S.Hrg.119-124

1[Senate Hearing 119-124]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                       S. Hrg. 119-12456                 THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE7                U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 20268=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                              COMMITTEE ON15                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES16                          UNITED STATES SENATE1718                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1920                             FIRST SESSION2122                               __________2324                             JULY 10, 20252526                               __________2728[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]2930                       Printed for the use of the31               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources3233        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov3435                                __________3637                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE3861-244                      WASHINGTON : 202639-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------40                 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES4142                        MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman4344JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico45JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon46STEVE DAINES, Montana                MARIA CANTWELL, Washington47TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii48DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania        ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine49JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada50BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado51CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        ALEX PADILLA, California52LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona53JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota5455                  Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director56            Patrick J. McCormick III, Majority Chief Counsel57                Jacey Albaugh, Professional Staff Member58                 Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director59                 Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel60                 Sean Mullin, Professional Staff Member6162                           C O N T E N T S6364                              ----------6566                           OPENING STATEMENT6768                                                                   Page69Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................     17071                                WITNESS7273Schultz, Tom, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of74  Agriculture....................................................     17576          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED7778Barrasso, Hon. John:79    Opening Statement............................................     180Cantwell, Hon. Maria:81    Poster depicting significant wildland fire potential in the82      Northwest from July-October 2025...........................    2183Schultz, Tom:84    Opening Statement............................................     185    Written Testimony............................................     486    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    338788 THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOR FISCAL89                               YEAR 20269091                              ----------9293                        THURSDAY, JULY 10, 20259495                                       U.S. Senate,96                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,97                                                    Washington, DC.98    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in99Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso100presiding.101102           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,103                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING104105    Senator Barrasso. I call this hearing to order of the106Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We welcome our107guest, Mr. Tom Schultz, who is in the position now as the head108of the Forest Service, and we are happy to have him here to109testify in front of the Committee. This is an oversight hearing110for President Trump's budget request for the U.S. Forest111Service for Fiscal Year 2026.112    The Chairman has been unavoidably delayed. He will be here113in about 15 minutes, but rather than asking you to delay your114time, we would invite you to give your opening statement and115then we will start with some of the questioning. And when the116Chairman arrives, he will make his opening comments.117    So welcome to the Committee.118119  STATEMENT OF TOM SCHULTZ, CHIEF OF THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE,120                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE121122    Mr. Schultz. Howdy. Thank you, Senator Barrasso and members123of the Committee. We don't have Ranking Member Heinrich here.124Thank you for inviting me to testify today.125    I want to begin by remembering the tragic loss of the two126firefighters in Idaho who were ambushed and killed by gunfire127on June 29, when they showed up to suppress a fire on Forest128Service lands. Our heartfelt condolences go out to Kootenai129County and the Coeur d'Alene firefighters, first responders,130and family members in the Greater Coeur d'Alene community.131    The Forest Service manages 154 national forests and 20132grasslands, covering 193 million acres in 43 states and Puerto133Rico. The Forest Service also works with communities, state,134local, and tribal governments, forest industries, and private135forest owners managing for multiple uses. The big picture is136that America's forests provide timber, clean air and water,137forage, and energy production. They support local economies138through employment, trade, recreation, tourism, jobs, and139livestock grazing. Recent analysis shows that in Fiscal Year1402023, Forest Service programs contributed approximately 390,000141jobs and $45 billion in gross domestic product.142    I am grateful to serve as the 21st Chief of the Forest143Service. I recognize that I am the first Chief who did not come144from or previously work within the agency, but I hope that you145will see that as I do--as a strength. I have over 27 years of146land management experience and fire experience and I am a147lifelong user of public lands. I have worked for the state148agencies in Montana and Idaho, and that has given me a149perspective on the role of states in managing public trust150lands and how that differs from the goals and objectives of151managing federal lands. My experience in the private sector152with Idaho Forest Group gave me a deep understanding of markets153and the role that raw material availability, quality, and price154play in being able to support a profitable forest products155industry.156    The Fiscal Year 2026 President's budget refocuses Forest157Service efforts on active forest management, critical minerals158permitting, recreation, energy development--basically multiple-159use management of a back-to-basics approach. In addition, the160budget request emphasizes efficient and effective fire161management by consolidating the federal suppression response162apparatus into the new U.S. Wildland Fire Service under the163Department of the Interior. The Forest Service was founded on164and understands the utility of our national forests. The165production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy, and other wood166products is vital for the country's well-being.167    The President's Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion168of American Timber Production, emphasizes the importance of169timber production and how forest management can support170American lives and communities. The Fiscal Year `26 budget171request supports this executive order by maintaining our172ability to support the forest products industry and shifting173the Forest Inventory Analysis program to the National Forest174System. This shift will better align the practical data needs175for both public and private forest management.176    Livestock grazing on federal lands is integral to ranchers177across the United States, especially in the West. Grazing is178permitted on nearly 40 percent of the 193 million acres of179National Forest System lands across 27 states. We administer180permits for approximately 5,500 permitees, with 1.3 million181acres authorized for cattle and another 800,000 for sheep.182Access to critical minerals is essential to contribute to a183stable supply of energy for current and future generations184while continuing to sustain long-term ecosystem health and185productivity. National forests are a bountiful resource for186minerals, and we work hard, along with the BLM, to manage187leasable minerals from the National Forest System.188    We carry a fiduciary responsibility to the American public.189We must steward tax dollars wisely, so we are examining how to190best optimize our workforce and our expenditures to ensure that191we are focused on field-based operations that are essential to192meeting high-priority objectives. To this point, the 2026193budget request reduces or eliminates some aspects of federal194funding from the Forest Service budget to ensure stewardship of195the taxpayer dollars and to better balance the appropriate196roles of the federal and the state governments. It is not our197intention to degrade the services of states and local198governments, but we must change the reliance on the Federal199Government to fund the delivery of these services.200    In alignment with restoring a federalist approach, we201encourage increasing state authority to fund management of202state and privately owned forests, community preparedness, and203public risk mitigation activities. Communities across the204country depend on national forests and grasslands. I work205tirelessly to support those communities by partnering to206actively manage the National Forest System for multiple uses.207We maintain our commitment to strengthening relationships with208industries, ranching families, the mining industry,209communities, and conservation groups to deliver on the210multiple-use mission, as it has been for more than 100 years.211    Thank you for inviting me to be here today, and I look212forward to your ongoing support. I will be glad to answer any213of your questions.214    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]215   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]216217    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much for your thoughtful218testimony, and I welcome you here this morning. We really219haven't