that we are working on as we speak.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Thank you.
        How many Forest Service employees, I am curious, in Nevada
    in the Lake Tahoe basin were let go or left since the beginning
    of this administration? Do you know?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, I don't have those
    numbers, but we can get those to you.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.
        And then, we all have talked about this--we know the Forest
    Service has long struggled to recruit and retain wildland
    firefighters. But I am curious. I was upset to learn that the
    Trump administration scrapped the Women in Wildfire Bootcamps
    program because the administration deemed them unnecessary DEI
    initiatives. Now, these were programs that were offered to
    women to learn the basics of wildland firefighting over a two-
    week course. So please explain to me why, when we need wildland
    firefighters, we are scrapping programs that provide training
    to both men and women to be in this fight to help us address
    these fires that are happening across the West all the time
    now--longer, hotter, seasons, and we need firefighters. Why was
    that program scrapped?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, what we have done is, we
    have looked at all of our contracts, everything that we have
    got. We have looked at that. The Department has looked at
    those. And our assistants from the DOGE folks looked at those
    as well. So when we are looking at those types of issues we are
    looking at, you know, we have training for all firefighters,
    not just women. So instead of just focusing solely on women, we
    look at what opportunities for training do we have. And we have
    numerous opportunities to train firefighters, not just focusing
    on women. So I think that was the thought behind that is that
    there are still ample opportunities for all firefighters to be
    training without just singling out solely women in that case.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right, but this wasn't really
    singling out women. This is providing programs to train
    firefighters. Whether they are women or men, who cares? What if
    there is a program that just trains men? What's the big deal?
    As long as we are training wildland firefighters, whether it's
    a man or a woman, those programs should be supported. We need
    all hands on deck in the West during these fire seasons. So why
    pick and choose?
        Mr. Schultz. Well, I would agree that we need all hands on
    deck, and I think we are looking at training that provides
    opportunities for everybody to have all hands on deck. I think
    that's the response.
        Senator Cortez Masto. All right, well, I disagree. And I
    think it's just a poor use of the administration's discretion.
        Let me ask you this--the Ruby Mountains in northern Nevada
    is one of my state's most cherished places. It is loved by
    hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, recreationists, tribes, local
    community leaders. I can't explain it enough. And for many
    years, all of us, and it goes back to what you have heard in
    the West--all of the stakeholders, everybody in my state coming
    together. I don't care what party you are, it's everybody
    coming together to protect the Ruby Mountains from spurious oil
    and gas activity that took place there a few years ago in 2017.
    This Committee previously approved my bill, the Ruby Mountains
    Protection Act, to permanently prohibit oil and gas development
    there following a 2019 finding by the Forest Service that no
    leasing should occur there due to the very low potential to
    develop oil and gas resources in the area and the substantive
    public opposition.
        The Biden administration announced it was initiating a 20-
    year administrative withdrawal process to protect the Ruby
    Mountain area from oil and gas leasing. However, this
    administration, the Trump administration, reversed these
    protections for the Rubies, and the only formal notification I
    received of this reversal was by reading a USDA press release,
    and it stated, ``the Agency also canceled two mineral leasing
    withdrawals on Forest Service land that will help boost
    production of critical minerals,'' which I was told pertained
    to the Ruby Mountains in Nevada and another proposed withdrawal
    in New Mexico.
        So let me just be clear: Nevadans don't want drilling in
    the Ruby Mountains. So I am curious, what production of
    critical minerals does the Forest Service expect to develop in
    the Ruby Mountains?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, first of all, on future
    communications, I will communicate with you directly.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Mr. Schultz. On the issue of what we would expect, so,
    typically what happens with leasing of minerals, the Forest
    Service isn't trying to, basically, promote a certain activity
    or not, but it would be made available, if someone deemed that
    there was a resource there, that would be available for
    leasing. And I think that was the intent of this.
        Senator Cortez Masto. But that has already been done, and
    that's my point. It seems like everything that has been done in
    the past, including the speculative leasing that has been
    denied in the past, is being ignored because it was done under
    a previous administration. It makes no sense. We are wasting
    the resources of your men and women that work for you as well
    as in Interior because this administration thinks that they
    have to start from scratch when they should be actually looking
    at what has happened in the past and not waste everybody's
    time.
        So I am curious, along with the critical minerals, what
    does this administration have plans to do to open the Ruby
    Mountains for oil and gas drilling, because now you are telling
    me that you are willing to do that as well, even though we have
    already gone through this process. This is Groundhog Day. I
    mean, literally, we are repeating this over again. So what is
    going on?
        Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, I think there is nothing
    going on other than we want to make these lands available to be
    leased----
        Senator Cortez Masto. But they already were available and
    your administration said no, there is no oil and gas available
    here. It's low-potential, and the community doesn't want it.
    Why would you start this process over again? Why can't you
    learn from what has happened in the past? Was there some
    problem there? Is there something that we are not aware of that
    would help my constituents in Nevada understand why this
    administration wants to repeat the past?
        Mr. Schultz. I think the short answer, Senator, is just
    that we want to make it available so if there is an interest,
    that we can evaluate that. It doesn't mean it would
    automatically be leased. They have to demonstrate----
        Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate, Chief--and I am not
    going to belabor this. Listen, I appreciate this, and I am
    going over my time and I thank you for the indulgence.
        I look forward to working with you and talking to you about
    this.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.
        Chief Schultz, thank you for being here today. This has
    been enlightening and informative, just as your service thus
    far has been encouraging. On some of these issues that we have
    discussed, it's just a reminder of the fact that the states and
    tribes are incredible partners. They are indispensable parties,
    really, in that they are the ones on the ground, living in
    communities that depend on these forests that are right next to
    them, whose lives are inextricably intertwined with the lands
    in question.
        So I want to thank you, Chief, for giving the states more
    authority, more involvement, and more of an ability to set a
    course for the proper management of these lands, particularly
    in the ways that affect states and localities. I know that Utah
    is really looking forward to working with you to expand these
    partnerships, and I know my state is not alone in that.
        As we wrap up, I will remind members that they may submit
    questions for the record until 6:00 p.m. tonight, and they will
    have until 6:00 p.m. one week from today to submit any
    statements that they want to be included in the record.
        With that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]