had an opportunity to meet. I have read your bio. I220look forward to working with you in the next few years.221Congratulations on this important appointment, incredibly222important for Wyoming. And I appreciate your willingness to223join us in Wyoming at the Wyoming Stock Growers later this224month in Cody, Wyoming, and I am glad that you will be meeting225with our livestock producers and learning how you can help226strengthen the management of our national forests with227effective livestock grazing.228    I also want to congratulate you and thank you for working229with Secretary of Agriculture Rollins, your work on rescinding230the roadless rule a few weeks ago. That rule, to me, was231outdated. It was outdated policy that has hindered forest232management in Wyoming for years. This is going to restore vital233forest health. It's going to help reduce wildfire risk across234the country and help to boost responsible timber production. So235thank you for your leadership there.236    With regard to timber production, you know, over two years237ago, Neiman Enterprises announced layoffs and shift reductions238at their Spearfish, South Dakota Forest Products facility. At239their facility in Hulett, Wyoming, they reduced down to one240shift. This has significantly reduced their capacity as a241result of the Biden administration's limiting of timber242production, and this has impacted sawmills all around. What is243the agency doing to retain the remaining forest products244infrastructure in the Black Hills National Forest?245    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for that question.246    We have been working very closely with the Neimans in the247industry up there to understand the issues and move forward.248There are three specific things that we have done. We have249identified staff that we have transferred to the Black Hills,250actually from Washington State, to help assist in preparing251sales. We have increased funding for them in the short term to252help address some of the shortfalls in funding. They have had253to do more work. The other piece is that we are collaborating254with not only the industry, but some NGOs there--the Wild255Turkey Federation, the Mule Deer Foundation, and also with the256State of Wyoming--under the GNA program to increase257predictability of the program for the Black Hills. So those are258the three things we are doing: staffing, funding, and259collaborating with those entities to ensure that we have the260right plan in place.261    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.262    And then, you are helping with the local communities as263well?264    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.265    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.266    You said we must steward tax dollars wisely. I appreciate267that. You know, we have had a number of fairly significant268fires in Wyoming. Last year, the House Draw fire, Johnson269County, 175,000 acres. The Elk fire, 68,000--I'm sorry, 98,000270acres. Rural communities in the West are bracing again for this271year. And of course, resources are spread thin. Federal and272state agencies, I believe, must work together. So can you talk273about how the Forest Service is engaging state, local, and274private partners to ensure we can effectively respond to275wildfires?276    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.277    Senator, so first of all, the National Association of State278Foresters represents those state interests in many cases. We279have ongoing dialogue throughout the year with them, and going280into the fire season, we increase that dialogue. We have had281pre-season meetings with all of our cooperators at the local282government level, the volunteers, and the states. So those283meetings have been accomplished. The big thing though, this284year, operating agreements are already all in place for all the285states, so that when issues come up in terms of who is going to286pay the cost of fighting the fire, those questions are not287going to be in front of us. That has all been agreed to288already. So in terms of that, that will not impact any tactics289or strategies in fighting fire with some concern over who is290going to pay for those fires. So those are things that we have291done pre-season to ensure that we are prepared and working with292our partners.293    Senator Barrasso. In this Committee over the years, we talk294about how many millions of acres of our national forests are at295high or very high risk of wildfire--I think it's about 63296million acres right now. In Fiscal Year 2024, the U.S. Forest297Service treated only about four million acres of our national298forest. I think it's imperative that the U.S. Forest Service is299planning on how they are going to treat all of these high-risk300areas within our National Forest System.301    You inherited the prior administration's budget deficit as302well. Can you talk about how you plan to lead the agency to303catch up from the last four years in forest management?304    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, thanks for that question.305    So I think the big thing is relying on partners. If you306recall, there was a disaster bill passed at the end of the year307last year. There was about $75 million that Sierra Pacific is308putting to use on federal lands to create fuel breaks. So we309are going to be looking at other partnerships, whether that's310with NGOs, whether it's directly with industry, but helping us311to manage the National Forest System to increase the pace and312scale of what we are doing. So that's a big part of our313strategy. It's also going to be relying on states to do that.314    Senator Barrasso. And my final question, Mr. Chairman,315thanks so much for your indulgence. Just last week, the U.S.316Department of Agriculture announced it will be revising the317NEPA regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act. So I318commend you and Secretary Rollins for your efforts to reduce319unnecessary red tape and to streamline the projects. As you are320well aware, the Forest Service is required to update and321develop land management plans to guide management of our322national forests. And I understand the U.S. Forest Service will323be conducting public and stakeholder meetings so Wyoming's324voice will be heard.325    Currently in Wyoming, the Bridger-Teton National Forest and326the Black Hills National Forest are undergoing their forest327plan revision process. Can you please give us an update on your328timelines for these forest plans?329    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir, thanks for the question.330    The Black Hills plan was started in 2001. The phase one331assessment is complete and we expect to have the full plan332completed in 2027. So there is ongoing public involvement333there.334    On the Bridger-Teton plan that was started in 2024, the335draft assessment is out currently, today, for public review.336That public review will end in August 2025. And we expect that337it should take two to three years to complete that process.338    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.339    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you so much, Senator340Barrasso.341    Senator Wyden.342    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.343    Mr. Schultz, the lack of emergency preparedness, whether344it's in Texas Hill Country or public lands in Oregon, can cost345lives. Just recently fire officials in southern Oregon told me346they were coming up dangerously short in emergency347preparedness. Specifically, I was told in southern Oregon, one348meteorologist was trying to provide early warning systems and349doing the work for four people. Now, what this, of course, is350all about is getting key timely information out to communities351so they can battle these infernos. We have talked in the past352about how these infernos are not your grandfathers' fires. They353are bigger and they are hotter. And we need to address this354critical preparedness gap.355    Now, instead of moving quickly, you all have trotted out356yet another new, and described as improved, reorganization in357the middle of a very dangerous fire season. Now, nobody in my358home state--and I was Chair of this Committee and worked359closely with the agency--has in effect said, Ron, we have got360to have the Forest Service less involved in fighting fires. But361that is the net effect of your organizational plan.362    So here is my question: what is this new plan going to363accomplish for preparedness in my home state this fire season?364That's what I was asked about, what can be done this fire365season. And how is this new organizational plan going to get366real help to people quickly?367    Mr. Schultz. Senator Wyden, thank you for the question.368    This fire season, we do not intend to implement any changes369in the structure of the fire program. Nothing is going to take370place this fire season.371    Senator Wyden. So why aren't we using the resources that372seem to be going to this new plan to get help to the people who373are telling me they are coming up short? Why wouldn't we get374that help out to them quickly?375    Mr. Schultz. So, just, in terms of resources this year,376here is where we are at today. So our max staffing that we377typically hire for firefighters, GS-9 and below, is 11,300378firefighters. Today, we are at roughly 11,250 firefighters. So379we are at about 99 percent of our hiring resources. So in terms380of firefighting capacity, we are there. So we have not made any381changes to our resource availability this year, whether it's382aviation resources or----383    Senator Wyden. Why don't you get me, in writing, something384that backs up your argument that there has been no reduction in385resources, because that's not what I was just told in southern386Oregon, where they are worried about getting urgently needed387information.388    Now, along these lines, we have been told that the agency--389and we are most of the way through the fiscal year--hasn't even390treated half as many acres to reduce wildfire risk as were391treated in the last year of the Biden administration. Why is392that?393    Mr. Schultz. So sir, we actually have treated similar acres394that we did in previous years. And so, this administration came395in in February. So in terms of basically treating acres, there396has not been a major reduction in acres treated for the last397year, for this year, so.398    Senator Wyden. We will get to you those numbers because399that is factually inaccurate.400    Mr. Schultz. Okay.401    Senator Wyden. And let me tell you what concerns me about402this net effect, because I have described to you the problems403that we are seeing on the ground in southern Oregon where we404are not getting the help, in terms of stepping up to deal with405emergencies. I mentioned the data that shows we are not doing406as much timber production in line with natural resources laws407as in the Biden administration. And it seems to me, what you408all are doing is making a case that somehow this mismanagement409is a case for selling off our public lands. And I want you to410know that I am going to fight that argument every step of the411way because we heard loud and clear that when the412administration advanced their arguments just recently for413selling off public lands, the American people said no way--not414a close call--no way. And I am not going to allow the415mismanagement and the lack of really using resources416effectively, as I have just described in my state, become an417argument that somehow this mismanagement is a case for selling418off our public lands.419    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.420    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.421    Chief Schultz, I was thrilled by the announcement made by422Secretary Rollins about the rescission of the 2001 roadless423rule. The roadless rule prohibits, as the name implies, road424construction, and it also prohibits, effectively, timber425harvesting on nearly 59 million acres of National Forest System426lands, including 60 percent of the Forest Service land in Utah.427By the way, that 59 million acres represents nearly 10 percent428of the total federal land footprint. This is a significant429amount of land.430    Now, while the intent of the original roadless rule may431well have been to preserve the environment, in practical432effect, in many ways, it has done the opposite of that. The433practical effect of it has been environmental disaster. It has434been devastating to forest health and to wildfire mitigation435efforts. It has also added to the demise of our domestic timber436industry. Last year, I asked your predecessor, the person who437held this job in the previous administration, if the roadless438rule had helped or hindered wildfire mitigation efforts. He439said, ``I don't think it was designed to help wildfire440mitigation.'' Certainly a true statement, and vastly441understated, in my opinion.442    Would you say that the roadless rule has helped or hindered443wildfire mitigation efforts over the last two decades?444    Mr. Schultz. Senator Lee, I would say the roadless rule,445and what we see in terms of the datasets, there are about 24.5446million acres of roadless areas that are within the wildland447urban interface or within one mile of the wildland urban448interface. So by not being able to have areas that we can go449into and manage or be able to put the fires out, that is a450problem. So it doesn't help, for sure, and it definitely451hinders. And what you will find out too is that many roadless452areas are, in fact, roaded, so sometimes it's a misnomer. I was453in Montana last week on the Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest.454There is a lot of roaded roadless. It's the same thing on the455Lolo Forest. So to suggest that roadless areas are truly always456roadless, that is not the case. In many cases----457    The Chairman. Right.458    Mr. Schultz. They were roaded.459    The Chairman. No, I get that, but that's not the point. The460point is just whether it has helped or hindered.461    Mr. Schultz. It has not helped.462    The Chairman. Good.463    Now, so what does the rescission of the roadless rule mean464then for land management, for timber harvesting, and for465wildfire mitigation on Forest Service land going forward? What466does that look like?467    Mr. Schultz. Chairman, so the rescission, what that will468look like is, we will begin this fall, we will have a469rulemaking process and we will go through that process to470repeal the rule officially. There are two states where we will471not be repealing the rule. That's Idaho and Colorado. They have472their own unique roadless rules. So those rules will not be473impacted. But we will repeal the rule through our rulemaking474process. We will have public input in that process. And then,475ultimately, we would have to amend forest plans to adopt that476strategy in those forest plans. But that's what will be started477this fall.478    The Chairman. Thank you.479    Well, I would like to discuss briefly the revisions to the480Manti-La Sal National Forest Management Plan. The 2023 draft of481that plan included 122,780 acres of recommended wilderness482areas. Now, to be perfectly clear, these areas do not meet the483Forest Service's own standards for wilderness or for484recommended wilderness. The recommendations also appear to485conflict with the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984, which designated486wilderness areas in exchange for the assurance of no future487Utah wilderness designations. That agreement was seemingly488ignored by the Biden administration. Will you commit to working489with the state and with local cooperating agencies to490reevaluate and remove these recommended wilderness areas before491the final land management plan is complete?492    Mr. Schultz. So sir, yes. We have received those comments493from the state. They are being reviewed right now, and we will494definitely work with the state in that review of that process495in reconsidering those recommendations in the draft.496    The Chairman. Thank you. And I hope you will reach out to497me as you do that. In any way I can be helpful, I would love to498be kept apprised of that.499    Now, timber harvesting is a critical component of500responsible forest management. It helps maintain healthy forest501density, removes hazardous fuels by preventing fuel buildup for502the fires, and supports rural economies across the country.503Since 2000, just the last 25 years alone, the average annual504harvest from Forest System lands has been just 2.3 billion505board-feet, far below both historic averages and allowable506quantities. Now, just last week, we took a huge step in the507right direction by enacting new timber harvesting provisions in508the Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress and signed into law509by President Trump, to help restore our forests and revitalize510the domestic timber industry.511    What do you see as the biggest remaining barriers to512increasing timber production on federal lands, you know, now513that this bill has been passed, and how do we cut through red514tape and provide a degree of certainty for our timber and our515sawmill industries?516    Mr. Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I think you hit a lot of the517good points. The biggest thing that the sawmills are looking518for is certainty and predictability, right? So the biggest519thing is, the Forest Service needs to do what they say they are520going to do. So when you talk about, you know, our sustainable521supply in what we are doing, if we deliver what we are saying522we are going to do, that's what the industry is looking for.523    In terms of barriers that are out there, we know524litigations are barriers, but in terms of funding things, we525are looking at other ways. You mentioned the long-term526contracts that are identified in the reconciliation bill.527That's something we will be looking at. We actually just signed528an agreement with the State of Montana just last week to do a52920-year agreement where the state would come in and assist in530managing federal lands. And that's something where we actually531have some initial discussions with Utah to look at that and532other states in the West as well. So we see that being an533opportunity where the states can kind of step in and help us in534managing those resources on a go-forward basis.535    So that's it. I mean, we are looking at other mechanisms536for contracting. We are looking at working with partners on a537go-forward basis. Litigation is something, and I know there are538provisions and other statutes and laws you are looking at right539now to help with some of that, we have talked about the540Cottonwood decision many times, but that is one that is out541there that still creates some hurdles for us on the litigation542piece.543    The Chairman. Thank you very much.544    Senator Padilla.545    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.546    Mr. Schultz, welcome.547    As you know, the Forest Service plays a critical role in548wildfire response, not just programs to prevent or mitigate the549impact of fires, but to respond to them when they happen.550However, under the current administration, we have seen a551dangerous reduction in the capabilities and capacity of the552Forest Service to respond to wildfires. Through both the553deferred resignation program and the voluntary early retirement554authority, the Forest Service has lost more than 5,000555employees, about 1,400 of whom had red cards, and you know the556significance of red cards. So I am concerned that this557represents a significant reduction in capability and capacity558and poses a serious danger to communities, not just in559California, but elsewhere in the West and across the country.560These staff reductions coupled with the President diverting561National Guard units in California to mean that those resources562are no longer available to support a wildfire response563capacity. It's not just irresponsible, it's dangerous.564    That's me talking. I want to hear from you, Chief. I know565that since the reductions, the agency has invited those who566resigned to re-status themselves for fire season. Can you share567with the Committee how many have actually taken the agency up568on the offer to re-status?569    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thank you for the question.570    So just to kind of restate again, in terms of resources, we571are basically at 99 percent of capacity of our firefighting572resources in terms of our GS-9 and below firefighters. So we573have had no degradation----574    Senator Padilla. Is that funding or staffing levels?575    Mr. Schultz. It's staffing levels, yes, sir. And there has576been no impact on the funding, either, on that.577    Senator Padilla. So how have you offset the more than 1,500578staff----579    Mr. Schultz. Okay, so, we are talking about two different580things. So we had people that took DRP. Firefighters were not581eligible for DRP. We had non-firefighting personnel that had582red cards, like you said, there were about 1,400 that----583    Senator Padilla. So you are saying there is no reduction in584the red cards?585    Mr. Schultz. No, what I am saying is that the firefighters586that are classified as firefighters were not eligible for DRP,587so none of them took DRP. We had other staff that were non-fire588personnel that do have red cards and we had, like you589mentioned, I think we had 4,000 who took DRP, and another590thousand that retired outside of DRP. And there were about5911,400 that did have red cards. So those are the folks that you592are referring to. We don't have numbers yet. They have just593been kind of coming back on in the last couple weeks. And as we594get those numbers, we can get them to you, but we have reached595out, as you indicated, to those 1,400 and allowed for them to596come back--and not just allowed--but encouraged them to come597back, and we have a process for them to come back and support598us this year through the end of September.599    Senator Padilla. Well, I am going to eagerly await those600numbers and regular reports and updates because red cards are601significant, even those that are not firefighters serving602critical roles to support the firefighting activity. And so, I603am going to be looking for that data and those further604assurances and commitment on your part because we are just now605entering peak fire season in California and throughout the606West.607    I want to get back to the topic of partnerships. You608mentioned it earlier in the hearing, and I know Senator609Barrasso emphasized this earlier in the hearing. The Forest610Service's state and private forestry programs, including state611fire assistance, the volunteer fire assistance, and the broader612state, private, and tribal forestry initiatives provide crucial613financial and technical support to state and local fire614departments for wildfire prevention, as well as detection and615suppression. These programs are essential for building and616maximizing the capacity in fire-adapted communities and617ensuring the safety of first responders during wildfires.618    What is the status of FY25 funding for these programs? Are619you aware? And I guess alongside with that, what is your620confidence in getting the funding out by the August 15621deadline?622    Mr. Schultz. Sure, thank you, sir. So Senator, for the623Fiscal Year 2025, we are still working with OMB on that624request. So we are looking to finalize that here, probably625within the next couple weeks.626    Senator Padilla. That worries me. I don't mean to cut you627off.628    Mr. Schultz. Yes.629    Senator Padilla. The deadline to get this out is August63015th. We are a month out and you are still finalizing the631numbers?632    Mr. Schultz. So Q4 numbers for 2025 are still being633finalized for some of those programs, yes, sir.634    Senator Padilla. That should be a big red flag for all of635us.636    And let me make one other important point as my time is637running out. From past fires in California, including Santa638Rosa years ago and Los Angeles more recently, these are the639types of programs that we should be supporting. I asked you640about the FY25 numbers. Do you know what the FY26 numbers are?641My understanding is that the President's proposed budget zeros642out this program. How does that make any sense?643    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think the intent of that program in6442026 is to transfer that responsibility to the states. That's645the intent of that. And giving the states some heads up that646that's coming----647    Senator Padilla. Every state that I am aware of is having a648tougher budget picture to face. The threat of fires is real.649The threat of fires is growing. How does it make sense for the650Federal Government to zero out these programs that you said are651so critical?652    Mr. Schultz. Sir, we would still be partnering with the653states in dialogue and discussions, but the transfer----654    Senator Padilla. But you are zeroing out their resources.655How does that make any sense?656    Mr. Schultz. Well, it's sharing that responsibility and657pushing that to the states----658    Senator Padilla. Pushing that to the states that have less659resources to work with. How does that make any sense?660    Mr. Schultz. In a sense, it makes sense because it's661putting that responsibility on the states to make those662decisions locally.663    Senator Padilla. Look, it may be residents of California or664Utah or other states in between, these are all Americans.665Communities in the United States of America that are at666increased risk because of the actions of this administration,667which contradict the supposed goals and objectives.668    Thank you, Mr. Chair.669    The Chairman. Thank you.670    Senator Daines.671    Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you.672    If I might just comment on the states' role, and thank you,673Chief Schultz, for being here. If you take a look at the674landscapes across Montana and look at federal lands versus675state lands, I can tell you, the state is doing a much, much676better job in terms of stewardship of public lands than the677Federal Government. I appreciate the efforts you are doing to678work with the states as you are doing.679    I know the Idaho delegation, Chief Schultz, likes to claim680you, but I want to remind the Committee here that before you681were in Idaho, you were a Montanan, and it's good to see you682here. You understand the West, and I appreciate that. I want to683acknowledge the work the Forest Service firefighters are doing684currently across the country. This fire season is expected to685be another challenging year for you and your team. Congress686must do more to ensure the Forest Service has the tools needed687to not only fight the fires, but to prevent them in the first688place. And we can do this by increasing better forest689management activities and decreasing litigation that is holding690up projects.691    Chief Schultz, on the Fourth of July, President Trump692signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill, and with it is an693extremely important provision for forest health. As you know,694the new law requires the Forest Service to nearly double annual695timber sales by 2034. That would put Montana at approximately696250 million board-feet and about 5 billion board-feet697nationally. These numbers are more in line with our forest698plans and will lead to stronger rural communities, better699forest health, and reduced wildfire risk.700    Chief Schultz, will you prioritize implementation of this701provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill?702    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks--thanks for the question. Yes,703we will be doing that. We know that those provisions are there.704I think the increase is 250 million board-feet nationally, year705over year, for the next 10 years, and we will be doing that.706    Senator Daines. Thank you.707    You brought up the Cottonwood decision in one of your708responses. I have the bill that will fix that disastrous Ninth709Circuit Cottonwood decision. It is crucial in preventing some710of the litigation that is stopping wildfire mitigation work,711and fixing it will be necessary for you to fully implement the712new provisions that are found in the Big Beautiful Bill. In713Montana alone, there are 367 million board-feet of timber714projects tied up in litigation. This means less work done on715the ground before fire season starts in Montana and increased716risk of catastrophic wildfires for our communities. And by the717way, many think about Montana as being, you know, the beautiful718rivers, our fishing, which we are all a part of, but we are a719semi-arid state. Think about this: this city here, Washington,720DC gets 39 inches of rain--more than Seattle gets, by the way,721by a little bit. My hometown of Bozeman--16 inches of rain. So722it's a precious commodity, water is. It's also why we have got723to be smarter and better in managing our forests, because of724the semi-arid climate, of which I get to call home, which I am725very thankful for.726    There are increased costs, as the Forest Service must spend727additional staff time responding to litigation and time trying728to make these projects bulletproof, rather than advancing other729work. In fact, during a recent hearing, Associate Chief Chris730French said, ``The Forest Service unit costs are double in731regions with frequent anti-forestry litigation.'' Chief732Schultz, will you commit to working with me and this Committee733to get a legislative fix done so that the Forest Service can734focus on getting fire mitigations completed rather than735fighting endless litigation?736    Mr. Schultz. Senator Daines, yes, we will do that.737    Senator Daines. And incidentally on that Ninth Circuit738Cottonwood fix, this started off as a small band here of739advocates wanting to address that issue. It has moved now to740being very bipartisan. In fact, it came through unanimous741consent in the Committee last time we had it before in the742markup. So I am hoping we can get this done. Both sides of the743aisle recognize the importance of fixing the Ninth Circuit744decision and making the Ninth congruent with the rest of the745nation.746    Third, I want to talk about emergency action terminations.747In April, Secretary Rollins expanded the authorization for the748Forest Service to use the emergency action authority that I749authored. This authority reduces red tape and allows the Forest750Service to expedite needed active forest management to prevent751these catastrophic wildfires. No one can deny that our forests752are in a crisis with beetle kill, drought, and overgrowth that753are destroying the health of our forests.754    Chief Schultz, can you speak to the ground work the Forest755Service was able to do with this expanded emergency authority?756    Mr. Schultz. Senator Daines, yes, thanks for the question.757    So yes, that authority expanded that. Previously, it was758about 20 to 30 million acres that had been identified. Now, we759are looking at 112 million acres across the country that are at760risk of catastrophic fire or insect and disease. So those761authorities help us to get work done quicker on the ground. And762we are using that today in Region 1, in Region 6, and in Region7635. So those authorities are already moving forward, as you764alluded to.765    Senator Daines. Great. Thank you, Chief.766    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.767    The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.768    Senator Heinrich. Chief, you have talked recently about how769your budget is constrained because you need to pay out accrued770vacation time for the 5,000 Forest Service employees who opted771into the deferred resignation program. Basically, 5,000 people772that we are paying not to do work in our forests. Which773programs are being affected this year because of the need to774pay off that leave?775    Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, we are using primarily IRA776and IIJA funds to pay those out. Those are the funds that are777being used for that.778    Senator Heinrich. So it had no impact on the decision to779zero out the state and volunteer fire assistance program?780    Mr. Schultz. Sir, no, those funds were not used directly.781They were not directly earmarked for SFA and VFA funding. Those782were not those funds.783    Senator Heinrich. You told the Senate Appropriations784Committee a few weeks ago that the Forest Service would be785quickly releasing the FY25 funds for these programs for state786and volunteer fire assistance. But now, we are hearing that787states have been told to prepare to receive zero funding this788year. Is that correct?789    Mr. Schultz. Sir, you are correct in what my testimony was,790and what we are telling states right now is we don't have an791answer just yet, but we are not telling them that they are not792going to get it. We are saying we are still in discussion on793that. So we are not saying they are not going to get it, but we794are still in discussion.795    Senator Heinrich. Well, what I would say is that states796need that funding. That is an example of a successful797partnership. If we don't have that funding, that's not shared798responsibility, that's abdicating our federal responsibility.799And not every state has even an agency in place to sort of800replace that capacity at the state level at a time when their801budgets are also being decimated by Medicaid cuts thanks to the802big whatever bill. So I would think very seriously about our803responsibility to continue to maintain positive relationships804with those states and meet our federal responsibility.805    Do you have any thoughts?806    Mr. Schultz. I can tell you, your sentiments have been807reflected by the state foresters, and we are in close808communication with them and we are aware of their concerns and809we are taking those into consideration as we work through this810issue. Yes, sir.811    Senator Heinrich. Last year, the Forest Service predicted812it would accomplish about four million acres of hazardous fuels813reduction in 2025. You are three quarters the way through the814fiscal year. What is your number right now?815    Mr. Schultz. Sir, I don't have that number with me, but I816will get it to you.817    Senator Heinrich. I think I have the number.818    Mr. Schultz. Okay.819    Senator Heinrich. And you can tell me if I am wrong. It is820about 1.7 million acres. So not even 50 percent of the way821towards our goal, despite the fact that we are almost through822the fiscal year. So, you know, one of the things we agree on in823this Committee is we would like to see more fuels reduction as824a way to deal with our fire risk. And yet, we are abysmally825behind our goals. We have 5,000 fewer people working for the826Forest Service now. And there are many of us on this Committee827that are worried that the current budget is a recipe for more828trees burned and fewer trees cut.829    What would you say to my constituents who are worried that830this budget blueprint is going to result in fewer hazardous831fuels being treated?832    Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, what I would say is that833overall, we are still going to maintain our fuels program, as834we have done. And this budget, what it does is, it transfers835the fuels program to the Department of the Interior, so that836work would be done in the future by the Department of the837Interior. That is part of what happens in this budget, that838fuels program goes there. So we would be working with the839Department of the Interior to accomplish those objectives on840Forest Service grounds. So the intent--we still have the same841amount of funding. The funding doesn't shift for fuels, it just842shifts from Forest Service to Department of Interior. So the843intent would still be to accomplish those goals.844    Senator Heinrich. So if the firefighting efforts are845shifted to Interior, would the hazardous fuels treatments go846with them?847    Mr. Schultz. Senator Heinrich, yes, sir. So the funding for848that program, the $170 million does transfer to Interior. So849the large bulk of that would transfer with that program, yes,850sir.851    Senator Heinrich. When are we going to get a detailed852blueprint of what this new firefighting approach is going to853look like?854    Mr. Schultz. Senator, we have been requested, through855executive order, within the next 90 days, to develop a plan856that would identify the structure of this. So that's something857that we just started discussions on internally and with the858Department of the Interior, so we will meet the timelines that859are established in the executive order. So as we work through860that, in 90 days, we will have a plan of what this would look861like.862    Senator Heinrich. Irrespective of how long it takes to put863that plan together, I think there are many of us who are more864concerned about the adequacy of that plan and would like to see865that plan before we start making budgetary decisions about866whether it's a good idea or not. I am very open to different867ways of organizing how we fight fires on our national forests868and our public lands but I want to see the plan because869people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. We have to get870that right. And irrespective of whether the White House wants871it in two weeks or 90 days, I know that members of this872Committee are going to want to see the details and know that873this has actually been thought through, unlike some of the874early decisions about letting people go who are critical to the875management of our public lands.876    The Chairman. Senator Risch.877    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.878    Tom, good to see you. Tom and I share a lot. My879undergraduate was in forestry. Are you first? I am very sorry.880The Chairman called on me.881    The Chairman. I'm so sorry. I have even got it on my card.882    Senator Cassidy.883    Senator Cassidy. When I speak to my sheriffs back home,884next to Kisatchie National Forest, they are providing law885enforcement within the forest, and there will be people that886will go for recreation, and somebody gets drunk and causes a887problem, and it's they who are providing the services. They are888not really getting compensated for that. So Grant Parish, for889example, the majority of which is owned by the Federal890Government, through the Kisatchie, is providing that sort of891service. I am told that the agents that are there are merely892there to make sure that somebody is not harvesting a tree which893they shouldn't harvest or take something out of the ground and894take it away. But if there's a fistfight, they don't go and895break it up. But my sheriffs are not being compensated.896    And I am sure this is true elsewhere. I am sure it's true897elsewhere. Is there anything in the budget that will help898defray the expense of law enforcement being effectively899outsourced to the local community?900    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cassidy, thank you for the question.901So we have approximately 300 law enforcement officers around902the country.903    Senator Cassidy. Well, I am told that they don't break up904fights. I am told that they keep people from illegally905harvesting, like digging up a plant and taking it away.906    Mr. Schultz. So I don't think that is wholly accurate. So907we do, our law enforcement officers and investigators, they do908deal with trespass, you know, trespass timber issues. They deal909with fire starts, in terms of investigations, but they also910address law enforcement issues in the forest.911    Senator Cassidy. But if you have 300, with as much land as912you have, that's not very many. They are stretched more than913thin.914    Mr. Schultz. Sir, you are right. They are stretched thin,915but they do cooperate, as you mentioned, with local law916enforcement, and we have different agreements. So every law917enforcement--it could be the county level, it could be the918local level. We do have reciprocity agreements where there is919assistance provided and requested in some cases. And there are920some instances where there are charges that we don't typically921assess. You are talking about some of those criminal charges.922Those would be assessed typically by local law enforcement.923    Senator Cassidy. But they are also having to incur the924expense, and these are rural parishes or counties, and they are925incurring the expense of actually providing these services. So926what is being done to compensate? Right now, nothing is being927done to compensate. That's why, you know, I am----928    Mr. Schultz. Right.929    Senator Cassidy. So how do we address that?930    Mr. Schultz. So I think it's something we need to follow up931with you on. We will take that offline and we will talk with932our law enforcement folks and talk about what a strategy might933look like to do that.934    Senator Cassidy. I would appreciate that because these are935rural parishes.936    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.937    Senator Cassidy. Poorly resourced, particularly if 80938percent of the parish or county is absorbed by the forest,939their tax base and PILT do not really work for them. Their tax940base is not adequate to support, so, major issue. So if we can941follow up on that, that would be great.942    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.943    Senator Cassidy. There are also logging activities that944take place. In Kisatchie they do logging there. Some of my945small contractors feel like they get elbowed out by the big946guys. And so, these are family-owned businesses, important for947that rural parish's economic vitality. The big guys are based948someplace else. They come in and they leave. Is there any kind949of understanding of the need to maintain a local economy in a950county or parish in which the Federal Government owns most of951the land? And if so, does it include, and how does it include,952making sure that you can contract with some of the smaller953businesses?954    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks for the question. We do have a955couple of programs. One, we have Small Business Administration956programs. So if you have less than 500 employees, there are957specific provisions in our timber sales that we have to afford958so many timber sales to small business. And those are bid out.959    Senator Cassidy. Now, that's a sale. Does that include the960logging itself?961    Mr. Schultz. The logging--you can actually be a logging962contractor and directly buy a timber sale.963    Senator Cassidy. Got it.964    Mr. Schultz. You do not have to be mill to buy timber965sales, so they would qualify as a small business. The other966opportunity we have is, we have provisions that allow some967direct sales to small companies or to just logging contractors968at less than $10,000. There are provisions in some of the969legislation being considered in FOFA that would change that and970adjust that for inflation. So there is the ability to increase971direct sales to small operators on small volumes and small972values so that they could buy those directly.973    And so, there are a couple programs that we do have that974would give some of those smaller operators a greater advantage975in terms of buying some of that wood.976    Senator Cassidy. So if some of my folks ended up not being977aware of this, then I may connect back with you to make sure978that they are.979    Mr. Schultz. Yes, sir.980    Senator Cassidy. I am almost out of time and I will yield.981Thank you.982    The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.983    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.984    First, I want to thank you, Chief Schultz, for being here.985And I want to take a moment with my colleague from Idaho to986acknowledge the sacrifice and bravery of the firefighters in987the Coeur d'Alene Idaho area, and my condolences go out to988their families and to this community. And so, we want to989remember these individuals, and again, thank the firefighters990all across the nation.991    Chief Schultz, the season is upon us. I think my staff992probably has our most recent charts that show how bad our993prediction is for this summer.994    [The charts referred to follow:]995    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]996997    Senator Cantwell. You know, each month it gets more998dramatic. And so, the challenge that we face is, we want to999prepare, and I think as the nation sees practically 24/71000coverage of what natural disasters can do to a community, one1001of the best things that you can do is cache resources early--1002and that meaning c-a-c-h-e--cache them early so that they are1003close to the proximity of where they need to be. And that is1004always the best thing to do, and I do think, you know, people1005were probably asking questions why, if you thought you were1006going to have flood season in Texas, why didn't you have more1007resources there at an earlier time, but now we know this is the1008outlook for us.1009    My colleague and I--I think our whole states will be1010covered in red. I don't know about you, but as I fly home every1011week, I see less and less snow on the Cascades, and I keep1012thinking, wow, this is really a challenge because you are just1013going to have drier and drier conditions. Okay, so, where is1014the resource for the state? I think it's, you know, a budget1015that has already been approved. So why aren't we releasing the1016funds that go to the community so that they can best prepare1017for this fire season?1018    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cantwell, thanks for the question. I1019think you are talking about the SFA and the VFA funding. We1020were talking about that previously. So we are evaluating that1021right now. We have had a lot of feedback from the state1022foresters. We are working with OMB on that question right now,1023looking at that issue. We have not made a determination yet,1024but that's something that is being evaluated.1025    Senator Cantwell. So when do you expect that to go out?1026    Mr. Schultz. We expect there probably to be a determination1027in the next several weeks will be my expectation.1028    Senator Cantwell. Okay.1029    Mr. Schultz. But we don't, and again, we can't commit that1030that's for sure going to go out yet. That is still under1031discussion.1032    Senator Cantwell. Well, we want to follow the normal1033process.1034    Mr. Schultz. Right.1035    Senator Cantwell. So that the Forest Service is working,1036you know, with others to get the resources into those1037communities and do the work that they need to do.1038    Same question about LWCF. Why is that money being held up1039by OMB or others?1040    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cantwell, what we are looking at is1041just looking at the administration's priorities and looking at1042the 2025 budget to make sure the work that we are doing is in1043alignment with the priorities of the administration. So that's1044something that's just being evaluated right now and we are1045still looking at that.1046    Senator Cantwell. But if LWCF are projects submitted and1047approved by Congress--this Committee played a key role in1048saying we want to fund these and let's move forward--why is OMB1049now requiring a review of LWCF projects?1050    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think it's just like I mentioned.1051We are looking at all those programs in the 2025 budget, just1052looking at alignment with the priorities of the administration.1053    Senator Cantwell. What does that mean? That you are1054creating a different process than exists, that has been the1055practice for 50 or 60 years?1056    Mr. Schultz. I don't think it's that we are creating a new1057process. I think what we are saying is, that just given the1058authorities in this--I think the language is that we are saying1059the President is acting within his authority for the full-year1060continuing appropriations to revise spending within the amounts1061provided by Congress. I mean, I think that's what is being1062done. We are looking at that right now.1063    Senator Cantwell. Okay.1064    And then, on the roadless rule, you know, I love my1065colleague from Idaho. He probably doesn't want me to say that.1066Okay, I will pretend I don't like you. How about that? I don't1067like you.1068    [Laughter.]1069    Senator Cantwell. But he did implement a roadless rule in1070his state, which he got the people together and he got it done.1071He made the right decisions--or he made a lot of decisions. He1072made a lot of decisions. So that's the prerogative, like, that1073was the way it worked--like, a state could step up and do the1074work or you could have somebody else tell you. In this case, he1075did the work. So, are you aware that research found that1076approximately 88 percent of all wildfires are human-caused and107795 percent of those fires are ignited within a half a mile of a1078road? And so, one of the reasons why the roadless rule was good1079for some of these areas is because, no, we are not having roads1080all over the place and we are not igniting fires all over the1081place.1082    So do you have an assessment of the cost of rescinding the1083roadless rule when you might be building roads into pristine1084areas and causing more challenges?1085    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think our bigger concern isn't1086building roads into pristine areas, it's that we have 24.51087million acres of the roughly 60 million acres of roadless that1088is within--either in the WUI or is within a mile of the WUI, so1089that is our primary concern on this, that we have areas, and1090much--I mentioned this earlier in my testimony--that there is1091much roadless area that actually has roads in it. I was on the1092Helena-Lewis and Clark Forest last week. The Lolo Forest has1093roads. It's not uncommon that roadless areas do have roads. It1094just inhibits----1095    Senator Cantwell. Well, another question is whether we want1096to continue that process. And I think what, you know, I think1097what everybody wants is to not--we want to maintain our1098forests. We want to have recreational areas. We want to invest1099in the resources to have the public go enjoy those recreational1100areas. I personally don't want to sell public lands. But at the1101same time, you are saying let's not build more roads in places1102we don't need to build more roads just because one or two1103people have a great idea that that's what they want to go do.1104Let's set aside those areas that we think, no, really, we1105shouldn't be building roads there. That was the whole point of1106the roadless rule, to make those decisions. And as I said, my1107colleague was successful at making those decisions and1108prioritizing that.1109    And so, now, if you are saying the wildland urban interface1110is really an issue, yes, I agree. The wildland urban interface1111should be debated every day of the week now because what we are1112finding is that we almost had, literally, a fire approach1113Spokane. I mean, there are people who are looking at that and1114saying not where the next, you know, fire like the Palisades or1115like Hawaii will be, but people are saying the next event is1116going to be something that goes all the way from the WUI to a1117major urban city and could cause damage. And that's what1118happened outside of Spokane last summer.1119    So I think we are all in, but I think you and I will1120probably have to continue this dialogue about what's best to do1121to approach this issue.1122    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1123    The Chairman. Thank you.1124    Senator Risch.1125    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my1126friend from Washington. I would be remiss if I didn't1127acknowledge that horrible situation we had with the1128firefighters being killed. Firefighting is a really dangerous1129job to begin with, then when you add to it this kind of thing,1130it's awful. And I would be remiss if I didn't say thank you to1131Washington, which responded with literally hundreds of law1132enforcement people to address the situation. We are very1133thankful for that. Our heart goes out to the people up there.1134    Tom, proud of you. You are the first Idahoan to be Chief1135since Dale Bosworth was when I was Governor of Idaho. Dale and1136I had graduated in the same class from the University of Idaho1137College of Forestry. That was a little before your time,1138probably, but Dale did a great job and helped me. And my1139colleague got ahead of me on the roadless. She knew I would be1140bringing it up, and that was really an effort between us in1141Idaho. And how this worked is, George W. Bush invited the1142states to look at the roadless areas and come up with a plan1143for their state. I guess Colorado did some, but we were1144primarily--we have got the roadless rule. I am very proud of1145it. The other states did not do what we wanted to do, and1146frankly, I had a lot of people advise me that I shouldn't get1147into that because it was controversial, as you know. Nobody1148knows how many roadless lawsuits there have been. There have1149been hundreds, maybe into the thousands, and every time the1150Republicans are in, the Democrats file suit, and every time the1151Democrats are in, the Republicans file suit. And nothing ever1152gets done.1153    The good news--and I think the proof is in the pudding on1154my roadless rule--is that, since that has been in for the last1155two decades, we haven't had one lawsuit involving roadless in1156Idaho. There have been a lot of roadless lawsuits, but every1157time they are filed, they exclude Idaho from the suit. So I1158mean, I think the lawsuits are a great deal for the lawyers,1159but it really wastes a lot of time and energy and everything1160else.1161    The way I went about it was, when the Federal Government1162suggested that we and the states have a look at it, they gave1163us no parameters of any kind. And the way I went about it was,1164I said, well, we are going to put together a committee that1165everybody is represented on. It's the loggers, so industry is1166represented. It was the recreation users, which is not one1167bucket, as you know, the motorized recreational users are very1168different from the wilderness type of recreational users. And1169we brought all those people to the table and really took the1170millions of acres that we had in Idaho and broke them in to1171various--we had five different categories. Because, as you1172know, the roadless, as you say, there is roadless that have1173roads in them, and they are all over the board. And they were1174the ones left over when they put all the wilderness lands into1175wilderness area, there were ones they couldn't reach an1176agreement on and they set them aside saying these should be1177looked at. Well, nobody ever looked at them.1178    But in any event, my pitch to you is that we are in the1179process of it, and have been for a little while, because it has1180been so successful, looking at it, I will put it in statute as1181opposed to just by rule because over the last two decades, the1182Forest Service--not you, but the people in the Forest Service,1183have taken a run at dismantling the Idaho roadless rule. The1184roadless properties, as you know, are managed by a committee1185that is appointed by the Governor. So it's federal land, but we1186have very strict parameters on these five different themes that1187are there, and then this group manages it. And within there, we1188have a number of small towns. As you suggested, Senator1189Cantwell, interface is a real problem when you come into fire.1190So what the roadless committee in Idaho has done, they have1191focused on these areas and have done treatment plans around1192these towns so they can stop a fire as it goes through there1193because, as you know, if one of these things gets going at1194about ten o'clock in the morning when the wind comes up, what1195you need is a pair of tennis shoes because you have got to stay1196away from the fire and not attack the fire. You can't control1197it.1198    So on the other hand, if you have treated property, that is1199ones that have had a sensible harvest on them, it's really a1200good thing. So we are going to look at trying to get this1201statutory in because within the Forest Service, there are some1202who really hate the fact that the state has a say in managing1203these grounds. For those of us that have a lot of federal1204lands, this is not uncommon for us. But look, we can deal with1205this and it has been a tremendous success. I am going to enlist1206your help in that, Tom, to see if we can't get that done.1207    And I always hoped that other states would take a hold of1208this. It was a collaborative effort. The minute it was done we1209had one of the environmental groups file suit, which I had1210tried to get to the table. We tried to get everybody to the1211table. And they filed suit immediately, but bless the1212environmental group, we said, look, we were going to do this1213together. We stuck together all the way through the litigation,1214which went on into the Obama administration. And to their1215credit, they let us, in Idaho, direct that lawsuit. Our1216roadless rule was approved by the district judge, an1217environmental-leaning district judge, but more importantly, it1218was approved by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1219    And then certiorari was turned down by the Supreme Court,1220so we got it. We got a rule. We got it in law. But we would1221like to see it statutorily, so we have been working at it for1222some time. We're going to continue to do it. It's been a1223tremendous success. I highly recommend it for any state that1224doesn't have it. You can avoid all those lawsuits and actually1225do stuff with the ground that's in keeping with the various1226themes that we propose.1227    I have talked long enough. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the1228floor. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. And those of you from1229states that have large federal holdings, I strongly recommend1230the approach that we did in Idaho.1231    Tom, thank you for your service. Thanks for doing this.1232    The Chairman. Thank you.1233    Senator Hickenlooper, you are up next.1234    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my1235colleague from Idaho, I appreciate all your work. I share a lot1236of that history with you. We worked on our roadless rule until1237we finally got it enacted in 2012. I came in, got elected in12382010. So it took a big part of my first couple of years to get1239everybody around that table and make sure that every single--1240hunters and anglers and timber merchants and you go down the1241list, everyone signed off on that roadless rule. And it was a1242remarkable achievement, and I don't think it has been--to my1243knowledge, it has never been litigated since. We moved heaven1244and earth to make sure that everybody was at the table because1245it did help.1246    It doesn't solve the problem, and I mean, the problem writ1247large is that we have a lot of people in this country that want1248to live in the woods and they want to experience wildlife and1249be closer to wildlife. And we see more and more people living1250in that wildland urban interface. And I am deeply concerned1251about our ability to keep them safe. And we are working on the1252Fix Our Forests Act that is going to help accelerate the1253ability to allow thinning of forests--ecological thinning so1254that we can make sure that the forests aren't so vulnerable,1255but the cuts that it looks like are coming through your budget1256in terms of firefighters really concerns me. And we have it in1257our national forests in Colorado. We have got the Maroon Bells.1258We have got, well, I could go down the list--Fish Creek Falls,1259a whole bunch of iconic views that people talk about and dream1260about and come visit. And, as every year, we are really worried1261about, if a little wildfire gets out of control, how do we keep1262people safe, and not just the people that live in the wildland1263urban interface, but visitors that don't know their way around1264and are going to get caught up in a place where they are, you1265know, going to have their entire summer disrupted or actually1266become in danger.1267    So with the budget cuts, I guess my first question is, how1268are you going to keep Coloradans and people from all across1269this country safe?1270    Mr. Schultz. Senator, thanks for the question.1271    The first response is that the budget--the 2026 budget--1272does not reduce our firefighting resources or capacity. It1273transfers it from the Forest Service to the Department of the1274Interior to create this new Wildland Fire Service. But there is1275no reduction in the firefighting budget that is established. So1276there is no reduction in that case. What we have been talking1277about though is, there are reductions on some of the state and1278private components. And that's maybe what you are alluding to,1279is the SFA/VFA piece. And that's the piece that, as I have1280testified previously, that would be shifting from the Forest1281Service paying for those costs or Interior to the states to1282cover those costs.1283    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. Well, I think, what I see1284again and again throughout all the budgets we are seeing, there1285is more cost shifted from the Federal Government to states and1286local areas that are going through their own budget struggles1287right now.1288    I also understand that we need to both streamline our1289permitting and all of our financial services to look at the1290wildfire crisis. In what other ways are you promoting1291resilience in terms of forest fires and those efforts?1292    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I think a big part of what we look at1293is--you know, the suppression is just the back end of this.1294Ideally, what we want to do is be very active managers, and1295that's using prescribed fire, it's using mechanical thinning,1296it's using commercial timber sales. All of those are critical1297to making sure that we create resilience and protect1298communities.1299    One of the big things I mentioned earlier that Congress did1300back in December is, you all passed a disaster supplemental,1301and there was funding in there for Sierra Pacific to actually1302do fuel breaks on federal lands, on Forest Service lands in1303California and Oregon. So to me, those are some of the1304innovative approaches that we are looking at where we can1305partner with industry and partner with the states. We just1306signed an agreement with the State of Montana. We are actually1307having discussions with the State of Colorado right now looking1308at a similar type of arrangement where the state could come in1309and assist in managing some of the federal lands in a broader1310way.1311    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.1312    Mr. Schultz. We have also had discussions on recreation and1313how the state can assist in managing recreation. Pike's Peak,1314for instance, is an area that the state has expressed interest1315in managing that site. So we are looking very much from a1316perspective of cooperating with the states to look at how we1317can address some of these issues.1318    Senator Hickenlooper. I Appreciate that.1319    Your budget also proposes a land transfer initiative to1320right-size the federal land. Coloradans--and I can't tell you1321how many tens of thousands of notices we have--do not want1322public lands put up for sale, certainly not on any scale. I1323think we were okay and recognize in certain small areas,1324isolated circumstances, maybe for workforce housing or1325something like that in a small mountain community, but I think1326county commissioners, town councils, mayors, Republicans,1327Democrats all called us, wrote us, and said do not sell our1328public lands at scale and certainly not to try and reduce the1329deficit. So hopefully you will listen to local governments and1330public citizens to recognize that that's not a constructive1331direction to take the Forest Service.1332    Mr. Schultz. Senator, one of the things--I think you1333alluded to this--there has been a big focus on housing. The1334administration has looked at this issue and is concerned that1335as communities want to grow and they are surrounded by federal1336lands, there are limited opportunities. So the Forest Service1337is looking at this issue. We have actually done--we did a 99-1338year lease on the White River Forest that is an existing1339administrative site that is going to be leased for housing. And1340we are looking at opportunities in Oregon and in Idaho as well.1341So where we have tracts, we have authority to sell 40 acres1342right now. It's through the Small Tracts Act, but we are also1343looking at other ways to dispose. And those can be long-term1344leases where we can encourage where communities want to expand1345ski resorts, for instance, right, where there is not enough1346housing for employees, whether at current administrative1347sites--we are not talking about going into the backcountry, we1348are talking that we have admin sites that are in areas where1349they are roaded and those kinds of things where you can take1350those sites and maybe make affordable housing.1351    So that's the opportunities that we are looking at right1352now.1353    Senator Hickenlooper. Okay, well, I am out of time, but1354when you use language like right-sizing the federal estate, I1355think that notion of scale that that language creates is of1356great concern to a lot of people. So just keep that--be1357mindful.1358    Thank you.1359    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.1360    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Chief, for1361being here, I appreciate it. I look forward to working with1362you.1363    So can I ask, as we are talking about the combination of1364the U.S. Forest Service firefighting crew along with the1365Interior and this new bureau and this combination, of combining1366the existing wildland fire programs, when this happens, what1367involvement will the U.S. Forest Service still have in this new1368bureau?1369    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, so right now, we haven't1370figured that plan out yet. So right now, the executive order1371directs us within 90 days to come up with a plan. So in terms1372of what that's going to look like, we know that the1373firefighting capacity of the Forest Service is projected to1374move to the Department of the Interior to create this fire1375service. So the Forest Service would be a component of that.1376How that exactly is structured, we don't know yet because we1377haven't come up with that plan yet. But we would still have a1378role, it would just be within this unified fire service.1379    Senator Cortez Masto. So I think that's what we would all1380be interested in. We want the specifics, obviously, because of1381our states and the impact these fires have.1382    Mr. Schultz. Right.1383    Senator Cortez Masto. So if you would be willing to share1384that with us when that comes to fruition, that would be very,1385very helpful.1386    Mr. Schultz. Yes, ma'am. Right now, we have that 90-day1387plan that we are working on as we speak.1388    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Thank you.1389    How many Forest Service employees, I am curious, in Nevada1390in the Lake Tahoe basin were let go or left since the beginning1391of this administration? Do you know?1392    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, I don't have those1393numbers, but we can get those to you.1394    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.1395    And then, we all have talked about this--we know the Forest1396Service has long struggled to recruit and retain wildland1397firefighters. But I am curious. I was upset to learn that the1398Trump administration scrapped the Women in Wildfire Bootcamps1399program because the administration deemed them unnecessary DEI1400initiatives. Now, these were programs that were offered to1401women to learn the basics of wildland firefighting over a two-1402week course. So please explain to me why, when we need wildland1403firefighters, we are scrapping programs that provide training1404to both men and women to be in this fight to help us address1405these fires that are happening across the West all the time1406now--longer, hotter, seasons, and we need firefighters. Why was1407that program scrapped?1408    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, what we have done is, we1409have looked at all of our contracts, everything that we have1410got. We have looked at that. The Department has looked at1411those. And our assistants from the DOGE folks looked at those1412as well. So when we are looking at those types of issues we are1413looking at, you know, we have training for all firefighters,1414not just women. So instead of just focusing solely on women, we1415look at what opportunities for training do we have. And we have1416numerous opportunities to train firefighters, not just focusing1417on women. So I think that was the thought behind that is that1418there are still ample opportunities for all firefighters to be1419training without just singling out solely women in that case.1420    Senator Cortez Masto. Right, but this wasn't really1421singling out women. This is providing programs to train1422firefighters. Whether they are women or men, who cares? What if1423there is a program that just trains men? What's the big deal?1424As long as we are training wildland firefighters, whether it's1425a man or a woman, those programs should be supported. We need1426all hands on deck in the West during these fire seasons. So why1427pick and choose?1428    Mr. Schultz. Well, I would agree that we need all hands on1429deck, and I think we are looking at training that provides1430opportunities for everybody to have all hands on deck. I think1431that's the response.1432    Senator Cortez Masto. All right, well, I disagree. And I1433think it's just a poor use of the administration's discretion.1434    Let me ask you this--the Ruby Mountains in northern Nevada1435is one of my state's most cherished places. It is loved by1436hunters, outdoor enthusiasts, recreationists, tribes, local1437community leaders. I can't explain it enough. And for many1438years, all of us, and it goes back to what you have heard in1439the West--all of the stakeholders, everybody in my state coming1440together. I don't care what party you are, it's everybody1441coming together to protect the Ruby Mountains from spurious oil1442and gas activity that took place there a few years ago in 2017.1443This Committee previously approved my bill, the Ruby Mountains1444Protection Act, to permanently prohibit oil and gas development1445there following a 2019 finding by the Forest Service that no1446leasing should occur there due to the very low potential to1447develop oil and gas resources in the area and the substantive1448public opposition.1449    The Biden administration announced it was initiating a 20-1450year administrative withdrawal process to protect the Ruby1451Mountain area from oil and gas leasing. However, this1452administration, the Trump administration, reversed these1453protections for the Rubies, and the only formal notification I1454received of this reversal was by reading a USDA press release,1455and it stated, ``the Agency also canceled two mineral leasing1456withdrawals on Forest Service land that will help boost1457production of critical minerals,'' which I was told pertained1458to the Ruby Mountains in Nevada and another proposed withdrawal1459in New Mexico.1460    So let me just be clear: Nevadans don't want drilling in1461the Ruby Mountains. So I am curious, what production of1462critical minerals does the Forest Service expect to develop in1463the Ruby Mountains?1464    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, first of all, on future1465communications, I will communicate with you directly.1466    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.1467    Mr. Schultz. On the issue of what we would expect, so,1468typically what happens with leasing of minerals, the Forest1469Service isn't trying to, basically, promote a certain activity1470or not, but it would be made available, if someone deemed that1471there was a resource there, that would be available for1472leasing. And I think that was the intent of this.1473    Senator Cortez Masto. But that has already been done, and1474that's my point. It seems like everything that has been done in1475the past, including the speculative leasing that has been1476denied in the past, is being ignored because it was done under1477a previous administration. It makes no sense. We are wasting1478the resources of your men and women that work for you as well1479as in Interior because this administration thinks that they1480have to start from scratch when they should be actually looking1481at what has happened in the past and not waste everybody's1482time.1483    So I am curious, along with the critical minerals, what1484does this administration have plans to do to open the Ruby1485Mountains for oil and gas drilling, because now you are telling1486me that you are willing to do that as well, even though we have1487already gone through this process. This is Groundhog Day. I1488mean, literally, we are repeating this over again. So what is1489going on?1490    Mr. Schultz. Senator Cortez Masto, I think there is nothing1491going on other than we want to make these lands available to be1492leased----1493    Senator Cortez Masto. But they already were available and1494your administration said no, there is no oil and gas available1495here. It's low-potential, and the community doesn't want it.1496Why would you start this process over again? Why can't you1497learn from what has happened in the past? Was there some1498problem there? Is there something that we are not aware of that1499would help my constituents in Nevada understand why this1500administration wants to repeat the past?1501    Mr. Schultz. I think the short answer, Senator, is just1502that we want to make it available so if there is an interest,1503that we can evaluate that. It doesn't mean it would1504automatically be leased. They have to demonstrate----1505    Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate, Chief--and I am not1506going to belabor this. Listen, I appreciate this, and I am1507going over my time and I thank you for the indulgence.1508    I look forward to working with you and talking to you about1509this.1510    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so much.1511    Chief Schultz, thank you for being here today. This has1512been enlightening and informative, just as your service thus1513far has been encouraging. On some of these issues that we have1514discussed, it's just a reminder of the fact that the states and1515tribes are incredible partners. They are indispensable parties,1516really, in that they are the ones on the ground, living in1517communities that depend on these forests that are right next to1518them, whose lives are inextricably intertwined with the lands1519in question.1520    So I want to thank you, Chief, for giving the states more1521authority, more involvement, and more of an ability to set a1522course for the proper management of these lands, particularly1523in the ways that affect states and localities. I know that Utah1524is really looking forward to working with you to expand these1525partnerships, and I know my state is not alone in that.1526    As we wrap up, I will remind members that they may submit1527questions for the record until 6:00 p.m. tonight, and they will1528have until 6:00 p.m. one week from today to submit any1529statements that they want to be included in the record.1530    With that, we stand adjourned.1531    [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]15321533                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED15341535                              ----------15361537[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]15381539                                 [all]